🎾 How To Beat A Better Tennis Player¶
Giới Thiệu¶
How To Beat A Better Tennis Player — tài liệu 98 trang từ thư viện sách tennis.
Chủ đề chính: Chiến thuật, Strategy
Tóm tắt nội dung (trích từ tài liệu gốc): How to Beat Better Tennis Players � Most of the Time! Advanced strategy and tactics for the serious amateur player by Dr. David Stone Copyright 2011 by David H. Stone 1 Table of Contents Chapter Page "Love" The Quest 3 1 Paradigm Shift 6 2 Tenacity 9 3 Your Biggest Weapon 15 4 Emulatable (or not!) Shots 20 5 Scintillating Serves 25 6 Your Forehand--Finicky or Ferocious? 31 7 Beautiful Yet Beastly Backhands 43 8 The Woeful and Disrespected Lob 51 9 Crunchy Volleys 55 10 The Nefarious Drop Shot 61 11 Overwhelming Overheads 63 12 Returning . . . I mean . . . DESTROYING Serve 66 13 Hard Court vs.
Lưu ý: Nội dung dưới đây được trích xuất tự động từ PDF gốc tiếng Anh, giữ nguyên ngôn ngữ để bảo toàn độ chính xác kỹ thuật.
Nội Dung Gốc (Tiếng Anh)¶
How to Beat Better Tennis Players � Most of the
Time!
Advanced strategy and tactics for the serious amateur player
by Dr. David Stone
Copyright 2011 by David H. Stone
1
Table of Contents
Chapter Page
"Love" The Quest 3
1 Paradigm Shift 6
2 Tenacity 9
3 Your Biggest Weapon 15
4 Emulatable (or not!) Shots 20
5 Scintillating Serves 25
6 Your Forehand--Finicky or Ferocious? 31
7 Beautiful Yet Beastly Backhands 43
8 The Woeful and Disrespected Lob 51
9 Crunchy Volleys 55
10 The Nefarious Drop Shot 61
11 Overwhelming Overheads 63
12 Returning . . . I mean . . . DESTROYING Serve 66
13 Hard Court vs. Clay vs. Grass (??!!?) 73
14 How to Beat Better Tennis Players 79
15 Etiquette 94
Appendix NTRP Scale 98
2
Chapter "Love"
The Quest
Tennis is a life-long quest. It is the one sport where you can continue to get better every year.
Your foot speed might decline, but your shot-making can improve season after season. Your agility may
dissipate as you lunge for those volleys, but your shot-selection in making the approach should win more
points without having to lunge!
You may well marvel at the athleticism of the young energetic challengers filling the club or
public courts. But they will be even more amazed at how you--in your aged body--can beat the tar out of
them. Of course they'll just blame their off-day, or the wind, or the sun, or make some other silly excuse.
They simply won't understand what you are doing to them.
If you are one of those youthful challengers, you need to get some insight on the wily and sneaky
tactics of your elders. There is nothing more embarrassing than getting whipped by someone twice your
age, who runs half as fast, and has squirrelly looking strokes! I'll help you avoid that humiliation.
To appreciate the perspective I offer in this book, let me give you a little of my background. I'm
an over 50-year-old amateur tennis player. I wasn't on a college varsity, although I've whipped some
varsity players since then. I work full time. I've always had a full schedule of professional life, family
(wife, kids, pets), church, etc.
Tennis has to fit in the gaps. Well, I admit I have worked to create enough gaps to satiate my
competitive lust. But over the years I have basically played a couple of times a week. Once I hit my 40s,
I've found that anytime I try to go beyond 3 times a week on a regular basis, my body starts to break down
in various and discouraging ways.
Satiating competitive lust through tennis is a marvelous privilege. Professional life is so
constrained and ordered, especially if you're in any kind of a management position. On the tennis court,
however, you can go to war. Within the rules, of course. Sportsmanlike behavior is perfectly consistent
with maximum competitive fervor. I'll have more to say on that in the chapter on etiquette.
I'm not a teaching pro. I'm not a pro has-been. I'm not one of those incredibly boring TV analysts
who dispense such trite and repetitive pseudo-wisdom as, "He really held the ball on his strings a long
time on that shot." Garbage.
Ability-wise, I'm a 5.0 on the USTA NTRP scale. (See Appendix 1 for the official description of
this quite effective rating scale.) I'm fairly proud to be a 5.0, considering that tennis has always had to
squeeze into the gaps during my life. In my not-so-humble opinion, full-time working stiffs can only
aspire to the 4.5 or 5.0 levels. From 5.5 to 7.0 you basically go from the top of the collegiate varsity ranks
through the pro satellites to the top 100 in the world. Most adults at the 5.0 level, in fact, are actually ex-
varsity players and / or teaching pros.
An "aside" for aspiring youths: You really shouldn't be reading this book anyway. I want to teach
the old geezers how to beat you! I'm not sure I want to give you any edge. If you study the principles to
follow, you're likely to be tempted to go pro some day. Therein lies a dangerous trap. There is a lot of
serious talent around this game that still isn't good enough to make money. Note that out of the top 100
there are usually less than 10 Americans. Most of these guys last in the top 100 for perhaps 3 years.
You're far better off playing the lottery to make a living.
This book is basically about STRATEGY. Strategy is correlated with our human frailties. The
more flaws that we have, the more strategically brilliant we need to be.
3
Here's what I mean. I'm going to give you the only non-strategic tip you'll ever need the rest of
your tennis life. Get ready. After this you'll never need to read another book (including the rest of this
one) or take a lesson. Ready for the ultimate wisdom of the tennis universe?
Hit every ball with tremendous pace
into the corners.
That's it. Just do it. Go ahead. Oh yeah . . . you're right . . . nobody's good enough to do that,
including the pros. Why not? Our opponent, our lack of self-confidence, our woeful coordination, the
sun, the wind, or our weakening eyesight works to prevent us from hitting the ultimate shot every time.
So we make compromises. Strategy is about compromising to get the most out of every situation,
every shot we hit, and every one of our meager abilities, real or imagined.
This book is about singles. Not doubles. Now, doubles is a great game, but it's really very
different from singles. Maybe I'll write another book about doubles some time.
Singles bares the soul, challenges the mind, tests the character, and strains the body in ways that
doubles does not and, frankly, cannot do. You're on your own in singles, buddy, and you may make
excuses for a bad loss to others, but deep down you know you lost because you FAILED!
It's easier to take a loss in doubles. After all, it was your partner's fault, the buzzard!
Don't get me wrong. Doubles can be fun. It can even be competitive, but only if you are evenly
matched with your partner. I've discovered that the best player in a 4-some gets perhaps 1/8 of the balls.
The other team just keeps playing to his partner.
If doubles is used as an interlude to sharpen some strokes or bide the time between singles
matches, that's fine. But some grown males actually seem to specialize in doubles! Horrors. That's too
much of a step toward . . . forgive me for even saying it . . . GOLF!
Another issue of scope. We're going to look at this from the viewpoint of a player with a 1-
handed backhand. Those of you with 2-handers can take the mirrored point of view on my comments.
But my sympathy is with the 1-hander who is trying to whip that guy with the 2-hander.
In partial justification, let me assert for the moment (evidence provided later) that the 1-hand
backhand is superior in versatility, aesthetics . . . and it's more green! (It saves energy.) The 2-hander has
just 1 tiny little advantage, but even that disappears as the player ages. It also has several disadvantages.
But we'll get into that later.
The tips in the material to follow will be useful for players at all levels--from the beginner at an
NTRP rating of 1.0 to the top-100 touring pro at 7.0. But most of the truths herein are intended for the
serious amateur--especially those folks between the levels 3.0 and 5.0.
Men and women will benefit equally. I'll be writing from the viewpoint of a man, although the
principles are identical for women. Most of my "professional" examples will be from the men's tour,
simply because I have paid more attention to it over the years. So please have patience with my male
perspective, if you're a lovely lady. The major difference between men and women amateurs is a
statistical difference in strength. Now this may be a bit controversial, but I've observed that the "strength
delta" amounts to about 1 point on the NTRP scale. In other words, a woman at 4.5 is usually well-
matched with a man at 3.5. The woman in this case is far superior in stroke aesthetics, overall technique,
and tactics. But the man can muscle his body into position and oomph the strokes enough to compensate.
Not as aesthetic, certainly, but he is well-matched enough to put the issue in doubt.
Exceptions will abound, of course. The only reason to make the point is that I will be discussing
match play tactics for mano-a-mano or womano-a-womano contests. I'm not going to get into "mixed
4
singles." I don't think mixed singles is a good way to foster relationships anyway. Mixed doubles--sure.
But stay away from mixed singles.
I'm not going to provide kindergarten-level instruction on grips and forms you would get from a
teaching pro or a conventional tennis instruction book. I'm assuming that you know all that stuff, which
is easily accessible online. My objective is to get into your head, transforming you into the toughest on-
court competitor in your area. If you embrace the principles in the chapters to follow, you will be feared
by men, loved by women . . . Ok, maybe that's going too far, but you'll certainly become the "toughest
out" in your league.
