"The next match that the two big servers play will put the argument to rest; Can two huge servers dominate doubles ? Personally I believe they have one match left in them even if it is a 6 and 6 defeat. The return in dubs far outweighs the serve and I believe that these two lack an all round game. I may be stating the obvious. The Spanish team of Lopez and Lopez or Bopanna and Mergea should be able to find the spots that these two dislike but it will be fun to watch regardless. The game of dubs has changed somewhat and the returners now days can beat the servers with a bit of guile and finesse. "
I wrote that a few nights ago in regards to two big servers teaming up in doubles ( Isner and Raonic ). It goes to show that guys who rely heavily on their serve tend to spend a lot less time on the return and it showed in their next match against the Spanish team of Lopez and Lopez. (6-4, 7-5 )
How good are tennis professionals ? The Spanish team just proved it. Imagine trying to not only get an Isner or Raonic bomb back into play but away from the net player and into a position which sets up a 50 / 50 play. Many returns in singles do not have to be as precise as in doubles and I think at times doubles exponents are not given the credit they deserve.
As I wrote earlier I think the tournament at Indian Wells is like a 'chook raffle', anyone can win the doubles event with just a little bit of luck on the big points but in particular smart play in the third set super tie breakers.
From memory there were around 9 matches that went the distance in the round of 32 in Mens dubs, that's a lot of tight tennis.
Doubles is not for the faint hearted with the new cut throat scoring system now days. Hats off to the World's best doubles players, tough way to make a living........
Wednesday, 16 March 2016
Sunday, 13 March 2016
'NO ONE IS SAFE'
When you look at moments in tennis matches and who gets through the tightest spots certain names come up more than others yet if you look into some examples more closely you will see a pattern and Rafa Nadal may just slot into the 'normal human being' tag, finally.
The current Indian Wells Tournament is a huge event, perhaps the 'Fifth Grand Slam' as every player turns up for this one, it's a big deal in both singles and doubles. The Bryan Brothers were seeded 3 but as we all know they are the greatest Mens Dubs pairing of all time and still a feared team so to their match against Spain so to speak.
They faced a rather tough opening match against Nadal and Verdasco who both play a mean game of doubles, particularly Verdasco.
At a set down the Bryan's squeaked through the second set 7-5 then lead 8-2 in the third set super tie breaker before the Spanish duo woke up. They reeled off six straight points to take it to 8-8, that's when the most remarkable thing happened that you would normally only see at club tennis on a Saturday arvo. Rafa double faulted, what was he thinking ??
When you look at certain situations on a tennis court between the pros most times it all makes sense yet this does not, in fact it goes against what most pros will always say in a tight contest, make the opposition play.....
Even the harshest critics would agree with me that at 8-8 and with 6 straight points behind you the momentum is firmly in your favour and the main objective from that point is to make the opposition hit a ball. They will already be doubting their ability to hit a ball over the net whether their last name is Bryan or not.
Rafa's double fault then changed the whole match and the Bryan's won the next point and the match but it proved something, even the pros are human. Rafa particularly does not rely on doubles for a living but he is relying currently on things to go his way as far as confidence is concerned and this match perhaps will have him questioning his thought process even more.
I was always taught in a tight contest particularly on the serve to make it, just make the serve, nothing fancy, just plenty of spin and height over the net. A big first serve is risky, a high kicker at three quarter pace is the safe play. Even Raf knows that.
Thanks Raf for making us all feel as though we are at times on the same shaky ground as far as decision making is concerned in a tennis match at a crucial moment whether we are a pro or a hacker.
We can all sleep better at night..............
The current Indian Wells Tournament is a huge event, perhaps the 'Fifth Grand Slam' as every player turns up for this one, it's a big deal in both singles and doubles. The Bryan Brothers were seeded 3 but as we all know they are the greatest Mens Dubs pairing of all time and still a feared team so to their match against Spain so to speak.
They faced a rather tough opening match against Nadal and Verdasco who both play a mean game of doubles, particularly Verdasco.
At a set down the Bryan's squeaked through the second set 7-5 then lead 8-2 in the third set super tie breaker before the Spanish duo woke up. They reeled off six straight points to take it to 8-8, that's when the most remarkable thing happened that you would normally only see at club tennis on a Saturday arvo. Rafa double faulted, what was he thinking ??
When you look at certain situations on a tennis court between the pros most times it all makes sense yet this does not, in fact it goes against what most pros will always say in a tight contest, make the opposition play.....
