30 Years On And We Still Miss Him: John McEnroe & The Complete Player

I was having dinner with my sister last week and she was asking for events that had happened exactly 30 years ago in the tennis and golf sphere as we are both employed in the country club industry. So, where else to start but type into Google: Wimbledon winners, 1983

John McEnroe defeated New Zealander Chris Lewis. Remember Chris? I didn't. He beat one of my favorite players South African Kevin Curren in the semi final. Lewis was only the second New Zealander to ever make a final and was unseeded. McEnroe ended Ivan Lendl's tournament in straight sets in the other semi-final. Tougher match for sure.

It was a good year at Wimbledon. But what I noted was who won the doubles: John McEnroe and Peter Fleming defeated the American brothers Gullikson. Guess what? Big Mac did the same thing in 1984 taking home the singles title after beating Jimmy Connors in the final. McEnroe and Fleming again won the doubles against Australians Pat Cash and Paul McNamee. That's four Wimbledon titles in 2 years. I didn't look at mixed. The story was there. On the men's side McEnroe and Fleming were just complete players. At the same time, Martina Navratilova and Pam Shriver were doing similar things on the women's side. They just don't make tennis players this complete anymore. When was the last time, I asked, that the men's singles player also won the men's doubles title at Wimbledon? You guessed it. John McEnroe.

Perhaps it's me looking back at the history of the game I love with rose-tinted glasses - I actually wear contacts now for those high school friends who read my ramblings. Perhaps I am not giving enough credit to the players of today - Serena and Venus play the singles and doubles at most of the major events. But they just don't play that many events.

Fleming and McEnroe won four doubles titles at Wimbledon and three at the US Open. All the while Fleming maintained a top-ten singles ranking and McEnroe stayed either at the top of the rankings or in the top three. We wonder why McEnroe is such a great commentator - he was not only a fantastic player, but perhaps one of the most complete players we have ever seen.

If you look back at his time on the tour, McEnroe may be remembered for his behavior, but in reality we should remember him for his fabulous, yet unconventional serve, his simple and effective groundstrokes and his amazing hands while volleying at the net.

To look closely at his forehand, it's so simple and relies on his great eye-hand coordination rather than power. He forfeits any type of a loop backswing, taking the racquet directly back to the low position before he comes up to meet the ball rather flatly, using the pace of his opponent in most cases to hit back with speed. Have a look here:
Perhaps you could out finesse the Big Mac and not allow him to use his power? Only one player was able to do this: Guillermo Vilas who won more matches then he lost against the Big Mac.Vilas was another great who is largely overlooked. He won seven, yes seven, consecutive titles, following Wimbledon right through and past the US Open. Most players today don't play seven tournaments in a similar 8 to 9-week period. Oh, Vilas played doubles too. This was the era of the complete player - on any surface and in singles and doubles and at the baseline and at the net.

This match, against Stefan Edberg, perhaps proves the finesse and yet, the power too with picking winners cross court and down the line by both players. Look at how both exploited the weakness of their opponent and used their own strengths to create and build a point.


The legacy of McEnroe is enormous as we think of his serve and volley game combined with fabulously simple ground strokes. McEnroe remains perhaps the leading example of the complete player and perhaps that is why we either love him or despise him as a commentator. He is perhaps the greatest tennis commentator of our time for the BBC in Britain and back here in the USA with insightful tips and great understanding of the minutiae of a match or point.

When asked to perform an impersonation, Novak Djokovic often mimics Johnny Mac and his unorthodox serve. Djokovic's imitation alone proves just what an icon McEnroe was in his time because in 1983, thirty years ago, Djokovic wasn't even around yet.

A Fitting Finale in London: Djokovic versus Federer

It's a bit like how the season has gone for these two - close and closer and closest. It may not be a year for either Djokovic or Federer to remember and put at the top of their resumes, but the two giants of the ATP Tour really treated us to a finale yesterday in London's O2 Center which was tennis at its best. Each had won a Grand Slam this year, Djokovic winning in Australia and Federer taking another title at Wimbledon. So this match was going to settle the score at the end of the season.

