Catch 22: Monster Bat vs Skinny Stick

In today's tennis world it can be perplexing whether or not to use a Nadal-like wide-beamed racquet or a thin-beamed more traditional racquet.  We all want the power of a fat bat, but are we giving up placement?
Players that grew up playing with a thin beam are more likely to continue to play with one because of the comfort level, but are they missing out on the power of the wider beams?  It is hard to say if the wider racquet pros like Nadal, Roddick,Tsonga and Lubicic are less accurate than they would be with a skinny racquet.  Certainly the bulk of the top players don't like the wider racquets, but that could be a feel issue.  Where is tennis going from here?  With the overall enhanced athlete, putting a power racquet in their hand might make it nearly impossible to play with them.  Traditionalists like myself love a weighted, thin-beamed racquet that only feels powerful when you hit it in the middle, but we might just be holding on to the past and missing out on some wicked ball striking of the future.  Only time will tell.    

Cooperation Over Competition

My first tennis coach was an extraordinary man by the name of Powell Blankenship.  Powell was a highly-skilled player and coach from San Diego who developed Australian Open Champion Brian Teacher.  I was 19 when I started working with Powell, and I decided that I needed to learn this game the right way after being bounced by the bigs over and over again after moving to the big city.  My game was a technical disaster, and my plan was to put it together with the help of a Master Coach.  Powell had other plans.  Because I had competed for years with strong athleticism and little game, he went after my mind instead of my strokes.  He felt that I was too combative with the game, and he wanted me to flow when I played-swim downstream.  He preached that I needed the guy on the other side of the net just to play this game.  That your opponent had to hit you balls to orchestrate the points.  "Cooperation over competition" was his mantra, and I understood it intellectually, but it took years to sink in to my daily practice and habits.  Powell drastically changed my mindset, and only then was I ready for the technical side of the game.  Thank you, Powell, for teaching me how to play nice and play well.  Many problems would be more easily solved with Powell's words of wisdom.        

Is Jimmy Connor's Being Ripped Off By Modern Tennis Historians?

Who has won the most tournament titles in ATP history? Most matches?    Most tennis fans know that Jimmy holds these records with 109 tournament titles and 1337 match wins, clearly out-distancing all other great champions.  Novak is having a phenomenal year in 2011, but Connors went 99-4 in 1974 with 14 tournament victories to go along with his 3 majors, and he was banned from the French that year for playing World Team Tennis.  Also, Jimmy was number 1 in the world for 5 straight years from 1974-1978.  This was unprecendented before Sampras' 6 year reign. 

The argument here is not for "Greatest Player Ever" status, but to acknowledge that the playing field changed when Sampras went on his Grand Slam historic run.  Back in the 70's and 80's players weren't concerned about counting slams as the main way to measure greatness.  The most important gauges for dominance were being #1, winning Wimbledon and the US Open and winning tournaments-all tournaments.  Many top players didn't even bother to make the trip to OZ.  Does that sound like they thought the Australian had historical importance? 

Connors is tied for fifth in majors with 8 but is often left out of the top ten in critics' eyes.  His 5 number 1's tie him with Federer in the modern era with only Sampras eclipsing that mark.  His match wins and tournament wins are second to none.  Federer has 69 titles and has won 3 this year.  Sampras has 64.  When you think of winning and tennis Connors 109 titles has to be in the conversation.       

Murray the Best Player Ever(to Not Win a Major)

Andy Murray is an absolutely terrific tennis player.  His feel and movement around the court are second to none.  He is a topnotch world-class athlete who happens to play tennis.  He has beaten everyone, and he is a top challenger at all the Masters Series events, winning 8 titles at the Masters 1000 level.  The giant question is "why hasn't Andy won a major?"  If he can win against the best players, and also beat them back-to-back then is he just choking in the 3 major finals that he has lost?  I think the answer to this question is absolutely no.  Murray is very good under pressure, and he is not losing his major title opportunities due to nerves.  It is his style of play that wears him out in the best of 5 set Grand Slam format.  Andy came onto the tennis scene with his ability to stay in a rally all day with anyone, including Rafa.  Unfortunately this counter-punching style can take away your stamina if you don't blend it with enough ball-striking offense.  Andy has been too conservative in his approach to winning majors by not blowing out some opponents in the earlier rounds, and by not attacking enough in his play.  The best of 3 set format at the Masters Series events allows Murray to play his usual style, but the Slams do not!  It is not nerves, talent or fitness that Andy is lacking, but his nature of counter-punching and extending rallies.  Watch him grow his offense and ball-striking abilities and the majors will come, even with Federer, Djokovich and Nadal in his era . 