Even the harshest critics would agree with me that at 8-8 and with 6 straight points behind you the momentum is firmly in your favour and the main objective from that point is to make the opposition hit a ball. They will already be doubting their ability to hit a ball over the net whether their last name is Bryan or not.
Rafa's double fault then changed the whole match and the Bryan's won the next point and the match but it proved something, even the pros are human. Rafa particularly does not rely on doubles for a living but he is relying currently on things to go his way as far as confidence is concerned and this match perhaps will have him questioning his thought process even more.
I was always taught in a tight contest particularly on the serve to make it, just make the serve, nothing fancy, just plenty of spin and height over the net. A big first serve is risky, a high kicker at three quarter pace is the safe play. Even Raf knows that.
Thanks Raf for making us all feel as though we are at times on the same shaky ground as far as decision making is concerned in a tennis match at a crucial moment whether we are a pro or a hacker.
We can all sleep better at night..............
Saturday, 12 March 2016
'CHOOK RAFFLE'
Interesting to note the pairing of Isner and Raonic at Indian Wells this week. When I say interesting I mean of course why wouldn't these two pair up more often ? Simple answer, the return. Both of these guys own two of the biggest serves in the game yet they only just squeaked by Andy Murray and Colin Fleming who rank where on the doubles radar as a team ?
The next match that the two big servers play will put the argument to rest; Can two huge servers dominate doubles ? Personally I believe they have one match left in them even if it is a 6 and 6 defeat. The return in dubs far outweighs the serve and I believe that these two lack an all round game. I may be stating the obvious.
The Spanish team of Lopez and Lopez or Bopanna and Mergea should be able to find the spots that these two dislike but it will be fun to watch regardless. The game of dubs has changed somewhat and the returners now days can beat the servers with a bit of guile and finesse.
Doubles now days is in fact like a chook raffle, any number can come up, it's just a case of taking the chances when they arise. When you spin a wheel anything can happen and any number can come up.
Have a look at the draw in the Mens dubs at Indian Wells and tell me if anything is different to spinning the wheel at the end of a game of golf at the club house after 18 holes over a few beers.
And people bet on tennis......
Hmmmmm
The next match that the two big servers play will put the argument to rest; Can two huge servers dominate doubles ? Personally I believe they have one match left in them even if it is a 6 and 6 defeat. The return in dubs far outweighs the serve and I believe that these two lack an all round game. I may be stating the obvious.
The Spanish team of Lopez and Lopez or Bopanna and Mergea should be able to find the spots that these two dislike but it will be fun to watch regardless. The game of dubs has changed somewhat and the returners now days can beat the servers with a bit of guile and finesse.
Doubles now days is in fact like a chook raffle, any number can come up, it's just a case of taking the chances when they arise. When you spin a wheel anything can happen and any number can come up.
Have a look at the draw in the Mens dubs at Indian Wells and tell me if anything is different to spinning the wheel at the end of a game of golf at the club house after 18 holes over a few beers.
And people bet on tennis......
Hmmmmm
Sunday, 6 March 2016
'INTERESTING ARTICLE'
The following article is courtesy of Tyson Otto of the Herald Sun. I find it rather interesting as the ATP have once again gone after a 'small fish' to make an example of in regards to match fixing. It has similarities to the Nick Lindahl farce where a player wasn't even on the big stage ( Lindahl was a Challenger Event player ).
The ATP are not interested in anyone but the small fish because they are too frightened to upset the big stars of the game so they start at the bottom. How about they start at the top instead and work their way down or would that bring the game into disrepute if they found something ? This player in this article is another 'nobody' who the ATP will kick off the tour just so it looks as though they are doing something to weed out issues. Weak as piss ATP.......
Banned tennis match-fixer claims ATP Tour ruined his life
Sunday, 14 February 2016
'SOME MORE FACTS AND FIGURES'
The following is from 'THE CONVERSATION'
The bottom line
To cut to the chase, it costs the average tennis player in the order of $US160,000 per year to compete (once coaching costs are factored in). In 2013 only around 150 players made enough money to “break even” from prize-money alone.Let’s think about that for a minute. More than 75 million people play tennis globally, and only about 160 men and 150 women earn enough prize-money to cover the cost of playing professionally.
So your chances of making money out of the game as a professional player are about one in 250,000.
Compare that to domestic sport such as the Australian Football League (AFL). There are 18 teams, each of which needs at the very least 38 players on its primary list. Given that it’s estimated that just under 1 million people play AFL, your chances of making a living in AFL are comparatively greater, at one in about 1,500!