Think about this: Federer didn't lose a point to the Number One player in the world until the third game. And that said, Federer was already 25% of the way to the final destination, a win, within 9 minutes and up 3-0. But like a horserace, there is no clock and Djokovic started to chip away and get the older Federer into longer and longer rallies, which favored the 25 year-old Djokovic. Before you could blink, Djokovic was winning the first set in a tiebreak and went on to win the match in two straight sets.

This was the second time in two days that Djokovic had come back from what looked like a losing proposition. The previous day, Juan Martin Del Potro had Djokovic on the ropes yet again. Djokovic, losing the tempo on his serve, was watching the 6 foot 6 inch Del Potro move well within the baseline and take the second serve waist high. Djokovic lost the first set without much of a whimper. It looked again like Djokovic was going to be beaten badly... and yet, he came through the 3-set match a winner.

It really showed here at the end of the season what we knew at the beginning of the season when Djokovic beat Nadal in that 5 hour 53 minute epic in The Australian Open final: No one can actually outhit Djokovic over an entire match. There might be spells and games where one can push him back, but over the course of three or five sets, Djokovic's groundstrokes will outlast his opponents if his mental state remains sober and focussed.

To String Or Not To String: That Is The Question

This is probably the question I am asked the most at this time of year. Between summer and winter seasons, we as players are left to ponder how strings and tension might be affecting our game. The debate is continually ongoing and there is never a right or a wrong answer.

The general rule of thumb is to restring your racquet each year the number of times you play in a week. If you play three times a week, the general rule would therefore be to restring your racquet three times. But even this general rule doesn't always work or make sense in relation to one's game.

So, you ask, what is appropriate?

To discuss the professionals, the trend has been to lower the string tension. Back in the day of Jimmy Connors or Pete Sampras, the tension would have been up near or even above 70 lbs. But nowadays, the tensions have been coming down. With powerful new racquets, there is no need to string as high as we once did. For example, the professionals probably use a new string job for just a set, if that. They may change more frequently. They have professional stringers on site to manage their many racquets and use string that is not always conducive to a game at club level. Strings deaden quickly at such a pace and frequency of hits. But what about us mere mortals on the court? How do we know when our strings are dead?

The number one priority in stringing for play at any level is the actual "playability" of your strings in conjunction with your game. Too often we look at what others are doing or what the professionals are doing in terms of string and tension, but that might not suit your own, personal game. 

If you hit with more topspin, you might look to restring a bit more as the strings become frayed as there is more gripping of the string required as it makes contact with the ball on each stroke. The more you hit low to high, the longer the ball remains on the strings. Oftentimes, customers come up to me and say, my strings are done - they are moving. Well strings do move and the pattern will change shape if you are hitting with a good amount of topspin. If you hit flat, you may get away with fewer restringings as the string stays intact longer as the ball is not on the strings for as long a period.

Different types of strings have various stretching tendencies. The popular Sensation or NXT from Wilson Tennis stretch a lot more than Wilson's Luxilon string, which is more wire-like. Strings that stretch offer more control but need to be replaced more often 

The answer to whether you should restring is a personal one based on use and type of string and how your game is progressing. The best way forward is to ensure that you feel comfortable with the strings in your racquet. If not, change them out and restring or test something new with a demo of your own racquet strung differently. But by lowering or raising your tension or changing string it's a whole new game. It's trial by play!

The Ryder Cup

There's something about golf that's different this week. Golf has become one of the leading televised sports and week in, week out the PGA puts on a show. Sunday evenings find many millions of Americans, and foreigners too, huddled in the family room watching the sun set on another PGA event - will Rory McIlroy stay ahead or will one of the pack come up and take the trophy. From Congressional to The Masters, from Oakmont to The Fed Ex Cup - golf delays 60 Minutes here on the East Coast almost every week.