High School Tennis

High school tennis is a vital part of the overall tennis picture, even for developing college players. The competitive and social aspects make it a fun and important piece of the junior experience. For most players high school tennis is the pinnacle of their playing careers. The problem with high school tennis is the format. The teams are too big. High school tennis should be played in the sa...me format as college: 6 players playing doubles forst, then singles. Bring back the prestige of making the top varsity squad of only 6 players and stop diluting the play by having 9 to 11 players on the starting squad. Many high school varsity players aren't at a competitive tournament level. Imagine going to a varsity basketball game and some of the kids can't play. The counter argument here is to increase participation you have to increase the team size, but I disagree. Have a varsity 1, V2, JV1, 2 and 3 and a few frosh/soph squads. Let everyone make a team even if you have to play off-campus. Have parents volunteer coach and push the level of quality up to the top, whereas the top varsity is highly prestigiuos because it is difficult to achieve. This will help high school tennis turn into a top junior achievement instead of something the better kids do as a pastime.

Coach/Player Relationship

The coach/player relationship in tennis is unique to sports.  When you play for a team, the coach is king, and he lays down the ground rules and players abide by them, or they are booted from the practice and/or the team.  In an individual sport, the dynamics can be quite different.  It is often the parents or even the kid dictating the format of the lesson or coaching.  Imagine a parent trying to "help" in a basketball practice by yelling at his kid or going on the court to coach.  This would happen exactly once, and both parent and child would be forever evicted from the building/team/school etc.  In tennis it is the biggest development problem in our sport.  Direct parental involvement during the private coaching sessions undermines the whole value of the player/coach relationship.  Typically a new tennis parent comes into the sport healthily in that he/she lets the coach do his job.  As time goes on, the parent starts feeling like he is more knowledgeable, and then he can't resist trying to use his new-found knowledge.  A little information is a dangerous thing!  Why did you hire an expert if you want to be the coach?  Your coach has a lifetime of experience and knowledge, and yet you are trying to "help" at lessons and only hindering the process.  Let coaches coach!  Be the manager.  The parental role in a kid's success is huge.  Kids go to Ivy League schools because their parents help manage their academic careers, but they don't teach the classes!  I have taught for 25 years, and I have taught with and without direct parental involvement during the lessons, and my advice is kick the parent out.  If they want to watch some of the lesson from afar, then that is fine, but the less they are involved during lesson time the better for the player/coach relationship to reach a deep level where trust can be built, and the hard lessons can be learnt.        

Two Americans Excel from Nebraska

It seemed like a coincidence that Andy Roddick vs Jack Sock were from the midwest and happened to succeed at becoming tennis professionals.  What are the odds of two kids born in Nebraska growing up to be tennis champions instead of football offensive lineman?  The truth of the matter is that players from the non-tennis hubs of the US are more likely to dream the big dream.  Players in the tennis centers tend to be more "realistic" with their tennis goals, and then they are more likely to not shoot for the top and have the passion it takes to be the best they can be.  When your twelve and your coach is asking you to train 4 hours per day, you better be dreaming the big dream to put the necessary work in to excel in this difficult and competititve game of ours.  Telling a kid to work that hard so he can earn a college scholarship is ridiculous unless he has no financial means to attend college, then 2 hours will be enough to play at a D2, D3 or NAIA school.  Our kids need to try to be amazing with no boundaries set at the top.  Setting a boundary would be like telling a 2nd grader to forget about being a doctor, engineer, lawyer, business CEO, etc.  You would be breaking his spirit.  There are many professionals from tennis hubs, but there also many pros from tennis nowhere that dreamed the dream and ended up making it.  Let's teach all of our kids who love the game and want to take it all the way that they may have a chance anfd let them determine whether that happens or not.       

Spanish Men and Their Success

We don't necessarily need to train like the Spanish. We need to be like the Spanish. The best attribute of the Spanish men-even more than their great athletes and grind harder mentality-is their team spirit in an individual sport. They genuinely rally around each other and help pull each other up. An example explains it all. Nadal was a brash, cocky and amazing young star on the rise 10 years ago. The Spanish players practiced with him, advised him, and brought him into their fold. If Nadal was American I think he would have been put through some very negative pressures by our players for his fist pumps, stare downs, pirate shorts, etc. Without the team support of his countrymen he certainly would not be the gracious, mature champion that he is today. Now we have a budding superstar in our fold. Will we treat him well and help him win majors and push our sport to greater heights, or we will we chastise and ridicule his young, cocky and brash habits and try to keep him from fully realizing his potential. In my opinion only one American male player has a good chance to win a major in the next 5 years and compete at the very top of men's tennis: Jack Sock. How will he be nurtured by the American pros? This may define his ascension and longetivity in our great game.