One more thing--I'm going to be a little rough with you. Like I'm your coach. I won't pull
punches and I'm going to try to knock you out of your comfort zone. Can you handle it?
5
Chapter 1
Paradigm Shift
The death of finesse
The game is getting tougher every year. The TV analysts wax philosophic about the olden days,
when the game involved more touch, more finesse. There is truth in this reminiscence, but it misses the
point. The pros of yesteryear had available to them the same ultimate non-strategy cited in the
introduction to this book, namely: "Belt the ball as hard as you can into the corners."
But when you can't, finesse is a good second choice. The analysts' favorite whipping boy for the
changes in the game is "high tech." New powerful rackets constructed from space age composites have
transformed the game! Baloney. They've missed the larger issue.
There is some advantage in the newer rackets, especially if you go light to add whip and topspin to
your strokes. But the big advantage is in the new psychology. One or more of the pros shift the paradigm
about every 10 years.
Ken Rosewall epitomized the finesse game from the late 1950s to the early 1970s. You old
codgers: Remember the Wimbledon and Forest Hills finals of 1974? Many of us watched with genuine
sadness as our model of class and stroking aesthetics was destroyed by the "brash" ball-smashing Jimmy
Connors. But we also realized that the paradigm had just shifted. Here was someone who drilled the ball
close to the lines, skimming the net, and dominated the wimps who relied on margin and finesse.
What happened next? Down through the amateur ranks, players began to shift toward more
power. Not necessarily emulating Connors' strokes. God forbid! But pushing more toward the limits of
gravity. Specifically, how hard can you hit the ball and still rely on gravity to keep it in the court?
Borg was the clay version of Connors' hard court style. (Now stay with me. Borg and Connors
were both good enough to win on grass, snow, and mud. But their games were built for clay and hard
court, respectively.) The clay game at the pro level has unduly rewarded the topspinners from Borg to
Muster to Moya � until recent years. Borg was the paradigm shifter for clay.
In the 1980s, Lendl produced the next shift. What about McEnroe, you ask? John McEnroe was
an anomaly. Nobody before or since had his timing and touch to excel with the finesse game the way he
did.
Athletic capitalism
Ivan Lendl brought the pace up. He outhit everybody and dominated the circuit for years. (Don't
even mention grass to me from this point. Grass is a ridiculous excuse for a surface! The ball would
bounce low, skidding through the court, and restricting most Wimbedlon points to one to three shots.
Boring. The organizers finally transformed the grass and the dirt beneath so that Wimbledon is now much
like another hard court tournament. Groundstrokers can win again.) Lendl forced others up to his level.
By the time Lendl's injuries forced his retirement, everybody was hitting at least as hard as he was.
Courier and Agassi brought the smash-baseline game to the next level. Nick Bolletieri, of course,
gets much credit for this shift, both for the men and the women. (He really shouldn't get so much credit.
Read Agassi's biography for an insider perspective.) Hit the ball even harder and do it on the rise!
6
On the clay, Bruguera and Muster defined the winning pro game with punishing topspin and
baseline winners. In the late 90s, however, the strokes started to flatten out, even on clay. And the clay
has gotten harder and drier � more like hard courts. Having just watched the 2011 French Open, it's clear
to me that even clay has become more like hard courts.
The last top "complete" player was really Pete Sampras. Out of his 14 majors, he won 7 at
Wimbledon, mostly while the grass was still slick, rewarding big serves and relentless net rushing. His 5
wins at the US Open certainly qualify him for "complete." But wait, isn't Federer a "complete" player?
He has even more skill across the board than Sampras. But the modern game doesn't reward headlong net
rushing. Federer sets up most of his points with the big forehand. All the top players work hard to avoid
difficult volleys. Volleys are now intended simply to conclude the point, undramatically. Consider how
the commentators make a fuss over just how many "net points" a player wins. They keep hoping that
diversity will return with a balance between net rushers and baseliners. No chance. Give a modern pro
any time at all on the pass, and the guy at net is toast. In olden times, sliced approaches and even chip &
charge were recommended tactics. Now, such graceful approaches are suicide.
Is this history made possible by construction of new rackets with composites? No no no no no!
The game jumped when a gutsy player jumped above his peers. It's Adam Smith-style capitalism. It's
McDonald's giving birth to Burger King, Wendy's, and Taco Bell, and menu items multiplying to stay
ahead or at least even with the competition.
For the women, Martina Hingis was a good parallel to Pete Sampras. As an exercise for the
reader, trace the development of power in the women's game from Margaret Court to Hingis. Hingis'
"all-court" talent was to no avail when she attempted her comeback. At that point in her life, she was just
as good as before, but there were too many women who had leaped ahead.
In short, paradigm shifts occur due to the simple recognition that if Joe Superstar can smack the
ball and it stays in the court, then, by golly, maybe the same laws of physics apply to me. The other pros
adjust or lose. The amateurs see what's happening and say, "Hey, let's try some of that!"
Michael Chang may have been the most amazing individual paradigm shift "adjuster" in the game.
His 1999 self would have killed the 1989 self that won the French Open. He persisted near the top of the
rankings even as the game changed around him. Look at the tape of his victory over Lendl in the French.
That game wouldn't get past the qualifiers today.
You can trace a similar story through every "skill" sport. Look at the Winter Olympics--men's
and women's figure skating. The winners routinely produce stunts once considered impossible. A quad -
triple combination is now mandatory! I'm old enough to remember when a single triple-loop was
impressive. The athletes are stronger due to continually improving training methods. And more strength
allows more control for advanced moves.
Consider football with respect to the increased sophistication of pass-oriented offenses and
rotating zone defenses. In basketball, everybody's got magical moves now. Baseball pitchers create an
awesome variety of curves, cut sliders, and screwballs. Once someone shows it can be done, everyone
else follows. No need to search for high tech explanations.
At this writing, Lleyton Hewitt is barely hanging on to a career. Once at the top of the rankings, he
failed to make the adjustments to stay there. His stiffly constructed forehand and two-hand backhand
were good enough to beat everybody, due to his blazing foot speed. But now everybody's forehand drops
the wrist and racket head just before acceleration, adding that extra pop. He didn't learn and so everyone
passed him by.
The point for the serious amateur is to keep watching, keep learning to find out what good players
are doing on a court. It just could be that you can emulate "best practices" and come up a notch. You
7
can't overcome the limitations of court size and gravity, but you should be working to get as close as
possible to those hard limits. A lot of amateurs play too conservatively because they simply don't know
that they can be successful by bringing up their aggression. Lendl's competitors simply didn't believe that
they could hit the ball as hard as often as he did. Until they were forced to. We amateurs, for example,
don't seem to realize that it is often "safer" to hit the ball with high racket head speed than with timidity.
On the physical side, I would never hope to have the biceps that Nadal sports, but every little bit of
increased strength and flexibility will translate at some point into a win that would have been a loss.
Anybody that works for a living and "has a life" � including wife and kids, for example, clearly
cannot devote hours per week to working out in addition to a couple bouts of tennis. But even one
workout per week, strengthening the relevant muscles and stretching the appropriate joints, can make a
big difference. Simple strength and flexibility exercises can prevent injury, too.
So, we know we're not going to go pro, but we can certainly build the best strokes and footwork
within our bodies' physical limits. More importantly, we can train our minds to bring out best game to the
court, not just on any given day, but from point to point within each match. On the mental approach to
tennis, I don't think there is a lot to learn from the pros. Most of them seem to be pitiful in this area. We
amateurs can do better, as we'll discuss throughout the book.
8
Chapter 2
Tenacity
That next level
How about you? In your quest to be the ultimate amateur tennis player that can fit into your brain
and body, are you striving to shift your personal paradigm? Do you have the tenacity at the life-strategic
level to keep improving as the months and years go by?
That's really the most fascinating and exciting thing for me about tennis. There's always another
level. Another mile per hour on serve. Another rpm of rotation on the topspin forehand. A new precision
in busting the opponent's angle (which the analysts call "changing direction"). A new tactic to break
down his mind.
How can you incorporate this principle into your game? Expect to learn something every time you
play or even watch someone else play. Analyze. Don't get mad when you miss a shot. Isn't it fascinating
how much self-anger you see out on the courts? And the names people call THEMSELVES! "Idiot!
Jerk! Butthead! Moron! Can't YOU do anything right?" I keep waiting for a response to the self-insult,
like "I'm an idiot?! No, YOU'RE the real idiot!" This could precipitate a spirited self-argument and
maybe a bloody self-fight.
If you missed, it simply means that you're not good enough yet. Is that a surprise? Shouldn't be.
Analyze the error. Quickly. Not that you're going to change something every time you make an error.
You'll make a certain percentage of errors on every shot in your arsenal. Sometimes you're just human
and have to let it go.