But it was interesting to hear this week the first time golf delayed 60 Minutes. In a recap of the 1991 Ryder Cup at Kiawah Island Golf Club in South Carolna, one of the PGA executives mentioned that network television stayed with the Cup coverage and delayed the network's programming for "The War On The Shore" as that year's Cup became known as it went down in lore as one of the greatest ever Ryder Cups.

What makes the Ryder Cup so enticing? Why was it that network TV decided to keep the cameras rolling? Why is it that I remember watching The Ryder Cup more than I do Wimbledon with my British friends during my years abroad?

Two reasons. First, The Ryder Cup is one of those rare times when professionals play for country rather than themselves. There is a higher desire, a greater good, a mightier meaning. It's so rare that the USA gets behind a team internationally. But The Ryder Cup is every two years on opposing sides of the foaming Atlantic. It's an international event and shows just how different the same game can be on different sides of an ocean. Churchill once said that Britian and America are two nations separated by a common language. We are also two countries, and now add Europe to the mix, separated by a common game: Golf. Deep down we know Tiger Woods doesn't enjoy playing a links course. And the Brits and Europeans just don't really understand Bermuda grass, the grass on most American putting greens.

This year at Medinah Country Club outside Chicago, Davis Love III, the American captain, has asked that the fairways be widened for his big hitters like Tiger Woods and Keegan Bradley. There's very little thick rough. The weather has been friendly with not much of a breeze with cool Autumn sunny days. You can wager that in 2014 at Gleneagles, nestled between Dundee and Loch Lomond north of Edinburgh, the wind will be whipping, the temperatures will be colder, and the rough will be thicker.

The second reason we love to watch the Ryder Cup is that the format is, well, just perfect. With professionals playing what we amateurs play every Tuesday morning while we skive off work, The Ryder Cup offers us, the viewers, a format we can relate to. It also puts the professionals playing against each other right in the same foursome - right there to stare down each other with a poker face while supposedly studying one's yardage notebook. The morning is a two-ball, alternate shot format, so different from the stroke play we see each week. The afternoon is a four-ball. Enemies on the tour are hamming and egging to win a point for their nation. What a change. It's a lot more like the Texas scrambles I like to play against my father's friends when I am home for the weekend. The only difference being there's no math at the end of each hole to figure out the handicaps with these guys at Medinah. If you're in the hole in 4, you're in the hole in 4. Oh yeah, one other difference: The shotmaking.

Ian Poulter reacting to abirdie putt.

Match play simply makes the opportunity for great shot making. Like Ian Poulter hitting inside Zach Johnson on the par 3's to within 4 feet, or draining 5 birdie putts on the last 5 holes to keep the European hopes alive. Match play allows Phil Mickelson and Keegan Bradley to become an unlikely American wrecking ball, putting away their opposition with shot after shot - face to face, tee to green. You can't play for the next hole when each hole counts and your opponent is 6 feet and pin high. Time to stop playing for the center of the green and two putt.


Perhaps it's that the Tiger has yet to win a point that shows just how different match play is. He and Steve Stricker have gone winless the first two days and Woods is the last match out on the course today in the singles competition. Did captain Love put him there to keep Woods out of the match? We'll never know. Woods probably won't have a part to play in today's finish. The Ryder Cup, with the USA holding a large lead, will most likely be over before Tiger makes the turn. But, if like in 1999, the Europeans make a comeback from a similar deficit, we'll all be watching Tiger as the anchorman against Francesco Molinari, number 31 in the world. It's a bit like Roger Federer playing Viktor Troicki. Who, you ask?

Yes, who. That's the beauty of match play, golf and the Ryder Cup. Each singular, graceful, green, different golf hole represents another chance to beat the guy walking with you, not just winning for you, but for your country. 18 pins flapping this morning in the slight breeze at Medinah. 18 chances to win it. 18 holes of glory.

Federer, Djokovic and Nadal - They All Tap The Dog

Good Doggie!