Being a pro tennis player is like running a small business. Prize-money is not tax-free income, and you’re generally not backed by a club.
So unless your ranking belongs in the upper echelons of the sport, you likely have to pay for your own coaching and training staff as well as flights, accommodation, medical expenses, balls, rackets, strings etc. All that doesn’t come cheap.
An opportunity for change
It’s not the intention here to be critical of the tall poppies of our sport. Who could argue that what the likes of Rafael Nadal, Roger Federer and the Williams sisters, Venus and Serena, bring to the sport is not worth the investment or cost?Despite the commercial prerogative, some thought does need to be given to the viability of a tour where almost all the prize-money goes to a handful of people, who in some cases don’t rely on prize-money to sustain their career anyway.
Unfortunately, most of the time, nobody cares much about the 160th and 150th-best male and female tennis players, which is a shame because they have to be ridiculously good tennis players to outperform the other 74,999,850 odd people who pick up a racket.
If you think grand-slam finals are tense, it’s nothing compared to final-round qualifying where entire livelihoods are on the line.
But with recent announcements of prize-money increases, grand slams have an opportunity to continue to distribute growing amounts of prize-money to those who exit earlier in the tournament.
While it may seem counter-intuitive to reward players who “turn up and lose first round”, the bottom line is that if talent is lost simply because people can’t pay the bills, the sport and fans suffer in the long term.
Friday, 12 February 2016
'WORTH A READ'
I find the following article fascinating if not rather disturbing as it brings to light the struggles of budding tennis professionals. With a ranking in the low 300's you would imagine this particular player to have a realistic shot at making a living from the game, yet he can spend a week at a Challenger event and only pick up what a tennis coach makes in an hour's lesson. It's farcical.
Novak picks up nearly 4 million for a Slam win and the 'next Novak' in an obscure event has to rely on someone giving him accommodation and quite possibly food also just so he can chase his dream.
The ATP seriously need to look at it because the next Novak may never even get a chance to show the World his talent due to the ridiculous prize money discrepancies.
It's all very well to pay a winner of a Slam 4 mil but if that was capped at 2 mil and the semis, quarters etc were capped at a more realistic rate could sponsorship dollars at major events be put towards the growth of future champions ?
Would the Worlds best players not turn up just because they could win ONLY 2 mil do you think ? What about players who have received funding from their governing bodies to help them out initially have a pay back scheme in place if they make the big time ? Could those funds then be used to help future stars survive their initial years on tour ? Many questions, not many answers. The rich keep getting richer........
THE FOLLOWING ARTICLE IS WRITTEN BY SIMON BRIGGS OF 'THE TELEGRAPH', LONDON....
Novak picks up nearly 4 million for a Slam win and the 'next Novak' in an obscure event has to rely on someone giving him accommodation and quite possibly food also just so he can chase his dream.
The ATP seriously need to look at it because the next Novak may never even get a chance to show the World his talent due to the ridiculous prize money discrepancies.
It's all very well to pay a winner of a Slam 4 mil but if that was capped at 2 mil and the semis, quarters etc were capped at a more realistic rate could sponsorship dollars at major events be put towards the growth of future champions ?
Would the Worlds best players not turn up just because they could win ONLY 2 mil do you think ? What about players who have received funding from their governing bodies to help them out initially have a pay back scheme in place if they make the big time ? Could those funds then be used to help future stars survive their initial years on tour ? Many questions, not many answers. The rich keep getting richer........
THE FOLLOWING ARTICLE IS WRITTEN BY SIMON BRIGGS OF 'THE TELEGRAPH', LONDON....
Even by the standards of British tennis, 2014 has been a turbulent year. The exit of Roger Draper last autumn was followed by the arrival of Michael Downey, a tough-talking new boss in Roehampton, who has slashed back funding and questioned the players’ hunger. Meanwhile, a number of promising young talents have been walking away from the game.
In the view of Oli Golding – who won the junior US Open in 2011 but joined the exodus in August – the two themes may be connected.
In his first interview since leaving the tour, Golding was keen to credit the Lawn Tennis Assocation for supporting him since he was a young teenager. But he also described the reduction of the LTA’s popular bonus scheme as “crazy” and admitted that the closure of the high-performance programme at the National Tennis Centre – the glitzy £40m training base only 15 minutes from his family home in Richmond – had felt like the last straw.