Be TENACIOUS in learning and in developing your game. I was faster when I was in college, but
I'm pleased to say that I could whip college-Dave well into my forties. I'm smarter now, having seen
several paradigm shifts. Plus -- I can hit some shots I didn't seriously dream of back when I was 20.
To tank or not to tank
Let's move from life-strategic tenacity to match-strategic tenacity. During a match . . .
Never give up! Never, never, never give up!
The scoring system is designed so you don't have to give up! No matter how far ahead the guy is,
he still has to come up with a way to beat you in that last game and in that last point.
Basketball and football aren't like that. If you're behind by 20 points with 2 minutes to go, you're
going to lose even if you begin to totally dominate your opponent. In tennis you can always come back.
Let's say you're down 6-0, 5-0, 40-0. Should you hang it up, get depressed, dump the next ball
into the net? Hang in there! Scramble for the point. Your opponent might sprain his ankle. It happens.
Furthermore, it's an opportunity. Think of the story you can tell if you make the ultimate
comeback. For example, let me tell you one of mine (he bashfully offered).
It was a hot, humid, Mississippi (!!) summer day some years ago. I was playing my archrival in
the tennis club. On clay. We were the only two 5.0 level players on the membership rolls. He was 10
years younger than me, ran like the wind, and stroked the ball with classic perfection. Tommy prided
himself on getting to every ball and then hitting the cover off of it.
9
In fact, he was whipping the tar out of me. I was down a set (an hour long 7-5 set) and 5-1. I was
thinking that it might be over shortly, which made me really determined to hang in there to at least get in
more tennis with this guy. Also, there was lots of ribbing around that club among the guys. As a
minimum, I wanted to make the score more respectable. So I fought like crazy and managed to hold serve
from deuce to go 2-5. Well, that was one game, at least.
I could tell he really wanted to finish me off on his service game. My best success against him was
to mix up the pace, throw in some dinks, keep him moving. In all of our matches I made him run more
than I did. I used all of my tricks with maximum confidence in that game. (Don't worry. I'll share them
all before the book is done.) I was loose. After all, I was going to go down unless I raised my game.
I broke serve after multiple deuces. I noticed that he had faltered a bit in his footwork on a couple
of points. That gave me hope. Maybe, just maybe, he was starting to cramp in the heat.
Changing tactics, I determined to play my service game at 3-5 with absolutely rock-solid
consistency. No undue chances. Keep the ball moving to the corners. If he was having trouble with leg
cramps, he wouldn't be able to get into his normally perfect position to hit magical shots off my solid
ones. (When he was fresh, he could!)
Enjoying a 30-0 lead, I could see some concern in his face. I willed him to know that I could hit
100 solid (albeit not creative) groundstrokes in a row without missing. I even bounced up and down a bit
to show that I could stay out there all day. Two more solid points later, I was down only the one break.
The "solid" pattern continued to bring success for me, winning the first 2 points on his serve. At
0-30, I went for the jugular. A drop - lob - drop combination. In other words--off of one of the rally
groundstrokes I played a drop shot short to his backhand side. He struggled to get there, just managing to
play it back deep and get positioned to cover my pass. But I just played a lob to his backhand corner. He
was still quick to get there, driving a good topspin backhand in reply. I deliberately hadn't followed my
lob in. I wanted to end the match with this point. Physically and psychologically. So I responded with a
drop shot identical to the first. He didn't even try for this one.
Love-40. He couldn't hide his problem with cramps now. I bounced up and down waiting for him
to get ready to serve.
He double-faulted. 5-5. He walked up to the net. Said, "I can't go on. I'm cramping badly. I'm
going to have to give you this set."
With compassion, I smiled back and said, "And the 3rd set, too!"
My only regret from the experience is that I wasn't down a set and 5-0 before coming back! But
what's the point? Never give up. Never never never give up.
Till the fat lady sings
What is it with these pros that tank during a match? I can't understand tanking even in a weekend
for-fun match. The pros actually have money on the line. In addition to spectators, pride, and the
competition itself. And do they really want their opponent to know that they cave so easily?
Especially with the pros, you would think that they would understand that it's not over `til it's
over! At their talent level they should be optimistic that they can always turn it around.
Related to this anomaly is a comment often made by the TV analysts during any of the Grand Slam
events. It's a hot day. The player in question just went down 2 sets to love. The commentator says,
"Well, it's really going to be tough now. He's got a lot of work ahead of him if he's going to come back
now. I don't know if he's up to it."
10
What? Has he got somewhere else to go this afternoon? A hot date? A tee-off time? Why isn't
the natural thing to see incredible determination because of the OPPORTUNITY presented by the best-of-
five format. If it were best-of-three, it would be over! "Hallelujah! I'm still in the match," the losing
player should proclaim.
And some do, of course. Aaron Krickstein was famous for his comebacks in 5-setters. Just guts . .
. sheer guts. That should be the norm.
Focus
Tenacity is more than overall match-level determination. It's about point by point, shot by shot,
maxed out concentration. As an amateur, you're only out there for maybe 1 � hours, twice a week.
Simply immerse yourself in the experience. You don't want to think about the job or the bills or the
trouble your child just got into, do you? Lose yourself in the tennis for just that short period of time.
That's much of the pleasure of it.
Winning tennis is very much about statistics. A few screaming winners don't win the match. A
lot of unforced errors do tend to lose the match. You can beat a more talented player by "being the best
you can be" shot by shot. Many points are wasted by not being totally focused at the start.
For example: When I get ready to serve, there are a few mental keys I like to focus on. Pick my
target point in the service box. Pick the type of serve I'm going to employ after a quick analytical "feel"
about what might work and what might be unexpected. Then concentrate on toss, weight transfer, and
flow of my whole body into the shot.
When I get lazy and neglect some of these elements, my statistics go way down. To win, I've got
to deliberately focus on the same pattern, serve after serve after serve.
Boring? First of all, winning is not boring. I always feel better about an ugly, tenacious win than I
do about an aesthetically pretty loss. Secondly, there's a profound joy in immersing myself in the total
concentration of the moment, the physicality of it, the competition. No thoughts of the troubles of life.
Just blood and guts competition, shot by shot by shot.
The safety scam
Extending the thought--let's apply the principle of continuous tenacity to a point scenario. You
and your opponent are well-matched. First set, 4 games to 4, your serve. Deuce. Big point. You
concentrate hard to get a good first serve in. But the other guy is good. The return comes whistling back
deep to your backhand. Your tentative heart goes into your throat and for a split second you don't want to
believe the return is going to be in. But you get moving in time to track the ball down. It's a big point so
you absolutely don't want to take an unnecessary risk and make an error.
Snap decision. You play a nice slice backhand to midcourt. You would have liked it to go deeper,
but your caution robbed a little racket speed from the stroke. Mainly, you are giving your enemy a chance
to blow the point. But your opponent is tenacious. That's what he's been looking for. The sliced
backhand sits up nicely for him to run around and crack the forehand into your far corner. You don't get
there. Point over. Now you're down break point. Your confidence is down. Your opponent is all over
you.
Now let's change the scenario. Instead of a lily-livered heart, your chest thumps with red-blooded
American tenacity. The return comes whistling to your backhand corner. Your instantaneous reaction is
11
anger that your opponent has momentarily seized control of the point. The anger gets you to the corner a
step ahead of schedule. You realize that the worst risk of all against a good player is to hit a "safe" shot.
There's nothing safe about a safe shot!
Your shoulder turned early, you minimize match-risk by driving a hard topspin backhand
crosscourt deep into the corner. Your shocked opponent, smugness turned to fear, scampers frantically to
cover it, managing a weak sliced backhand to your midcourt. That's what you've been waiting for. You
run around it and crack a forehand into his other corner. He doesn't get there. Your confidence soars. He
hangs his head. You're about to hold serve and make the other guy serve to stay in the first set.
So what's the difference? Winning and losing, is all. Yeah, you're taking some point-risk by
belting the ball in that situation. But statistically, over the course of many matches, you are reducing your
match-risk by using the talent that YOU KNOW YOU HAVE and employing it aggressively to seize
control. And the more you do it, the better you become and the lower the risk gets.
Besides, what kind of story do you want to tell back at work? Even if the insipidly safe slice
works to produce an unforced error, how can you make a good tale out of that? And, more importantly,
what have you learned? You've only reinforced the belief that the way to win is to just hope the other guy
blows it. No improvement lies ahead on that road.
Tenacity involves instantaneous snap decisions on shot selection, pace, and depth. You're in the
middle of a long point. Your enemy throws in a deep moonball. You're tempted to lazily throw back a
comparable moonball. You have lots of time to decide what to do. There's actually a second to catch
your breath and rest! But you're tenacious. Rest comes between points. So you hustle on your footwork,
get in the best position possible, and work to get the most topspin, pace, and depth on the shot that fits the
tactical situation. Don't throw a 4.0 shot back at him when you can work a bit and throw a 5.0 shot in his
teeth.
Every shot. Every point. The closer you come to that ideal, the more "better" players you will
beat. In other words, you will have progressed to a higher level.