So, what is it that all three of the top players in the world have in common on their forehand? They all "tap the dog."

In learning from one of the leading teachers and academy owners, Rick Macci, here in Florida, he took me through how similar the stroke of Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal and Novak Djokovic are. He calls it "tapping the dog" and I will explain what he means by that.

If you look at the forehand video of Roger Federer in the previous post below, the "tap the dog" position comes at 11 seconds into the video - racquet strings closed to the ground and his elbow creating space between his elbow and rib cage. Imagine if he dropped his racquet, opened his palm, and tapped a dog on the forehead - that's the position.

This position is quite interesting in fact. The elbow is away from the body. Many students of mine ask if the elbow should be in tight or away from the body as the racquet comes down out of the higher part of the loop. Away from the body is the answer for these three players - Nadal possessing the most compact swing his elbow does not leave much space until he starts his forward progression.

Big Players Don't Push... They Pull!

But what is even more interesting to note is that each player literally pulls his racquet hand forward - think of a pulling action forward across the middle of the body. This action pushes the racquet "inward" from the "outward" position where it lies when they "tap the dog". So these three players are not laying the racquet back inside and back to where it points to the back screen - the racquet is pushed there by the force from the "pull" forward of the racquet hand toward the ball. Their motion forward is a lot earlier than us mere mortals and because of that the racquet moves backward and inward even as their hitting hand is moving forward toward the ball.

This pulling action is quite evident between seconds 4 and 5 (0.04 to 0.05) on the Djokovic forehand video and at 0.10 on the Nadal video. In fact Nadal's racquet is already quite close to perpendicular to the back screen and it moves way inside behind him prior to moving forward toward the ball, even though he has pulled his hand quite forward already.

But in my book, Roger Federer has the most classic forehand in this regard. His "tapping the dog" position is nicely away from his body and the strings are almost fully closed. As he comes through the swing, he pulls his hand through around 0.14 to 0.15 and you can see how the racquet head reacts and comes back inside toward the back screen and bit toward his back hip prior to moving forward. Look at how early his hand is in comparison to his racquet. His hips are already rotating at 0.15 and not until 0.19 does he make contact.

I know it's slow motion, but he's so early and the racquet speed at contact is so fast, the racquet comes and catches the hand to be parallel with his hitting hand at contact. The hand had been leading the swing the entire time! But the racquet's speed at the end of the swing is too fast and catches up with the hand and then bypasses the hand into the follow through.Guess that's one of the reason he's won more Grand Slams than anyone else alive.

The Roger Federer Forehand... is also the Novak Djokovic forehand...

It's also the Rafael Nadal forehand... It's the loop topspin forehand.

Time and time again, my students on the tennis court ask me why I teach the loop forehand method. I point them to the best in the game. It's not always right to assume that a student of mine, or any amatuer, for that matter, should mimic a professional the likes of Federer or Djokovic, but, in this case, it works. Let's look at the reasons for bringing the racquet back high and in a loop on a forehand.

The Top Five - All Time - Reasons For A Loop Backswing On The Forehand

Firstly, what is the loop method? It is the bringing of the racquet back higher (racquet head comes back at eye level) and creating a loop, or drawing a 'C',with your racquet through the preparation and into the contact point or hitting area.

1. The loop creates racquet speed without having to swing harder. The power of gravity helps to generate racquet head speed from the top of the loop downward and then forward through the contact point. Racquet acceleration through the swing is imperative.

2. The loop helps turn the shoulders and hips. Your swing starts in the heels and the kinetic energy follows up through the hips and shoulders. Holding the non-dominant hand at the gooseneck of the racquet and bringing the racquet head back eye-level will force a turn of shoulders and core, essential for a good, powerful forehand.

3. The loop allows the backswing to follow the ball. If the ball is played lower than waist height, the loop allows the racquet head to drop easily below the ball to enhance topspin. If the ball is played higher - shoulder height - you can stop the loop just below the ball's level and still maintain a strong, topsping enhancing swing.