“I was struggling to find places to train that were good enough,” Golding told the Telegraph. “When I heard that the NTC was going to close, I decided that I was going to go and base myself in France but that would have been another 15 weeks away per year, and it’s not a secret that I have found the travelling difficult.
“Just before I was going to move overseas, I played a tough run of tournaments in Taiwan and Kazakhstan. I thought ‘If I am struggling to do this when based in London, it’s going to be even worse when I’m based in France.’
Related Articles
-
- Vallverdu left Murray because of Mauresmo
16 Dec 2014 - Wimbledon could go to pay-TV
16 Dec 2014 - Wimbledon 2015: How to apply for tickets
15 Dec 2014 - Lindahl accused of match fixing
09 Dec 2014 - The fun and easy way to learn a new language
Sponsored by Babbel
“It’s surprisingly difficult to find places to play in London. Either the clubs aren’t keen on having performance players based there or, if they are keen, they don’t have adequate facilities. It was frustrating for me that the NTC closed, having been born 10 or 15 minutes around the corner. I’m not saying it won’t turn out to be the right decision, but it didn’t help me.”
Golding – who turned 21 in September – is one of five young men who all seemed to have a chance of becoming regular tour players, yet decided this year to step off the treadmill. Three of them are close contemporaries of his, in George Morgan, Ashley Hewitt and Jack Carpenter. And then there is 19-year-old Harry Meehan, a 6ft 5in left-hander with a bomb of a serve, who told the Telegraph in October that “I was beginning to struggle with my mental state.”
If there is a common thread, Golding suggests, it is the amount of expectation heaped onto players who are not ready for it.
“It’s an issue in UK that we don’t create enough tennis players,” he said. “Which means there is more pressure on the ones that do try to make it. People tend to write you off very early, and if things aren’t going well for six months it’s a disaster. Yes, we’ve got a gap in that area of players from 30 to 70 in the world, but those players don’t usually break through at 20, more likely at 24.
Promise: Oli Golding was ranked No. 327 in April (PAUL GROVER)
“In my case, my head wasn’t in it at the end, for the last couple of months. It was funny because I was playing some of my best tennis but at the same time I felt I was going through the motions. Taking a break was the best option, because nothing was going to happen while I felt like that. There are too many other people out there who are feeling fresh and enjoying it and when the score’s 5-5 in the third set, nine times out of ten they find a way to win.”
Golding – who reached a high point of No. 327 in the world in April – has spent the autumn and winter helping out with his mother’s tennis-coaching business while he decides what to do next. A career in business is a possibility, though he does not rule out returning to the tour in a year’s time if he feels he is missing it. (Which he hasn’t, particularly, as yet.)
If he does go back, Golding says that it would have to be on his own terms, rather than under the watchful eye of LTA coaches and sponsors. “When I was a kid I used to swing in quite a carefree way, but after I won the US Open juniors a lot of people wanted to have an input into the way I was playing. The result was that I got regulated and lost touch with the way I used to hit the ball.”
Yet while Golding might like the idea of trading as a lone wolf, how would he support himself? With the exception of Andy Murray and perhaps three or four others, British players have long relied on matrix funding (which used to be handed out on the basis of junior results) and the bonus scheme (which assisted senior players who reached the later stages of Futures events).
Now that the first safety net is being taken down, and the second cut back, Downey's critics argue that a professional tennis career will soon be out of reach for everyone but once-in-a-generation talents and those with wealthy backgrounds.
“It’s crazy,” says Golding. “The people who need funding are the ones at the lower levels. You just can’t make ends meet playing Futures $10,000s. I think a hell of a lot of people will give up.
“It’s a hell of a tough life. The rewards are very limited. I can understand that the LTA want to have targets but I think it’s tough enough as it is. When you look at the conditions at a Futures, it’s below the minimum wage. I entered one 128-player draw, qualified and won a round, and reached the semis of the doubles. I was there from Thursday to Thursday and after tax my pay packet was 88 Euros. Considering how much money there is at the top level, more should filter down.”
So what about the main criticism that Downey, implicitly, has been aiming at Golding, Morgan et al? That they just don’t want it enough? Heather Watson added her own voice a fortnight ago, when she told reporters that “A lot of British tennis boys I’ve grown up with think it’s a jolly, that you’re going to play some tennis, get all the girls, go out, but it doesn’t work like that.”
Golding disagrees. "People who say that wouldn’t have any idea how difficult it is. How much you have to put in and how little you get back. I was incredibly hungry, I used to get frustrated on the court because I wanted to win so much. I gave it absolutely everything for six or seven years of my life, travelling for 25 or 30 weeks a year. In the end I felt I didn’t have much in the tank, and that it wasn’t honest to take sponsorship from people in that state.