Analyze or lose
Sometimes you can make just a single adjustment to turn around a match. Even if it's an ugly
adjustment. I was in the middle of a clay-court state championship final a few years ago. It was a war of
attrition. I'd played my opponent several times before and had always beaten him readily. But that day he
jumped quickly ahead of me in the first set. He was being uncharacteristically patient and using his
superior strength to track down my normal variety of angles and loops. And, worst of all, he had this
smug look on his face.
I got frustrated. After all, I deserved to beat this guy easily again, didn't I? This was the match
that counted. The others had been just for fun. You see, the guy was my doubles partner and he knew me
as well as I knew him. And my experience was that he always blew up at some point. But not today.
Between points I analyzed. I realized I had to give him something to break his concentration. I
had to do something that I wasn't comfortable with but that would make him even more uncomfortable.
I started throwing moonballs with excess topspin to his backhand. Very unsatisfying to the
spectators. Even more unsatisfying, though, to my opponent. I started to break him down, point by point.
The lead evaporated, his confidence evaporated, and I walked out of there with a straight-set win and the
trophy.
12
Killer instinct
Tenacity isn't just about hanging in there and coming from behind. I've seen some marvelous
players who lift their games when behind and become really tough to put away.
It's harder to find players with a tenacious killer instinct. Get ahead and then BURY the opponent!
Lift your game as soon as you nose in front. It's too easy to get a bit tentative or a bit relaxed once you get
ahead a couple of games or after winning the first set.
Think of it this way. You're serving first, get a break up and then hold to go 4-1. Our favorite
dingbat tennis commentators talk about the "crucial seventh game of a set." Baloney. Every game is
important. They don't make that comment until the score is 4-2. Well, DON'T LET the score get to 4-2.
Hustle like crazy to get to 5-1. Once you get to 5, the opponent has to get to 7.
I'll tell you what--at 5-1, go ahead and relax and enjoy the moment--for a maximum of 4 seconds
before the first point. THEN HUSTLE LIKE CRAZY and finish the guy off at 6-1! And then--THE
FIRST GAME OF THE SECOND SET IS THE MOST IMPORTANT GAME OF THE MATCH!
Don't play a sloppy game when you're ahead. Work at breaking the other guy's spirit. Give him
no breathing space. Give him no opportunity for his own comeback story at your expense. Give yourself
no nightmares about wishing you had tried a little harder or played a little smarter in the 6th, or 4th, or 1st
game of each set. Hey, once you're engaged in a match, stay engaged until you're done. It's only an hour
or two.
You see, you're likely to play him again some time. If you beat him decisively this time, the next
time he will be susceptible to self-doubts. Then when you get ahead, his confidence will break even more
quickly.
I've been on the other side of these stories, too. I've lost matches by choking. Getting tentative,
not investing in the footwork or the stroke production necessary to play at the level I had trained. Losing
from timidity is one of the worst experiences in life. Well, maybe "recreational" life. Let's keep this in
perspective. It's still a game, after all. Shhhhh! Don't tell anyone I admitted that.
This is an area where so many of the pros fail miserably, especially among the women, but also
with the men. The underdog gets ahead of the highly seeded favorite and then chokes. The footwork
disappears, the elbow locks in concrete, and the shots suddenly miss by yards. Didn't she want to be
ahead? Didn't she look forward to the challenge of beating the "better player"? What must happen is that
the underdog starts to think that she should win, now that she's ahead. And then gets fearful that she
might not win and how horrible that would be, since everyone would see it. Don't think like that! The
best players are great front runners. They get 3-0 and want 4-0, etc. Getting ahead should motivate you to
play more perfectly in footwork, strokework, etc. You can train yourself to think this way. The more you
immerse yourself in the moment, the easier it is to think constructively on the point of the moment, and
not wallow in fearfulness. Tennis isn't about fear! It's fun!! And it's fun to get ahead and then bury your
opponent.
Confidence can be trained. Think tough, positively. "This guy can't beat me! He's overrated!"
Confidence is willful. Good attitude connects to your stroke making in every way. You stay motivated to
take the extra step or two on the groundies. You concentrate on the extra 5 mph oomph on the forehand.
You make the toss just perfect. Did you see Schiavone win the French Open in 2010? She kept pumping
herself up and that translated into footwork and strokework energy. She beat several better players in that
run.
13
You should enjoy playing a better player. It will bring your best stuff out on the court. If you manage to
win, that's great. If you lose, you can still enjoy it thoroughly, especially if you shock your opponent by
winning a set. Don't be surprised to lose the 1st set. You didn't want to go home without playing 3 sets
anyway, did you? It's fun to hit balls against the best player all day long.
Pros don't seem to train the mental aspects. They often act pitifully, even at the top level, when
things don't go their way. A notable exception is Rafael Nadal � even when he's missing, he stays
tenacious. He hustles to keep it close until his mind / body figure out how to find the range again.
Nobody (among the commentators) worries about Nadal's attitude. Note the TV analysts making the
point that his underdog opponent (even if it's Federer, Murray, or Djokovic) really "needs" the first set.
The first set is "far more important to (the underdog)". Why isn't it so important to Nadal? If you asked
him, he would say it is. But everyone knows that the mentally tough will fight even harder after losing a
first set and won't give up. But that's all willful. It's the underdogs that are deemed more fragile. The
overdogs are usually overdogs because they are more mentally tough. You can choose to be mentally
tough by staying in the moment and embracing the challenge.
Besides, showing a bad attitude pumps up your opponent. It's stupid to cheer him up. Even the
top pros show a bad attitude quite regularly. If and when they recover mentally, suddenly their footwork
improves, the racket head accelerates through the ball, and the shots have more pop. Why not just keep
the attitude up?
14
Chapter 3
Your Biggest Weapon
The next few chapters break the game into its technical subdisciplines. Then, armed with the
necessary mechanics of the sport, we'll synthesize the elements into game, set, match, tournament, and
life strategies.
The TV analysts talk about "weapons." Edberg's big weapon was his impeccable volley.
Ivanisevic developed his serve into the ultimate weapon. With Lendl, it was the forehand. Ken
Rosewall's micro-precision backhand was an intimidator. Connors used the service return to take quick
control of the point. Nadal's hyper-topspin crosscourt backhand must be hated and feared by every
opponent he faces. Murray intimidates with his foot speed. Djokovic works to have no matchup
weakness whatsoever. Federer's forehand was the best shot in the game of tennis for several years.
What's your weapon? Or, if you don't think you have one, what would you like it to be? Let me
make a recommendation. Make a nuclear weapon out of your footwork!
Bedrock
Footwork is the technical foundation of every shot you hit. If your footwork is immaculate, so
shall your shots be.
I've observed that the biggest technical difference between games at the 4.0 and 4.5 level, between
4.5 and 5.0, etc., is the footwork. The better players are there for the shot. Camped. Waiting. Almost
bored!
You can watch two club players warm up. You don't know that Joe is a 4.0 and Bob is a 4.5. The
shots look crisp. The velocities and the spin look matched. Maybe you notice a little kink in Joe's
backhand, but it doesn't seem to affect the quality of the shot.
Then you watch them play the match. Guess who wins? Bob -- 6-2, 6-1. Joe looks just as much
the athlete as Bob, but doesn't seem well-prepared on many shots. Those crisp warm-up ground strokes
deteriorated once play started. The kink in the backhand seemed to produce a lot of errors and short balls,
especially when Joe was on the run.
What happened, in short, was footwork. Joe didn't hustle as hard or employ as precise a judgment
in estimating where the ball was going to be as he moved to hit the shot. He had to lean forward on some
shots and seemed cramped on others.
The objective of footwork is to position your body and prepare your racket for the ideal stroke
every time. It's easy in the warm-up. You hit it back and forth at each other. If the ball is too far afield,
you let it go and pull the next one out of your pocket.
But in the match, the ball is going every which way and you've got to try to track them all down or
you lose. And we hate to lose, right? (If not, please find someone else to give this book to!)
Now imagine the ball coming right into your hitting zone. The perfect height, the perfect speed,
your body positioned gloriously, your racket winding up to knock the fuzz off the ball. When your
imagination is fulfilled on the tennis court, you know that you can do amazing things to the ball.
The whole point of footwork is to get yourself into that position every single time! The more you
succeed at that, the more you win!
Think about this. The only reason the backhand exists is because we're not quick or energetic
enough to hit a forehand on every shot. So we compromise. We learn to hit the backhand. But whether
15
you're hitting a forehand, backhand, volley, or overhead, your footwork determines the quality of the shot.
On a statistical basis. And good statistics win tennis matches.
Inventiveness loses
What goes wrong with the shot when the footwork is off? Here's one of Dr. Dave's secrets of the
tennis universe. (Or less ostentatiously, a good way to think about it.)
When you're slightly out of position, you have to invent a new shot--one that you haven't practiced and,
therefore, at which you stink!