4. If the strings remain "closed" or facing on an angle toward the ground through the preparation and first half of the loop, the wrist is allowed to remain stationary through the backswing and stay firm through the the preparation phase of the swing and into the contact point, which allows the shoulders to guide the racquet rather than the forearm or wrist.

5. The loop allows the racquet preparation to occur even while moving laterally to the ball. If one were to drop the racquet head on the way back, it would impede movement to a wide forehand.

The Big Three Forehands - Federer, Djokovic, Nadal

I have loaded below slow-motion videos of all three professional players. What one should look at is the backswing. All quite similar with the racquet head coming back eye-level. We pick up the Federer and Djokovic forehands as the racquet head has just passed the head on its way back.

Notice the wrist keeps the racquet strings closed - Nadal's tends to be the most upright with his racquet on edge, but again he closes the strings toward the ground just as the racquet gets above the bottom point of the loop behind him.

 


The next blog will discuss how at one point in these three swings, exactly the same racquet position and racquet movement are within a few degrees of each other. Amazing. 3 swings. Almost identical. Can you figure out where the swings are identical?

Here's a hint: Tap The Dog.

Poetry in Motion: Robert Frost & Tennis

The Road Not Taken

Two roads diverged in a yellow wood,
And sorry I could not travel both
And be one traveler, long I stood
And looked down one as far as I could
To where it bent in the undergrowth;

Then took the other, as just as fair,
And having perhaps the better claim
Because it was grassy and wanted wear,
Though as for that the passing there
Had worn them really about the same,

And both that morning equally lay
In leaves no step had trodden black.
Oh, I marked the first for another day!
Yet knowing how way leads on to way
I doubted if I should ever come back.

I shall be telling this with a sigh
Somewhere ages and ages hence:
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I,
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference. 

Robert Frost

I have always held this poem close to my heart. In life, when times are tough and with weighty decisions to make, I think of these wonderful words and, yes, I usually choose the path less travelled. And, yes, it has made all the difference. Those of you who know me personally will understand.

Over the weekend, I reread this poem in regard to tennis and attempted to look objectively at how my tennis teaching may incorporate these four, simple, yet incredibly forward-thinking and life-observing stanzas.

Each point in tennis is a microcosm of life. When to move forward and be the aggressor. When to lay back and defend hoping for an opening. All these things are the same in life as they are in tennis. But on each ball, we have to make a decision. That decision is direction. Where do I hit this tiny yellow fuzzy thing?

In doubles, our direction is usually decided for us much more of the time in comparison to singles. In hitting crosscourt from the baseline in doubles, we tend to want to avoid the net player on the opposing side, unless we decide to hit a lob over that player's head. But at the net, it's a slightly different story. If the ball is lower than the level of the net at the time we make contact we have to take into account our opponent's position. If they have one player at the net and one player at the baseline, since we are having to hit up and over the net on our volley, we should volley to the player at the baseline. Otherwise, the opposing net player has the time to close in and volley our return back down at us since we are in a defensive position volleying initially from below the level of the net.

But what if all four players are at net? What dictates our decision? We can take the easier route perhaps and volley crosscourt over the lowest part of the net which improves our odds in making the shot. Or, we can volley straight, which at first is a tougher volley, over a higher part of the net. But, then we do not have to transition as a team and change positions to cover the other alley. Let me explain.


If all four players are at net on the court, then if you (the person hitting the ball in the diagram is 'C') decide to hit cross court at 'B', you and your partner are forced to move and transition to cover a wider angle down the alley adjacent to player 'D' which is option 2 in the diagram. A team in transition often makes errors as they are moving while the ball is struck by the opponents.

Option 2 on the diagram is to hit the ball back down the middle. Oftentimes one hears "Down the middle solves the riddle." This is quite often true in doubles and, in this case, it is a safe shot if hit low to your opponents.

