After reading about the spin-producing benefits of lubricating tennis strings, I thought I'd try it out. I went to WalMart and bought some WD40. I strung a Prince EXO3 Tour 100 with 17 gauge Gosen Polylon at 51 lbs. About an hour later I sprayed the strings and began to play. I don't know if I was producing more spin than if I had not sprayed since I have no way to measure spin, either before or after. But I was producing a fair amount of spin. I also could tell that the strings were springing back nicely.
This spring-back was in contrast to how the same string at the same tension in the same racquet performed for a friend of mine this weekend. His strings moved and failed to snap back. Consequently he got only three hours or so from a full bed of polyester string. My next step will be to spray his racquet and see how it changes the spring-back and durability for him.
During my 90 min hitting session, I chose to reapply the WD40 once near the end. I had no good reason to do it, other than I had the lubricant with me and thought my opponent would get a kick out of it. I couldn't really tell much difference before and after the reapplication.
UPDATE: I have a racquet strung with Luxilon that I've only hit with for a few minutes (15 roughly) that is starting to move and not snap back. Today I'll spray those strings and see if they spring back better. Another update later.
UPDATE 2: Failure regarding the Luxilon Adrenaline 1.25 mm lubricated with WD40. I hit with it today for about an hour, in addition to roughly an hour two days ago after I strung it. The strings seemed to spring back better than before. Unfortunately the strings broke in roughly two hours of hitting. I had hoped for much better.
UPDATE 3: Silicone spray works better than WD40. It lubricates the strings but doesn't get on the balls or the court, at least not nearly as much as with WD40. I don't know if I get more spin, but the strings do seem to snap back better than without the spray. They may produce more spin and last longer. Or not. But at $2.29 a can or so at WalMart, I'm gonna keep trying it.
Tuesday, June 07, 2011
Monday, June 06, 2011
Nadal d Federer: Defense beats Offense
I may as well chime in with my comments on the final from Roland Garros yesterday. Federer definitely played a very good match. He was hitting his shots the first seven games. My feeling at the time was that it would be tough for him to sustain that level throughout the match. That's been everyone's problem in beating Nadal over five sets in Paris. Soderling did it once. On that surface over three out of five sets, Rafa's defense is simply too good for anyone's offense.
I thought that Federer did a couple of things tactically that I think helped him beyond just great shot-making. I liked when he stepped up and drove second-serve returns against Rafa. Rafa is a great defender who is in his worst defending court position immediately following his second serve. Rather than defending from 10 feet behind the baseline, Rafa has to defend that shot from very close to the baseline. That's not easy to do.
I also liked Roger's use of the slice backhand and drop shots as the match wore on. I thought those drop shots kept Rafa unsure of how deep to play in rally and defending situations. Roger hit several outright drop shot winners and that threat kept Rafa up a bit closer than he would have liked, allowing Roger to hurt him with backhand drives on occasion.
Roger also took a few more balls out of the air with his forehand. That's a risky play for sure, but you have to take risks to beat Rafa on clay. That's why people rarely beat him on clay. Rafa forces players to play lower margin of safety shots to beat him.
Perhaps I'm a man with a theory looking for confirmation, but I found confirmation of my general theory that at most levels on most surfaces, defense beats offense in tennis. Roger Federer is the greatest offensive player in tennis history. His serve and forehand are two of the best weapons in the history of the game, if not the best weapons. Yet they are not good enough to beat the greatest defender in the history of the game on the clay of Roland Garros.
ADDENDUM: One more thing. I was very impressed by Federer's forehand in the first seven games. It seemed to me, without going back and looking at the tape, that virtually every time Nadal played a ball to Federer's forehand, he lost the point. Maybe not right away. But Federer was in utter control once he was able to hit a forehand. That's tough to sustain, obviously, but I was struck by just how fabulous a weapon Federer's forehand can be when he's in full flight.
I thought that Federer did a couple of things tactically that I think helped him beyond just great shot-making. I liked when he stepped up and drove second-serve returns against Rafa. Rafa is a great defender who is in his worst defending court position immediately following his second serve. Rather than defending from 10 feet behind the baseline, Rafa has to defend that shot from very close to the baseline. That's not easy to do.
I also liked Roger's use of the slice backhand and drop shots as the match wore on. I thought those drop shots kept Rafa unsure of how deep to play in rally and defending situations. Roger hit several outright drop shot winners and that threat kept Rafa up a bit closer than he would have liked, allowing Roger to hurt him with backhand drives on occasion.
Roger also took a few more balls out of the air with his forehand. That's a risky play for sure, but you have to take risks to beat Rafa on clay. That's why people rarely beat him on clay. Rafa forces players to play lower margin of safety shots to beat him.