Imagine the forehand that is wider than you anticipated. Your feet don't quite get there so you
bend over at the waist, leaning to reach the ball, your weight going parallel to the net instead of into the
shot. You haven't practiced that shot. You didn't hit one like that in the warm-up. So guess how well
you're going to hit this "invented" shot. (I'm amazed at what Nadal can do with the ball while stretched
out of position, bending over, and barely reaching it with the end of his racket. He can still rifle it into a
corner. But that's one guy out of 7 billion people on the planet. What I don't know is whether he actually
practices those shots.)
A Similar problem arises for a ball that's tight to the body. Your knees straighten up instead of
flex. Your elbow comes in tight to the body. Your backswing is constricted. You wait longer on the
shot, hitting it late. This is an unusual shot, and one that is mechanically unsound. Also, it's avoidable by
moving your feet properly!
On several occasions at a local university's courts I observed some of the varsity players practicing
before the start of their season. I only watched a little because I was always there to play, not primarily to
watch.
One of the players was a little guy, perhaps 5'4". He was dwarfed by all of his bigger, stronger
teammates. He hit the ball nicely, though. His serve was limited, of course. There is only so much you
can do with that, depending on your height.
My impression was that perhaps he was the number 6 man or, even more likely, that he was an
"extra", not enjoying a starting position on the team. Silly me. Getting fooled by "practice" appearances.
After all, it looked like his teammates cracked the ball much more effectively during their warmups and
drills.
I happened to go out to see a varsity match early in the season. To my surprise, the small fry was
playing #1 singles. I hated to admit to myself that I was wrong, so my first thought was that the coach was
evilly stacking the lineup!
Then I watched the match. Our #1 was matched against a stereotypical full-size athlete. In the
warmup the big guy looked quite capable of outhitting the midget. But David absolutely crushed Goliath.
Outhitting him all the way. How? Footwork. "David" was so quick to the ball, so prepared to hit it, that
he could get everything he had into the shot. Goliath was on his heels much of the time. The giant
couldn't seize the opportunity to employ his strength.
After the match I dropped by to shake "David"'s hand and complimented him on use of his big
weapon � footwork. It was no secret to him.
The "David" in the story wasn't blessed with Murray-like speed. But he was thoroughly invested
in gut-wrenching hustle to get to the spot before the ball got there. He knew that was his one chance to
excel � and to topple the behemoths on the collegiate circuit.
16
It's OK to sweat
That's what I'm trying to kick you in the butt about. Hustle!! Tennis is a sport. It's not like golf.
You are expected to sweat. You are expected to be sore afterwards. Tennis can actually improve your
conditioning and your physical appearance. IF YOU MOVE YOUR FEET YOU LAZY BUM!
Good footwork can be extremely deceptive to the spectator. Watching the pros on TV, it often
looks effortless. They always seem to be in the right position and are able to belt the ball 100 mph
without the appearance of enormous effort.
So the muscular hacker goes out to the court, moves his body with little effort, and smacks the ball
100 mph right into the fence.
Use your DVR on the next televised match. Replay a number of the shots in slow motion or,
better yet, frame-by-frame. What you'll often see is superb effort, multiple micro-shift adjustments with
the feet, and throwing-the-whole-body-into-it stroke production. The pros try to make the shot as easy as
possible by investing all of their sweat and muscle into both preparation and execution.
I was surprised by a compliment I received some time ago. A couple of folks were watching a
friendly (but still blood and guts) match I had with a friend. My buddy and I were both well over 40 years
of age.
The compliment was that our match was very enjoyable to watch because our footwork looked so
effortless. We both seemed to spend precisely the correct number of steps to get to each shot.
That was partly an illusion. We were certainly working hard on footwork. But we knew that to
survive a long match at our "advanced" ages, we had to conserve energy. Now it always pays to invest
enough energy to win every point possible. If you are lazy on 1 point and lose it, you have to win at least
2 more points than you did before to get back ahead.
As you get old enough to be concerned about conservation of energy, you learn by necessity to
spend no more, but no less energy than necessary to get into the optimum stroke-making position.
Fortunately, this becomes easier as years and hundreds of thousands of shots of experience accumulate.
The beginner has to work like crazy to get the ball into his strike zone. The experienced player
knows where it's going to be. Pretty much. You still have to make those little micro-adjustments, though,
to avoid "invented" shots. Losing shots.
The beginner crawls up the learning curve faster by hustling on the footwork and convincing his
body to get experience on the infinite variety of trajectories, spins, wind effects, and other variables that
push the ball into tough positions to stroke.
Specifically, especially for beginners--
Take 1 more step than you have to.
I'm serious. Take an extra step every time to get into just the right position. I've tried to get
people to do this. It's very hard. The natural human tendency is to save that energy. Even teenagers who
have energy reserves comparable to that of the Alaskan North Slope!
Even when you try to take 1 more step than you think you need to, you will be lucky if you have
worked hard enough to just barely get into position. You see, unless you're a 5.0 or higher, I'm guessing
that your footwork has LOTS of room for improvement. And it's a fact that the top 10 players in the
world make a number of footwork errors in every match they play! Once you get tuned into these
principles, observe how many unforced errors at the pro level are caused by lazy footwork. Not hustling
17
enough to get into just the right position, the pro executes the stroke just as if he had perfect footwork.
But he doesn't. So he makes a micro-adjustment in his stroke � producing a newly invented stroke � and
the ball goes out.
If you can get to the point that you are taking a truly EXTRA step, you will quickly enjoy a
quantum leap in your tennis ability.
One common footwork error that occurs at all levels happens when the ball looks like it's already
headed right for your power zone. So you don't have to move your feet at all, do you? Wrong! If you fail
to hop a bit and move your feet, you have just invented a no-footwork stroke. Standing still and hitting
the ball is an unusual occurrence. Most shots in both practice and play require footwork. So when the
ball comes right to you, move your feet anyway. You need the motion to provide rhythm for the shot. No
footwork, no rhythm � the ball goes into the net.
I'm going to give you one key on footwork that will win you some matches all by itself. This one
tip is worth the price of this book all by itself!!
Recover . . . Recover . . . Recover
No matter how good or how not so good you are, you will bring your match-winning ability up a
notch simply by adding some hustle to your recovery between shots. Recovery is the footwork required
after you hit the ball to get you into position for the next shot.
Most players focus primarily on their stroke mechanics in executing a shot. Secondarily, they may
be focusing on the footwork before the shot. Other thoughts also intrude, including their choice of shot
plus concerns about what their opponent is going to do next. Of utmost importance, however, is the
transition from one shot to the next. This is not something that most players think about point by point.
As you are completing a shot on the baseline or a volley at the net, your weight should
immediately be transferring into a step toward your recovery position. Where do you want to be when
your opponent hits the next ball?
You learn by analysis and experience, of course, where your desired recovery position is, so I
won't spend much discussion on that. For example: You hit a crosscourt forehand from your forehand
corner. Your desired recovery position is about midway between the corner and the center of the court.
You dare not recover consistently to the center of the court, because that makes you too vulnerable
to the wrong-foot crosscourt return. It's better (generally) to dare your opponent to hit a winner up the
line, over the high part of the net, where he also loses the safety of the extra court length offered by the
crosscourt.
My key point here is not the geometric analysis. What I want you to do is consciously add hustle
to your recovery. The not-so-serious player drifts over to hit the forehand and � for at least a fraction of a
second � lingers after the shot (admiring it?) and perhaps even drifts farther to the right before initiating
the recovery.
While you are still in your follow-through, wrench your body into that first recovery step. You
will usually save a full step by deliberately adding hustle to this aspect of your game.
At the pro level, the most outstanding examples I've seen are Stefan Edberg and Patrick Rafter
recovering at net after making a volley. They made a living at the net. Nobody in today's game even tries
to do that. These guys expended enormous energy to be ready for the next volley � even if they thought
they had hit a winner. On the baseline, all of the top pros pay the big price to stay on top of the rally with
recovery footwork. You can learn a lot by watching them move after they have hit the ball. That's not
where the spectator's eyes normally go, so you'll have to concentrate.
18
More personally, I've been amused by the number of folks over the years who compliment me on
my speed, my court coverage, or my general ability to seemingly run down everything they hit.
The fact is that I'm not any faster than most of the people I play. But I know that I outhustle them
in recovery. This is something that they cannot observe when they are playing me. As soon as I hit the
ball, they are tracking the fuzzy spheroid � not looking at my feet.
Over the course of a match, an extra step gained on every stroke really adds up. Now this is not
easy! It takes a lot of determination to hustle to this degree. But you have to think of it as an investment.
If you fork over the energy on recovery, you shorten the points in your favor, win more of them, and
shorten the match, ultimately spending less total energy over the course of a match. So you don't really
have to be in better shape. Conditioning helps, of course. The main thing is to gut it out at the right time.
Recovery is the right time. If you're playing a weekend tournament, this one tip can get you to the final
with more energy in your tank than your opponent.