“What Downey’s been saying, it’s a bit of a generalisation, because everyone is different. When he and [performance director] Bob Brett came in they started saying stuff and taking decisions without talking to people.
“I felt about 18 months ago there was a good spirit and team atmosphere around British tennis. Everyone was pulling together really well but that was lost slightly. The NTC was quite busy for a while but then it did start to empty out even before the new regime arrived. I’m not sure why that was; the players didn’t get told very much. What I would say is that tennis is a very individual sport but the new LTA seem to be making their decisions on a group basis.”
If he can work out which path to follow, Golding should have a bright future. He is intelligent and articulate, as well as confident enough to have appeared as a child actor in major films and theatre productions, including Chitty Chitty Bang Bang on the West End stage. And then there is his acute analysis of the British tennis scene, which is so well-informed that Downey should think about giving him a different sort of role in the NTC's administrative offices.
“It is difficult for the LTA,” says Golding. “They are rich in terms of money but poor in terms of facilities, which isn’t the fault of Downey or Brett. Clubs in Europe are much more interested in generating players, more community-based. Here it’s all about money. They don’t want someone on court for free when they could be making £27 an hour.
“Around me, most of the courts are either artificial grass or macadam – two surfaces that are used for zero pro tournaments. They’re cheaper to install, survive the weather in this country, and are easier for the older generation to play on than clay. On artificial turf, you can’t rally for more than three or four shots if you’re putting any pace on the ball. People wonder why we struggle to create players in this country and that is a big part of the answer.”
Golding – who turned 21 in September – is one of five young men who all seemed to have a chance of becoming regular tour players, yet decided this year to step off the treadmill. Three of them are close contemporaries of his, in George Morgan, Ashley Hewitt and Jack Carpenter. And then there is 19-year-old Harry Meehan, a 6ft 5in left-hander with a bomb of a serve, who told the Telegraph in October that “I was beginning to struggle with my mental state.”
If there is a common thread, Golding suggests, it is the amount of expectation heaped onto players who are not ready for it.
“It’s an issue in UK that we don’t create enough tennis players,” he said. “Which means there is more pressure on the ones that do try to make it. People tend to write you off very early, and if things aren’t going well for six months it’s a disaster. Yes, we’ve got a gap in that area of players from 30 to 70 in the world, but those players don’t usually break through at 20, more likely at 24.
Promise: Oli Golding was ranked No. 327 in April (PAUL GROVER)
“In my case, my head wasn’t in it at the end, for the last couple of months. It was funny because I was playing some of my best tennis but at the same time I felt I was going through the motions. Taking a break was the best option, because nothing was going to happen while I felt like that. There are too many other people out there who are feeling fresh and enjoying it and when the score’s 5-5 in the third set, nine times out of ten they find a way to win.”
Golding – who reached a high point of No. 327 in the world in April – has spent the autumn and winter helping out with his mother’s tennis-coaching business while he decides what to do next. A career in business is a possibility, though he does not rule out returning to the tour in a year’s time if he feels he is missing it. (Which he hasn’t, particularly, as yet.)
If he does go back, Golding says that it would have to be on his own terms, rather than under the watchful eye of LTA coaches and sponsors. “When I was a kid I used to swing in quite a carefree way, but after I won the US Open juniors a lot of people wanted to have an input into the way I was playing. The result was that I got regulated and lost touch with the way I used to hit the ball.”
Yet while Golding might like the idea of trading as a lone wolf, how would he support himself? With the exception of Andy Murray and perhaps three or four others, British players have long relied on matrix funding (which used to be handed out on the basis of junior results) and the bonus scheme (which assisted senior players who reached the later stages of Futures events).
Now that the first safety net is being taken down, and the second cut back, Downey's critics argue that a professional tennis career will soon be out of reach for everyone but once-in-a-generation talents and those with wealthy backgrounds.
“It’s crazy,” says Golding. “The people who need funding are the ones at the lower levels. You just can’t make ends meet playing Futures $10,000s. I think a hell of a lot of people will give up.
“It’s a hell of a tough life. The rewards are very limited. I can understand that the LTA want to have targets but I think it’s tough enough as it is. When you look at the conditions at a Futures, it’s below the minimum wage. I entered one 128-player draw, qualified and won a round, and reached the semis of the doubles. I was there from Thursday to Thursday and after tax my pay packet was 88 Euros. Considering how much money there is at the top level, more should filter down.”