Perhaps I'm a man with a theory looking for confirmation, but I found confirmation of my general theory that at most levels on most surfaces, defense beats offense in tennis. Roger Federer is the greatest offensive player in tennis history. His serve and forehand are two of the best weapons in the history of the game, if not the best weapons. Yet they are not good enough to beat the greatest defender in the history of the game on the clay of Roland Garros.
ADDENDUM: One more thing. I was very impressed by Federer's forehand in the first seven games. It seemed to me, without going back and looking at the tape, that virtually every time Nadal played a ball to Federer's forehand, he lost the point. Maybe not right away. But Federer was in utter control once he was able to hit a forehand. That's tough to sustain, obviously, but I was struck by just how fabulous a weapon Federer's forehand can be when he's in full flight.
Saturday, June 04, 2011
Threat Assessment
Rather than asking a coach or a teacher what I should do during a tennis match, my modus operandi was to go down a quick checklist.
1) Can this person put enough balls in play to beat me? I usually assessed this in the warm up. As a kid I played tennis in Minnesota and in the early rounds, the answer to this question was often "no". If the answer was "no" I simply hit balls over the net and waited for the opponent to miss. If, "yes", on to...
2) Does this person have an obvious weakness? Again, obvious weaknesses show up in the five minute warm up. Usually this will be a backhand. Forehand weaknesses are usually more subtle. Volley and overhead weakness, movement trouble, short second serves, etc are often pretty obvious. If I found a weakness, I exploited it. If I couldn't find a weakness, I'd move on to ...
3) Can I find a weakness? This is tougher than spotting an obvious weakness. To do this you have to move the ball around more during play. You have to mix up velocities and spins. Perhaps the backhand is sound, but not so sound on the run or high or low. Modern forehands often break down under pressure or when the player is on the run to their dominant side. Usually what I'll do is just move the person around the court and observe the shots I receive in reply. If I can't find any weaknesses...
4) I'll begin to try different game plans to see if I can win points. In my case that was generally to serve and volley. Hitting winning shots is easier to do from the front of the court than from the rear of the court. If you're a good defender, maybe you draw your opponent forward so you can pass or lob them. Maybe you just grind them down, forcing them to beat you with winning shots from bad court positions.
In the course of going down this checklist, hopefully I found some way to win the match. Finding a weakness and being able to exploit it to win a match are two different things. It may be that your opponent can't do something as well as something else, but you can't get to the weakness, or worse, the weakness is still better than your strength.
There is no magic bullet for every opponent. But going down some sort of checklist will help you find ways to win more matches.
1) Can this person put enough balls in play to beat me? I usually assessed this in the warm up. As a kid I played tennis in Minnesota and in the early rounds, the answer to this question was often "no". If the answer was "no" I simply hit balls over the net and waited for the opponent to miss. If, "yes", on to...
2) Does this person have an obvious weakness? Again, obvious weaknesses show up in the five minute warm up. Usually this will be a backhand. Forehand weaknesses are usually more subtle. Volley and overhead weakness, movement trouble, short second serves, etc are often pretty obvious. If I found a weakness, I exploited it. If I couldn't find a weakness, I'd move on to ...
3) Can I find a weakness? This is tougher than spotting an obvious weakness. To do this you have to move the ball around more during play. You have to mix up velocities and spins. Perhaps the backhand is sound, but not so sound on the run or high or low. Modern forehands often break down under pressure or when the player is on the run to their dominant side. Usually what I'll do is just move the person around the court and observe the shots I receive in reply. If I can't find any weaknesses...
4) I'll begin to try different game plans to see if I can win points. In my case that was generally to serve and volley. Hitting winning shots is easier to do from the front of the court than from the rear of the court. If you're a good defender, maybe you draw your opponent forward so you can pass or lob them. Maybe you just grind them down, forcing them to beat you with winning shots from bad court positions.
In the course of going down this checklist, hopefully I found some way to win the match. Finding a weakness and being able to exploit it to win a match are two different things. It may be that your opponent can't do something as well as something else, but you can't get to the weakness, or worse, the weakness is still better than your strength.
There is no magic bullet for every opponent. But going down some sort of checklist will help you find ways to win more matches.
Monday, May 23, 2011
Player Development Systems
I ended my last post with a comment that the changing tennis landscape has implications for the USTA's Player Development Program. Any system that's purpose is to produce world-class tennis players is a system that takes time. Ten years at a minimum. The kids get into the system at a young age and by the age of 18-28 one or two or more of them dominate the international tennis scene. That's the goal anyway.
So you're in charge of such a system, nationwide. What do you do? Well Patrick McEnroe is that person in the US and he has hired Jose Higueras as his head coach. Together they map out the training of young tennis players. Both men agree that young American players are hurt by not playing enough on clay. With an eye toward the success of Spanish and French players, and of Federer and Djokovic, all of whom played predominantly on clay as kids, McEnroe and Higueras are making the top US juniors train more on clay. They have installed clay courts at their regional training centers and at the National Tennis Center in New York. Training on clay has worked for the current generation of stars, so we'll have to train our next generation of players on clay if we want them to be stars.