19
Chapter 4
Emulatable (or not!) Shots
The next few chapters explore ways to transmogrify your brain about the key shots in the game.
We admire the great shots of the best players, but note some interesting distinctions. For example: Of
those 5 or 10 players with the best forehands, why are there so many differences in the way the stroke is
produced?
Differences in body type, training, the way an individual's brain is wired to his body shape, even
psychological differences come into play. I have very compact strokes, which are derived in part from my
incredibly conservative outlook on life . . . also because I played for some years in the wind of Oklahoma.
Putting all the shots together � who would be the best composite pro of all time? And is it
possible to emulate the shots of this fantasy-man? This is a fun subject for debate. But I'll give you my
opinion, based on the pros I've seen during my lifetime. (I don't really have observational experience that
goes back past the late `60s, though.)
If you're looking for ideal form, emulating the pros is not a bad idea. But watch out if you're
trying to emulate an ectomorph's fluid shot with your endomorphic body. Or copying a mesomorph's
compact power with your lightweight, yet gaunt physique.
Anyway, this subject is too fun to resist, even if it has only limited application to us 3.0 - 5.0
players. So here we go . . .
The Serve: Pete Sampras
I might just as easily go with Andy Roddick or Roger Federer. I'll exclude giants like John Isner
and Ivo Karlovic. You can't choose to be nearly seven feet tall, so there's not much to learn there.
Sampras, Roddick, and Federer share the same physical genius in the serve, namely perfect form. The
form is simple with no wasted motion. Every useful muscle comes into play. I'm not going to dissect
"perfect form" for you. There are tons of conventional tennis books and videos online if you are so
inclined. As always, I'll try to give you an edge you won't pick up from your local teaching pro.
What gives Sampras the edge over all is that he believed that he could hit his second serve at 110
mph consistently under pressure. Other players could do so if they believed it, but Pete really believed
that he could. And demonstrated it time and again, winning many free points on it. A lot of guys can
crank the first serve between 125 and 140. Your second serve tests your mental limits.
Now, I could never hit my first serve at 110 mph. (John McEnroe couldn't either.) The point is
that you can probably hit your second serve more aggressively than you do now. Every 5 mph addition
may give you another free point or two per set. Close matches are decided by such margins.
If you work on more perfect form for your first serve, your velocity goes up, your accuracy
improves, you save energy, and injuries are less likely. If your second serve uses exactly the same form,
simply trading some pace for some spin, then you will rarely double fault. Frankly, you ought to be
pushing the edge enough to double fault once or twice per set. No more, though. But if you consistently
double zero times per set, you're not pushing it, and you're making the returns too easy for your opponent.
Court Position: Roger Federer
20
I would go with Andre Agassi here for dominating the baseline, minimizing his running,
maximizing the pain of his opponents, and consistently punishing with his groundstrokes . . . except that
he didn't take the net enough to really take advantage of his baseline game. Federer does. He resists
yielding real estate during a rally, and is consistently brilliant in turning a rally or even a defensive
position to offense, and taking the net. In his later years, he has clearly slowed down a bit, so you'll have
to watch the tapes from a few years ago. As your body ages, it is especially vital to hug the baseline.
When you're in the center of the court, standing on the baseline, you're only three steps away from
covering a shot to either corner. If you're eight feet behind the baseline, that corner shot keeps angling
away from you and you're at least five steps away. I marvel at the idiots who play pro tennis who don't
seem to understand this. (I'll mention one below.)
The forehand: Ivan Lendl
I have to take a little license here. There are many players who hit the forehand now harder and
with even more effect than Lendl did. But only because he lifted the game and forced others to respond,
which forced still others to respond, etc. His simple, yet powerful forehand weapon is the template for
Federer's stroke and for many other.
Lendl's forehand was beyond his peers. And for a time during the 80's he had no peers. The
forehand was his weapon. In fact, my recollection is that the term "weapon" in tennis really caught on
through describing Ivan's dominance.
The forehand I would least like to face would be Nadal's hook to the right-hander's backhand. But
nobody on the planet could hope to emulate that stroke, which can produce 4500 rpm on a tennis ball. So
I'll go with the classic form. The classic form has an optimal mix of pace and spin. Good footwork
allows you to make the identical stroke thousands of times per season with confidence that the ball will go
where you intend it to. As we age, it is the classic form that will keep our arm from falling off!
The backhand -- 1 handed: Ken Rosewall (slice) and Roger Federer (topspin)
Slice first . . . This is an easy choice, despite the beauty and power of the strokes belonging to
Stefan Edberg, Richard Gasquet, and even Stan Wawrinka or Justine Henin. Rosewall's stroke represents
perfect, simple form. (Do you see a trend in my analysis?) He could hit a firm sliced or flat backhand
deep in the court all day long. This is a wonderfully emulatable stroke for the aging amateur or even for
the young competitor, challenged to conserve energy over a 5-match weekend tournament. While your
younger opponents are burning megawatt-hours of caloric energy to rip on their 2-handers, you can drive
them nuts by planting your reply time and again within a foot of the baseline.
I give the topspin backhand to Federer because he has developed the shot to handle everyone on
the planet except Nadal with his forehand. If RN is your opponent, your only recourse is to borrow
Djokovic's 2-hander . . . see below. Federer's simple, classic, and fairly compact form allows him to
camp on the baseline and consistently hit the ball on the rise. He isn't known for his backhand simply
because his forehand, serve, volleys . . . well, everything else is just so good! While Gasquet draws oohs
and aahs from the crowd when he winds up on his backhand, he's often 15 feet behind the baseline to give
himself the time for his long, fluid stroke. Pretty, but he can't beat the top guys when he gives up that
much ground.
You need the simple, classic form so that you can camp on the baseline, and keep the other guy on
the run. If you retreat, you run, and you lose.
21
The backhand -- 2 handed: Novak Djokovic
As I write this during the Spring of 2011, I'm assuming that ND's game won't deteriorate in the
years to come. His 2-hander has no wasted motion. His footwork is impeccable, of course. His stroke
reminds me of the old-time baseball batting champs who flirted with .400 batting averages, like Ted
Williams and Pete Rose. Perfect balance, weight transferring into the shot, taking the opponent's pace
and driving it right back down his throat. It is clear that Djokovic has developed the perfect counter to
Nadal's crosscourt forehand, to the point that he welcomes that matchup.
But I'm not recommending a 2-hander in this book. More discussion later, but the main point is
that the stroke is too limiting as we get up there in age.
The service return: Jimmy Connors
The service return is really different from the forehand and the backhand, as we'll discuss in a
dedicated chapter. Jimmy Connors made the service return a power shot, having more fun with it than
should be allowed. Emulatable aspects included his quick preparation, short strokes, flat trajectories, and
maximum hustle to get weight and upper body rotation into the shot. Andre Agassi would be second in
this analysis, and actually had more talent than Connors. But Connors was more disciplined statistically.
Less flash, a bit less power, but statistics wins. Like Connors, you don't have to have a better serve than
your opponent. The issue is whether the combination of his serve / your return and your serve / his return
balances in your favor.
The forehand volley: John McEnroe
No contest. Really. Power, touch, and precision. And he didn't even care about form. In fact, if I
have to lump the forehand and backhand sides into 1 shot, namely, the "volley," then McEnroe has to be
judged the best ever. John is not emulatable, however. Only 1 guy has been born on this planet (as far as
we know) who can deftly weave volley magic like he does.
The best emulatable forehand volley belonged to Pat Rafter. He hustled more than anybody in
history to get his body, knee bend, etc., in just the right position. His strokework was so beautifully
simple it looked like he would never miss a volley. Look at the tapes. Brilliant.
The backhand volley: Stefan Edberg
Yeah, I know that the whole universe has declared Tony Roche's backhand volley to be the
ultimate. Well, write your own book!
Unfortunately, I don't remember much about Roche's volley. I didn't get to see him much on TV
when I started to get tennis conscious in the `60s. But I saw a lot of Edberg and I can't imagine that
another human was more solid on this shot. Emulatable? Yes, indeed. Solid, classic, infinitely
repeatable form. He handled the racket on this stroke like a master swordsman executing a lethal cut.
The overhead: too hard to call
22
Go ahead -- lob the ball to a pro. Any pro. Unless the lob is brilliant, the point's over. The hacker
often gets scared at the prospect of muffing an overhead. The pro sees the lob go up and says, "Whew!
Glad this point's over. What should I have for dinner later? Hmmm. Oh yeah � the ball's coming down
now so I'd better bounce it into the stands."
The whole package: Roger Federer
Dominating the pro tour in this age is an awesome feat. Although Nadal may eventually catch him
in majors and continues to dominate the head-to-head matchup, you have to be born Nadal in order to play
the game like he does. Federer's footwork, strokes, tactics, and mental toughness are all emulatable,
however. At whatever level you play, you can learn by watching this textbook tennis player.
The dropshot: Who cares?
Shall we get back to serious business? Nah, let's not, yet. How about the "worst" composite pro?
Among the great players, who has displayed the worst form and results on a given shot?