So what about the main criticism that Downey, implicitly, has been aiming at Golding, Morgan et al? That they just don’t want it enough? Heather Watson added her own voice a fortnight ago, when she told reporters that “A lot of British tennis boys I’ve grown up with think it’s a jolly, that you’re going to play some tennis, get all the girls, go out, but it doesn’t work like that.”
Golding disagrees. "People who say that wouldn’t have any idea how difficult it is. How much you have to put in and how little you get back. I was incredibly hungry, I used to get frustrated on the court because I wanted to win so much. I gave it absolutely everything for six or seven years of my life, travelling for 25 or 30 weeks a year. In the end I felt I didn’t have much in the tank, and that it wasn’t honest to take sponsorship from people in that state.
“What Downey’s been saying, it’s a bit of a generalisation, because everyone is different. When he and [performance director] Bob Brett came in they started saying stuff and taking decisions without talking to people.
“I felt about 18 months ago there was a good spirit and team atmosphere around British tennis. Everyone was pulling together really well but that was lost slightly. The NTC was quite busy for a while but then it did start to empty out even before the new regime arrived. I’m not sure why that was; the players didn’t get told very much. What I would say is that tennis is a very individual sport but the new LTA seem to be making their decisions on a group basis.”
If he can work out which path to follow, Golding should have a bright future. He is intelligent and articulate, as well as confident enough to have appeared as a child actor in major films and theatre productions, including Chitty Chitty Bang Bang on the West End stage. And then there is his acute analysis of the British tennis scene, which is so well-informed that Downey should think about giving him a different sort of role in the NTC's administrative offices.
“It is difficult for the LTA,” says Golding. “They are rich in terms of money but poor in terms of facilities, which isn’t the fault of Downey or Brett. Clubs in Europe are much more interested in generating players, more community-based. Here it’s all about money. They don’t want someone on court for free when they could be making £27 an hour.
“Around me, most of the courts are either artificial grass or macadam – two surfaces that are used for zero pro tournaments. They’re cheaper to install, survive the weather in this country, and are easier for the older generation to play on than clay. On artificial turf, you can’t rally for more than three or four shots if you’re putting any pace on the ball. People wonder why we struggle to create players in this country and that is a big part of the answer.”
Friday, 5 February 2016
'FROM RAFA'
"The spin is the right shot to play on the clay, because when you play with a lot of spin you can produce a lot of important shots, a lot of winners, but without the risk, so that was the key to my success on clay " . Rafael Nadal.....
There is a video going around that involves Rafa and his take on the intricacies of spin. Interesting insight into the mind of possibly the greatest clay court player of all time.
A kid will have the perception that winners will need to be hit to win a tennis match, even Rafa says so in a way yet Rafa believes in spin and not hitting flat balls as many kids do.
Hitting flat balls with little margin for error leaves the ball in the opposition's hitting zone, a no, no, particularly on clay. It's why Rafa has owned both Monte Carlo and Paris for ten or so years with a net clearance that makes the opposition feel uncomfortable.
I love watching clips like this as it reinforces tennis fundamentals of consistency and smart play. The thing I noticed in this clip also is the grip change of Rafa which many times is neglected by coaching 'gurus'.
It's an old story that more than one 'coach' teaches the two handed backhand with a forehand grip and it's why the backhand of many kids is not one of substance. Watch Rafa slow motion and how he changes the hands between forehands and backhands.
Next time your coach gives you a lesson, ask the question...........
There is a video going around that involves Rafa and his take on the intricacies of spin. Interesting insight into the mind of possibly the greatest clay court player of all time.
A kid will have the perception that winners will need to be hit to win a tennis match, even Rafa says so in a way yet Rafa believes in spin and not hitting flat balls as many kids do.
Hitting flat balls with little margin for error leaves the ball in the opposition's hitting zone, a no, no, particularly on clay. It's why Rafa has owned both Monte Carlo and Paris for ten or so years with a net clearance that makes the opposition feel uncomfortable.
I love watching clips like this as it reinforces tennis fundamentals of consistency and smart play. The thing I noticed in this clip also is the grip change of Rafa which many times is neglected by coaching 'gurus'.
It's an old story that more than one 'coach' teaches the two handed backhand with a forehand grip and it's why the backhand of many kids is not one of substance. Watch Rafa slow motion and how he changes the hands between forehands and backhands.
Next time your coach gives you a lesson, ask the question...........
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)