The third option is to hit straight across the net at your opponent, which means that you and your partner do not have to transition at all and that you are already set for the opponent's return. You, as player 'C', already have your alley covered and your partner D is covering the middle of the court.

But, what is the final decision to be made? What else factors into the equation? Don't change the direction of the ball if not necessary. Anytime, you change the direction of the ball, your hitting zone is smaller and you are more apt to make an error. Therefore, I would argue, if the ball comes from 'B' hit back either option 1 or 2. If the ball comes from 'A' hit back with option 3. These options do not change the direction of the ball and make the volley easier for you.

The Road Not Taken... is usually option 3. But, in good doubles, option 3, if the ball comes at a straighter angle to you as a player, is a forward-looking good option. You and your partner do not have to move to cover the next ball from your opponents. Rather, you and your partner are poised and ready to move forward and take control of the point.

Reason 2: The USA is "Sportcentric"

Yesterday, I watched the Bryan brothers play a fabulous match to keep America's hopes alive in the Davis Cup against Spain. Playing against a formidable team and having to deal with a vocal and patriotic Spanish crowd, the Bryan Brothers were part of an international match that continues today.

However, just 3,000 or so miles to the East, protests much stronger than cheering againt two sporting greats in the Bryan brothers, were occuring. Harsh protests, fights and battles against America and American foreign policy are being waged. Deaths and fighting at U.S. embassies overseas are again headlines.

Is America Too Self-Centered In Sport & Politics?

I am struck by the fact that we, as a nation, tend to be very self-centered in many respects. Having lived abroad for 17 years, I have seen how the United States is viewed in a not-so-friendly way around the world. Perhaps because the U.S is such a large, powerful and diverse nation, the country and its people sometimes do not look past its borders in trying to understand other cultures or countries. Perhaps the USA will always be the object of envy around the world due to the country's short history, yet historic rise to power and wealth.

Having travelled in fact to Cairo just a few years ago, it was evident that America was on the precipice of not being liked or, even, accepted as an ally in that country. Why is this? Without judging or pointing a finger of blame, can we, as a nation, look at ourselves in terms of sport and see if it reflects in any way our foreign policy?

The most often heard criticism in my time abroad was concerning our championship in baseball: The World Series. "How can you call it The World Series?" a forgeigner would ask me. Of course we poke fun at ourselves in calling it The World Series, when in fact we are really the only nation, other than Canada, that participates in the event. Perhaps calling it The World Series is a bit assuming. And before someone goes and says that baseball is played elsewhere, let's look at The Rugby World Cup. 20 nations attempted to qualify for the tournament and 12 played in the 2011 World Cup in New Zealand. Our World Series includes professional teams, not individuals playing for their country, in just two countries: Canada and The USA. If you look at the sport of soccer as America calls it (it's football in every other country in the world), the World Cup is an enormous sporting event with qualifying taking nations to other nations around the world. If we ever do host a global competition for baseball, what shall we call it? We've used "The World Series" on our own domestic product.

The Real or Royal Tennis Court at Falkland Palace, Scotland.

Perhaps, Americans learned from the British: Wimbledon has become "The Championships", which to me implies that The Australian, French and US Opens are meaningless. The ultimate golf tournament in Britain is just "The Open." Again, does that relegate The Masters to a secondary position? One could argue the Brits were there first. They tend to do this with firsts. I played rugby at Blackheath Rugby Club which was just: The Club. It was the first rugby club and hence called itself simply, The Club.

The British invented the game of golf on a cold, windy heath in Scotland during the reign of James V1 of Scotland, who brought the game to England when he ascended the Southern throne and was crowned James I of England. That was 1603. America was not yet born. Just 200 or so years earlier, Henry V hit a tennis ball for the first time in Falkland Palace. Christopher Columbus hadn't even been born. Yes, the British got there first. I guess they can call their championships what they want since they were the first.