The serve and the overhead: Jimmy Connors
Did the guy have cement in his wrist on these shots? For all the fuss made over Connors' "sky-
hook" overhead, the only reason he hit so many of these stiff armed shots was that he didn't have the
confidence to let the shot rip.
Now, I was a Jimmy Connors' fan, believe it or not. I consider it a tribute to his tenacity and street
smarts that he was able to dominate during his peak despite having such pitiful over-the-head shots. Not
just pitiful for top 10, but pitiful for top 200!
Court position: Andy Roddick
How many TV commentators have wept over Roddick's continual refusal to step up to the
baseline during rallies? He gives his opponent lots of time to respond to the next shot � when you're
behind the baseline, the ball takes extra time to travel both to you and from you, giving your opponent
plenty of time to relax or take the net away from you. With his serve and athletic ability, it is pitiful that
he won only one major. It is obvious that many coaches and friends tried to get him to play a more
aggressive baseline game, but he must be extraordinarily stubborn. And I know that he has the talent to
hit the ball on the rise. Out of desperation he played a match accordingly on only the rarest of occasions.
He won one Master's event, beating Nadal in the final on a hard court by camping on the baseline and
driving his groundies. I thought he might have figured it out at that point. But no . . .
One thing to learn from his bad example . . . if you want to win, it's less about what makes you
feel more comfortable shot-to-shot, but rather what is more effective against a given opponent on a given
surface, etc.
The forehand: Stefan Edberg
If he had possessed the forehand of anyone else in the top 100 during his prime, nobody would
have touched Stefan. What a strange, quirky flaw for one of the best ever!
23
The backhand -- 1-handed: John Newcombe and Yannick Noah (tie)
I believe that much of the motivation behind these guys' aggressive net-rushing game was simply
to avoid having to hit a backhand. When they had to, they were weak and defensive.
The backhand -- 2-handed: not applicable
There is such a sameness to most of the 2-handers among the pros that I don't think there is a real
dog among them. The 2-hander, although largely unimaginative, is such a naturally solid shot that I don't
think there has been a top player with a real weakness on this side. (That still doesn't prevent me from
recommending against the shot for a life-long tennis player.)
The service return: Sergi Bruguera
This guy actually chipped a lot of his forehand returns. What a wimp! Those forehand chips put
him on the defense a lot. If you do that at even the 4.5 or 5.0 levels, you're dead meat. I guess it's a
tribute to the rest of his game that he could recover so well from tough defensive positions and win the
French Open twice.
The volley (combined forehand/backhand): Andre Agassi
Come on, Andre! Why didn't you learn how to volley!? He had all the talent in the world. This
had to be a mental thing. What we saw was a timidity in his stroke that produced bad form. The reason
he tried so many swing volleys is that he got discouraged missing so much with conventional form. I note
that the commentators raved about that small fraction of swing volleys that he actually made. Winning
involves statistics, however.
The dropshot: see above
OK � let's really get back to work now. In the next chapter, we're going to rebuild your approach
to stroke-making.
24
Chapter 5
Scintillating Serves
Milliseconds matter
We've all seen the frame-by-frame and step-by-step descriptions of the ideal serve. But note that
everybody's serve in real life looks different. No surprise, really. Different body types and slight
variations in our musculature and joints give us each a different ideal rhythm.
There are several features common to the best serves, however. Regardless of how they wind up,
the best servers are fully extended at the point of contact. Their bodies are pirouetted upward and
forward, leaning into the court. The racket head at contact has its maximum velocity and the ball is in the
center of the strings.
By the way, forget about those silly diagrams showing the center of the "sweet spot" somewhere in
the lower half of the racket. No racket has ever felt that way to me. Even if a racket has been foolishly
designed with a sweet spot in the lower half of the strings, you lose too much velocity by hitting there.
The pros seem to know this instinctively. In slow motion, you'll see their hit point on most strokes just
above racket head center.
Why is this? Note that the top of your racket is traveling a lot faster than the handle. So, to a
lesser but still significant degree, a spot in the lower half of the strings is moving slower than the center of
the strings. It would therefore make more sense, actually, to design a sweet spot in the UPPER half of the
strings. That would make a very head heavy racket, however. Not comfortable. Regardless of the
nuances of the design of your favorite racket, you quickly get a feel for what makes the ball fly fastest.
Everything after contact is irrelevant. Follow-through is only a result, not a goal. The wind-up
and toss are merely preludes to the critical few milliseconds of ball/string impact.
So no matter how you get there . . . find a way to get there! Over the years I've fooled around with
a lot of different stances, tosses, and wind-up rhythms. What now works for me isn't exactly what worked
for me when I was in my twenties. For one thing, I could leap a lot better back then. But I've still got to
extend as best as I can now.
Flow like a river
My key recommendation � work on flow. Find a rhythm in wind-up, toss, and motion that feels
incredibly smooth and repeatable. If you can lock into this idea of flow, it will save you energy for the 3rd
set, and will allow you to serve well when you're tired.
I've noticed that my first serve percentage is often much higher in the beginning of a match than at
the end. This occurs especially if I'm trying to muscle serves to keep the pace up after I get tired.
"Muscling" a serve is, in effect, an invented shot � one that you don't normally practice.
Something, therefore, that you're not very good at. Do this a lot and YOU LOSE.
You can also injure yourself. During my 30's I went out for an early Spring match. Everything
felt great for my first week out. I was serving especially well. So I kept going for more and more. In
basketball, they call this a "heat check." You know � you make a few in a row and you've got to see if
you can keep doing it forever!
25
The next day I noticed soreness I hadn't had before in a certain place. I later learned that this place
is called the "rotator cuff." It took a year before it felt entirely normal again. So be careful. Especially as
you age!
Back to flow. Ideal flow will engage your whole body, letting your weight (or more properly,
momentum) add pace to the shot. More precisely, every bit of pace you can add to the shot from
momentum flow allows you to swing the racket with less musculature. The harder you swing the racket,
the less accurate you will be.
In other words, you should think of maximizing momentum flow in order to improve your
accuracy for a given shot velocity. Don't think of this as a way to maximize the pace of shot. That
"mental key" will tempt you to keep adding muscle to the shot and your percentage will plummet.
An additional way to think about this � Hit your flat serve at 80% of your maximum velocity. I'm
not sure what the `right' percentage is. Just get a feel for a good velocity at which you have very good
control. You'll note that as you get inches per hour closer to maximum velocity, your accuracy will get
worse by yards and yards. And your fatigue will increase. And as you get older, your risk of injury
increases.
One evening I had a sore arm, forcing me to reduce my serve's velocity during an evening of
doubles. So I really concentrated on flow. Amazingly, (to me) this resulted in more service winners than
I had hit in many weeks. Flow optimizes power with control.
The overall objective here is to get the most out of your serve. But you have to think statistically
with respect to a point, a game, a match, and even a tournament.
For example, if you're only thinking about the next point, here's the trap you can fall into. First
point of the match. You know your opponent's backhand return is weaker than his forehand, so you
naturally pound a hard flat one down the T. Are you going to do that every time? That's a sure way to get
your nemesis' backhand return grooved. And to develop a sore arm.
My point is not the trivial one of serving with variety. You need to think like a distance runner.
Save something for the end of the 2nd or 3rd sets. If you have a "kick" left late in the match, you can put
away many a close match and leave your opponents muttering to themselves. If you start muscling the
serves early, you will just be missing them late.
Eighteen flavors
But let's talk about variety. There are basically 6 preferred locations to master and 3 spins. That's
18 different serves. Yes, they are really different. When you read those classic serving tips in the
magazines, they are just glossing over the fact that there are EIGHTEEN DIFFERENT SERVES! All
with differences in stroking technique. Which one of the 18 is the tip referring to?
The 3 spins are flat, slice, and twist (or kick � same thing). I'm not going to describe these and
how to hit them in any detail. There are tons of instructional material out there on the subject.
The 6 preferred locations are, of course, wide to the forehand, wide to the backhand, and right at
the body � in both the deuce and the ad courts. For reference sake, we'll call wide to the forehand � "wide
right" � and wide to the backhand � "wide left." That's from the receiver's point of view, but, after all,
that's our target so let's use the target's directions as our references.
A lot of our serves are, unfortunately, right into the hitting zones of the opponent's forehand and
backhand. These locations are not preferred!
26
The body shot is an immensely neglected option. For one thing, it's fairly easy to hit a serve right
at the opponent. You've got a target! And the target appears a lot bigger than the tiny slivers of service
box that represent wide right and wide left.
I'm reminded of what Woody Hayes (former volatile coach of the Ohio State Buckeyes) said when
asked why his team rushed so much and neglected the pass. His reply was to the effect that when you pass
there are only 3 things that can happen and 2 of them are bad.
When you serve wide right or wide left, Woody's dictum applies. If you're not perfect, you either
miss the serve for a fault or the ball drifts into the opponent's hitting zone.