That's the argument.
Notice any problem with that line of reasoning? Ever heard of a general fighting the last war?
If the landscape does not change over the next ten or twenty years, then starting our young players off on clay is a good call. But what if it does change? What if the game speeds up again for some reason? Increased skill or different technique or another type of string. What if the courts or balls of ten or twenty years from now are much faster or much softer or much harder or something that doesn't suit players who grew up playing on clay?
Any long term plans are subject to this type of risk. Ask any business person or government planner. The best laid plans of mice and men...
The longer the plan, the longer the process, the greater risk that the plan will not work out as you hoped.
So what's a national tennis federation to do? Ah, another post!
So you're in charge of such a system, nationwide. What do you do? Well Patrick McEnroe is that person in the US and he has hired Jose Higueras as his head coach. Together they map out the training of young tennis players. Both men agree that young American players are hurt by not playing enough on clay. With an eye toward the success of Spanish and French players, and of Federer and Djokovic, all of whom played predominantly on clay as kids, McEnroe and Higueras are making the top US juniors train more on clay. They have installed clay courts at their regional training centers and at the National Tennis Center in New York. Training on clay has worked for the current generation of stars, so we'll have to train our next generation of players on clay if we want them to be stars.
That's the argument.
Notice any problem with that line of reasoning? Ever heard of a general fighting the last war?
If the landscape does not change over the next ten or twenty years, then starting our young players off on clay is a good call. But what if it does change? What if the game speeds up again for some reason? Increased skill or different technique or another type of string. What if the courts or balls of ten or twenty years from now are much faster or much softer or much harder or something that doesn't suit players who grew up playing on clay?
Any long term plans are subject to this type of risk. Ask any business person or government planner. The best laid plans of mice and men...
The longer the plan, the longer the process, the greater risk that the plan will not work out as you hoped.
So what's a national tennis federation to do? Ah, another post!
Sunday, May 22, 2011
As California Goes
As California tennis goes, so goes American tennis. Simplification? Sure. But California is our most populous state and a state with a long and rich tennis history. It's reasonable to expect great American tennis players to come from California. They have in the past.
California tennis is played on hard courts. Players generally hit the ball fairly flat and take the ball on the rise. They hug the baseline and play a forcing style of play. That's what Tom Stow taught in Northern California and I think Robert Landsdorp favors that style in Southern California, too. I don't think that's an unfair or misleading characterization of California tennis.
So how does that style of play work at the top levels of tennis in 2011? I think not well.
Two primary changes in the tennis environment have worked against the California style. The first is the strings. The new co-polyester strings allow for much greater spin generation. This allows players to hit with higher ball speeds and get the ball over the net and into the court. The second change is to the court surfaces. The hard courts are far slower than in the past and even Wimbledon's grass courts favor baseline players.
Playing up near the baseline, taking the ball on the rise, and attacking behind those sorts of groundstrokes is very difficult now. Players who grew up on clay, playing well behind the baseline, have time to get to the ball and rip shots with their co-poly strings. The neutral balls from these types of players even give the California-style player a lot of trouble. A ball hit fairly high over the net with a lot of speed and spin is extremely difficult to hit on the rise, with authority, and adequate margin of safety to keep errors low enough to win.
Unless California tennis changes to reflect the new conditions under which top-level tennis is played, I don't think we can expect many great players to come from California. That dramatically reduces the chance of there being any great American players in the near future.
If the conditions on tour change maybe the California-style will re-emerge as dominant. If not, the players and coaches in California will have to change or be selected against by the very competitive tennis environment.
UPDATE: This is awesome. As soon as you write something it can become obsolete. I turned on the French Open a few minutes ago to watch Ferrer and Nieminen play. Brad Gilbert says that he's seeing more and more hard court tennis being played on clay this year. The balls on tour are quicker than the last few years and the clay courts are playing much quicker. So players, like Djokovic and Ferrer, are moving up onto the baseline much more consistently. Gilbert says that he's seeing a lot more "one two" tennis, meaning serve and forehands ending points.
I saw one point where Nieminen hit a second serve and Ferrer ripped a return from inside the baseline. Nieminen got the ball back, but weekly and Ferrer unloaded on another forehand from inside the court. This time Nieminen barely got the ball back and Ferrer finished him off with a high forehand winner from about the service line. One, two, three. Receiving. On the clay of Roland Garros.
Can the return of the dominant Californian be far behind?
The landscape can change quickly. What does that mean for the USTA Player Development system? The subject of another post...