Americans look at the Olympics as our national moment. The Today Show presents daily from the venue. That's how I know the importance of The Olympics. The Olympics are global but are also just once every four years. Americans simply do not play a sport that often for their country. The World Cups in both rugby and soccer (excuse me I meant to say football) are truly global. There are other international events in just those two sports: The Tri-Nations Rugby which pits New Zealand, Australia and South Africa against each other on an annual basis. There is the European Championships in football, again asking numerous European national teams to travel and qualify and then, hopefully, bring back the silver and raise the pride of a nation.

Countries have "friendlies" in many sports including football, rugby, cricket, and more. These countries often call an international match a "Test" match when it is nation versus nation, to differentiate it from a domestic match. We have no such differentiation here in the USA as we really don't require the terms - international matches just do not happen that often.

This experience of playing for or aspiring to play for one's nation is inherent in the upbringing of juniors in nations around the world. It's not in the USA. American juniors look to the NFL or they look to baseball and "The World Series". Neither of these sports are played internationally to any great degree. Baseball is popular in South America and Asia. One could argue basketball is a global sport and they would be right - but there is no Basketball World Cup. Only The Olympics serve in that regard for an international competition on a global scale for the sport.

Being not regulars in this environment, it hurts us as a nation when we play internationally. Our athletes are not used to carrying the weight of the nation on their backs. Just ask Andy Murray how this feels when he plays at Wimbledon. The sport, match and event go past personal ambitions - you are playing for the Stars & Stripes, the glory of America. You might even think you are part of the American Dream and have to prove it to the world. Immense pressure on an athlete that isn't an integral part of our rearing as sportspeople and this hurts performance.

Let's look at The Davis Cup. An annual, international tennis event, which for Americans, allows sportsmen to put their invidual and personal sporting achievements on the back burner and play for their country, their nation, their flag. We learn what it is like to play in a truly hostile environment. We learn, through sport, cultures of other countries. And in the past 20 years as a nation America has suffered in this international event. It's the same for the women too. The U.S. is 0 for 12 in the last 12 Federation Cups. We're suffering on the world stage in sport just as we are flailing in our foreign policy.

Sportscenter or Sportsworld?

As a country in which ESPN's "Sportcenter" tops the ratings, perhaps it is time to look less at ourselves and more at the world in regard to sport. In most nations, one of the highest accolades a sportsperson can receive is to be "capped", meaning that he or she has represented his or her country on a national team. Perhaps if America looks to "cap" more of its athletes in the decades to come, we will understand our foreign counterparts better. Understanding other nations through sport and culture cannot do anything but help our ailing foreign policy.

Davis Cup: Why America Struggles

Spain Runs Away With Singles Matches

The first two singles matches in this Davis Cup semi-final saw the U.S. drop both of its matches to go down 2-0 in the best of five match. John Isner and Sam Querry both lost here in Gijon, Spain to give the Spaniards the decided advantage. David Ferrer, still tired from a semi-final match in New York on Sunday at The US Open, outlasted Querry in 4 sets and 3 hours. It took 5 sets and and over 4 hours for Spain's Nicolas Almagro to gain the 2-0 match advantage.

Granted that the Americans are missing Mardy Fish who pulled out of the US Open with heart issues and the USA is playing in Spain, but to go down 2-0 so quickly is again another tough day in the history of the Cup for the Americans. In the past 25 years the USA has won the Cup just 5 times. In the last 15 years, the USA has won it just once. Spain has won it 5 times in the past 25 years. Serbia, a country with a population of just 7 million, has won it twice in the last 5 years! And here are the Americans struggling yet again.

This morning the Bryan brothers, who are 20-2 in Davis Cup play, will try to keep the American hopes alive in this semi-final and I am left pondering why as a country the United States has such difficulty in winning this competition. I believe there are several reasons, but two come to mind at the top.