You actually have a lot more margin on body shots. If your serve is accurate to within 3 feet
laterally, you force the returner to move his weight laterally to get out of the way to free up his stroke.
With his weight moving sideways, the pace of return is greatly reduced.
The best spin for the body shot is the flat serve. It gets there quicker and gives him less time to get
out of the way. Occasionally a heavy slice or twist might cause him indecision on whether to return on the
forehand or the backhand side. But winning a point on that kind of indecision is just luck. You won't
average 1 per match against the better players. There is simply too much time to get the body out of the
way of a spin serve.
Furthermore, against a body shot, the returner must "invent" the shot to some degree. He doesn't
practice those very much.
Nobody has fun returning balls that aren't in the hitting zone. And the less fun he has, the more
fun you will have. Hey, remember, we're operating on the principle that winning is fun! If you want your
opponent to have as much fun as you, then please don't keep score.
Now, you can't neglect variety. I'm certainly not preaching that you should restrict location to
body shots. Variety is the spice of life, I've heard.
Recall that my point of view is that of a right-hander playing a right-hander. I'll deal with playing
left-handers in a little while.
The lower you go in the NTRP scale, the more benefit you get serving to the backhand. More
errors and more weak returns. Once you get to the 4.5 and 5.0 players, you're going to run into rock solid
backhand returns. They are still likely to be less dangerous than forehand returns, but may well be
steadier.
So you've got to mix up the wide serves. Typically you should use slice for wide right and flat or
twist for wide left. BE CAREFUL, HOWEVER. If you use twist too much, especially as you get older,
you are going to have some lower back pain.
It's great to know how to hit the kick serve. But use it sparingly if you're going to make tennis a
life sport. Save it for the big points in the ad court in the big matches. And make sure you do a lot of
stretching to protect your back.
If you serve well early in a match � especially if you are hitting the wide serves � stay aware of
your percentages. You're likely to start missing those slivers of court as some fatigue sets in.
Lion or mouse?
Also, be aware of your confidence level. If you're in a zone, you might be on top of those slivers.
But it doesn't take much of an error in rhythm, toss, coordination, or any of a hundred factors to take that
serve a few more inches OUT!
Face it � no one is hitting all 18 serves with precision throughout the course of a match. If you're
hitting 2 well in each court, you have a good chance to win. Be aware of what's working on a given night.
27
Just because you were hitting all those aces up the T last Tuesday night doesn't mean you're going to hit a
single one on Saturday morning. Biorhythms and all that. Just deal with the reality and go with what's
working.
But be tenacious! You may be able to make real-time adjustments to bring back a shot that starts
off askew. The usual case, though, is that stubbornness is mistaken for tenaciousness. You keep missing
your normally favorite serve until you're down a set and 2 breaks. Too late. Adjustments and tenacity
must be totally under the control of your desire to win the match.
When confidence is in short supply, use the mental key of "going for stuff." "Stuff" is a
combination of pace and spin. If you're not in or near the "zone," going for corners just produces faults.
But you can still go for stuff. Give your racket head plenty of velocity, especially when your confidence is
a tad shy, but add spin for margin. Don't be tentative. Free the wrist. Throw the racket head.
Playing through your fear is an investment in your future. Tell yourself that you're willing to blow
this match. But you've got to learn to fight through the tremors and come up with stuff on your serves.
I'm telling you, this will actually work and give you confidence for the rest of this and future matches.
For location, use the body shot. Use the target your opponent represents. Your accuracy will be
just fine and you won't lose any tactical advantage by throwing solid stuff serves tight into his body. In
fact, you may turn the match around quickly.
Aces or snake eyes?
Now that you've got your confidence back, let's talk about those precision wide serves again.
The key advantage for connecting on the wide serves is NOT to rack up the aces. At our level,
aces are fun for the memories, the locker room, and swapping stories on the club veranda. But
consistently going for aces reduces your chances of winning.
To ace the guy, you have to have 3 factors going simultaneously: pace, location, and surprise.
Pick only 2 and he gets his racket on the ball. Also, by location, I'm talking about location within the
sliver. Namely, a sliver of the sliver.
I feel like I've got a fairly decent serve. But I have to be near 100% in pace, achieve surprise, and
then still paint the line to get an ace. And then sometimes the butthead will call it out. This is another
reason I like clay over hardcourt. I can get a look at the mark.
So what is the key advantage for connecting on wide serves? It's to make the opponent
STRETCH on his return and then run a long way to the other corner, where my next shot is going. The
stretch has to be perfectly coordinated to allow a solid return. That's why you get so many service return
errors or short balls off of successful wide serves.
You don't have the bragging rights on these little return error successes like you do on the aces.
But more importantly, YOU HAVE THE BRAGGING RIGHTS ON WINNING THE MATCH!
The other reason I just mentioned for successful wide serves is for point construction. Wide right
in the deuce court and wide left in the ad court open up the court for your next shot, hopefully a solid
forehand into the other corner of the court.
Note the classic tennis instruction books would advise a "volley into the open court" rather than a
forehand. Well, we don't play on grass much, do we. On hard or clay, and for most body types in the
world, serve and volley doesn't win. The occasional surprise serve and volley can be priceless. But you
can't employ it often. I have more to say about these matters in another chapter, however, so I'll leave
you in suspense on my reasoning for now.
28
Lefties--don't read this section!
You can basically forget about kick serves entirely when serving to left-handers. It's not very
effective going to their forehands. Anyway, they will have seen enough kicks to the forehand in the ad
court from unwary right handers that you won't get any payoff.
So what is a good serving strategy to use against the nefarious lefty? You simply must employ the
slice wide right in the deuce court. It does the same irritating thing to him that his "swerve" does to you in
the ad court.
Interestingly, a lot of right handers don't seem to hit this serve very well. This is probably because
of habits when serving to right handers. Too many serves to the backhand or mere cannonballs to the
righty's forehand. The slice to the forehand of the righty is neglected by many.
Here's a conclusion for you. Even if you don't get much payoff from the wide right slice to the
righty, you need to employ it enough in practice matches so that you have it in your arsenal against those
loopy lefties. It will irritate them. They are used to the flat one to the backhand, but less accustomed to
being swerved as they are accustomed to swerve us!
Body shots are even more effective when used against left wingers than against righties.
Especially against lefties with loopy forehands. They hate to be jammed. The reason they are more
effective in general is that righties usually try so hard to adjust their serves to hit the backhand more
consistently that they forget about the body shot entirely.
The attempted wide serves often wind up in the hitting zones. More so than against righties
because our serving pattern is so disrupted against the rare lefty that we play. This disruption also
amounts to a distraction so that we don't even notice that we're delivering more balls to the hitting zone
than we normally do against righties.
Lefties get comfortable with our discomfiture. But therein lies their weakness! We simply have to
find a pattern that they are not comfortable with. If you're having trouble, you might simply go with a
steady diet of body shots. After all, that's the easiest way to avoid the hitting zone.
Off the wall tip
I'm going to give you a tip now that worked for me. It may not work for you. You'll just have to
experiment.
Observe the wide variety of set-up stances among the pros. The two extremes from the last
generation are probably John McEnroe's closed stance and Goran Ivanisevic's open stance. (Note that the
most extreme wackos are lefties!) Therefore, there is no school solution. Find the start-up position that
works for your body type, your degree of flexibility, and your favorite flow.
For most of my life I used a stance where a line drawn from my right big toe through my left big
toe was directed at my opponent's backhand. As my game progressed through the ranks, I served a lot
more to the backhand than to the forehand. I've always had good accuracy to the backhand corners in
both boxes, but been somewhat erratic to the forehand corners.
Late in my tennis life I changed what I'd been doing for decades. I opened the stance up. For both
service courts I set up the toe-line wide right of the opponent's forehand corner of the service box. The
adjustment is analogous to changing from a closed stance forehand to an open stance forehand. The
follow through is a bit freer and is less constricted by the arm pulling across the left side of the body.
These are the advantages I have found in making this adjustment:
29
(1) My accuracy to the forehand corner improved immediately, because I wasn't coming across my body
so much as I uncoiled the shot.
(2) The serves to the backhand corners now feel like "off forehands," so let's call this the "off serve."
The adjustment was easy. In one week I had achieved just as much accuracy to the backhand as I had
before.
(3) The spinner to the backhand feels more natural, just as it is more natural to hit a topspin forehand off
of an open stance.
(4) My upper body flexibility is more limited as I have aged. With the open set-up, I coil my body as
much as I like and I find that the "uncoil" is a lot easier because the left side of the body is out of the way.
The younger, more flexible bodies find it easier to coil and uncoil from a closed stance.
(5) The whole experience puts less strain on my upper body and my shoulder. I'm less tempted to muscle
the shot and, therefore, less likely to suffer a shoulder injury.
In summary, I haven't noticed any increase in pace, but I haven't lost any, either. Overall, the
accuracy to the corners is definitely improved, however.
I recommend that you experiment with these ideas in mind. Find the set-up and rhythm that feels
just right for you.
30