California tennis is played on hard courts. Players generally hit the ball fairly flat and take the ball on the rise. They hug the baseline and play a forcing style of play. That's what Tom Stow taught in Northern California and I think Robert Landsdorp favors that style in Southern California, too. I don't think that's an unfair or misleading characterization of California tennis.
So how does that style of play work at the top levels of tennis in 2011? I think not well.
Two primary changes in the tennis environment have worked against the California style. The first is the strings. The new co-polyester strings allow for much greater spin generation. This allows players to hit with higher ball speeds and get the ball over the net and into the court. The second change is to the court surfaces. The hard courts are far slower than in the past and even Wimbledon's grass courts favor baseline players.
Playing up near the baseline, taking the ball on the rise, and attacking behind those sorts of groundstrokes is very difficult now. Players who grew up on clay, playing well behind the baseline, have time to get to the ball and rip shots with their co-poly strings. The neutral balls from these types of players even give the California-style player a lot of trouble. A ball hit fairly high over the net with a lot of speed and spin is extremely difficult to hit on the rise, with authority, and adequate margin of safety to keep errors low enough to win.
Unless California tennis changes to reflect the new conditions under which top-level tennis is played, I don't think we can expect many great players to come from California. That dramatically reduces the chance of there being any great American players in the near future.
If the conditions on tour change maybe the California-style will re-emerge as dominant. If not, the players and coaches in California will have to change or be selected against by the very competitive tennis environment.
UPDATE: This is awesome. As soon as you write something it can become obsolete. I turned on the French Open a few minutes ago to watch Ferrer and Nieminen play. Brad Gilbert says that he's seeing more and more hard court tennis being played on clay this year. The balls on tour are quicker than the last few years and the clay courts are playing much quicker. So players, like Djokovic and Ferrer, are moving up onto the baseline much more consistently. Gilbert says that he's seeing a lot more "one two" tennis, meaning serve and forehands ending points.
I saw one point where Nieminen hit a second serve and Ferrer ripped a return from inside the baseline. Nieminen got the ball back, but weekly and Ferrer unloaded on another forehand from inside the court. This time Nieminen barely got the ball back and Ferrer finished him off with a high forehand winner from about the service line. One, two, three. Receiving. On the clay of Roland Garros.
Can the return of the dominant Californian be far behind?
The landscape can change quickly. What does that mean for the USTA Player Development system? The subject of another post...
Monday, May 16, 2011
A Helpful Nudge
OK, I've been pretty harsh on the value of coaches and coaching lately on this blog. It's only fair that I toss up an example of where coaching helped. In this example, I think nearly all the credit should go to the player. I've given this sort of advice to countless players without any effect. Same message. Same messenger. Different recipient. I say the recipient matters more than the messenger and the message. In any case, some coaching did help.
Below is an image of a player at a critical moment in his service motion. He is just about to lose contact with the ground.
You can see that at his final push off the ground the force vector from his foot through his mass center angles toward the back fence. Not good.
I took a video (from which the drawing was made) and showed him his serve. I told him to let his weight flow forward more as he was pushing against the ground. Here is a similar picture of his very next serve:
With one video and one sentence of instruction, this player improved his service motion dramatically.
Let's insert the before and after videos. Before:
And here is the better (after) video:
Look at how much better his weight flows into his serve on the second video. Look at both his hip motion as he pushes off and where his left foot lands relative to where it started (the baseline is a nice reference).
As I said, the lion's share of the credit goes to the student. He is a great athlete who possesses more body awareness than most people. But I have to admit that this little bit of coaching helped improve his service motion.
Total elapsed time of the lesson? Between one and two minutes.
Below is an image of a player at a critical moment in his service motion. He is just about to lose contact with the ground.
You can see that at his final push off the ground the force vector from his foot through his mass center angles toward the back fence. Not good.
I took a video (from which the drawing was made) and showed him his serve. I told him to let his weight flow forward more as he was pushing against the ground. Here is a similar picture of his very next serve:
Let's insert the before and after videos. Before:
And here is the better (after) video:
Look at how much better his weight flows into his serve on the second video. Look at both his hip motion as he pushes off and where his left foot lands relative to where it started (the baseline is a nice reference).
As I said, the lion's share of the credit goes to the student. He is a great athlete who possesses more body awareness than most people. But I have to admit that this little bit of coaching helped improve his service motion.
Total elapsed time of the lesson? Between one and two minutes.
Saturday, May 14, 2011
Style or Substance
Do you want to look like a good tennis player or do you want to be a good tennis player?
Too many players, parents, and coaches think looking like a good tennis player will cause a person to be a good player. Not so. It's possible to have strokes that look like the strokes good players use, but to be a poor tennis player.
Too many players, parents, and coaches think looking like a good tennis player will cause a person to be a good player. Not so. It's possible to have strokes that look like the strokes good players use, but to be a poor tennis player.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)