#1 The Play In Spain Stays Mainly On The Clay

The Spaniards excel on red clay, which is the surface of choice for the nation with a population around 50 million. Rafa Nadal has dominated on the red clay of Roland Garros and Rome. The Spanish are dominating here in Parque Hermanos Castro in Gijon on the Northern coast of Spain overlooking the gorgeous Bay of Biscay. It has been a reign close to that of Sweden's when Sweden won 6 Cups in fourteen years. In fact, Sweden is the team with the most Davis Cup match wins since the Cup expanded to The World Group in 1981. The years of Mats Wilander, Stefan Edberg and Mikael Pernfors were a vintage era for Sweden. Borg had put Sweden on the Davis Cup map with an astounding 33 win match streak in Davis Cup play, a record that might never be broken.

Could it be that those countries with juniors that grow up playing the majority of their tennis on red clay have an advantage? It seems so in the past 25 or so years, especially in regard to the Davis Cup. Even those years where the Americans had Pete Sampras and Andre Agassi, the Americans have had a relatively poor showing at the Davis Cup.

In the USA, hard courts are the mainstay of the junior tournaments. Ame rising hopes are hitting balls on the cement or the decoturf in hopes of winning their home title: The US Open. Just as I would argue that the British juniors play much more frequently on grass with aspirations looking at Wimbledon, the Spaniards, and even the Swedes, look at the French Open and red clay is the surface of choice.

Does red clay allow for more stroke production than the hard courts of America or even the green, green grass of Britain? One would have to argue of course it does. As the slowest of the surfaces, juniors are allowed the time to learn proper swing technique with proper form, backswing, and follow through. Just looking at the history of the Davis Cup and the wins, those countries playing on red clay as juniors completely dominate the event. Let's look at it this way: the red clay courts at The French Open's Roland Garros require the ultimate in stroke production from the baseline and a repertoire of shot-making. The last American to win in France? Andre Agassi in 1999. Since the French Open "opened" its doors in 1968, only 3 Americans have won the French title. Michael Chang in 1988, Jim Courier in 1991 and 1992 and Agassi in 1999.

Perhaps with Andy Murray's win on a hard court, the British will realize that looking at the grass is just a small part of preparing a junior for the tour, the Grand Slam, and the Davis Cup. Americans should take note as well and look past just training and playing on hard courts.

In looking at the first two matches of this semi-final in Spain, Isner's 95 unforced errors really was too big a mountain to climb, even with his 24 aces in the match. His opponent, 12th ranked Nicolas Almagro, had just 52 unforced errors in the 5 set marathon. Unforced errors really point at the confidence of a player and his stroke production. Clearly Almagro had the hefty edge in this statistic. Stroke production rears its ugly head yet again. A big serve can get one out of trouble, but it can't win big matches all the time. One needs all the shots on the red clay - the slice, the volley, the swing volley. Sadly, Americans growing up on the hard courts, don't have the opportunity to work on their repertoire as much as nations with juniors growing up on red clay. The pace of the court is just too fast.

Reason number two that America struggles in the Davis Cup will appear in tomorrow's blog, but let's hope that, at least for today, the Bryan brothers keep the American hopes alive and their win avoids a white-washing at the Davis Cup, a world-wide tennis event that Americans should hold dear in their heart. Perhaps the next 20 years will mute my point and see the USA take home Cup after Cup... not likely but we can always hope.

The Roman Amphitheatre in Queens - Gladiator

Andy Murray holding the US Open Men's Singles Trophy last night in New York.

Watching Novak Djokovic play in solid blue shorts and shirt, matching his demeanor in this fifth set, I am trying to imagine what Andy Murray is experiencing on the blue New York court where true champions, or shall I say gladiators, survive.

Forget that Andy is the first Briton to win a Grand Slam title since 1936. Forget that he won Olympic Gold earlier in the summer. Andy has been at the door beckoning for a Grand Slam title just as golfer Phil Mickelson waited long and hard for his first title. It becomes a gladiatorial battle within one's self to achieve survival and victory.

I doubt Andy is thinking about Fred Perry and the last Briton winning the US Open at Forest Hills over 7 decades ago. Murray is thinking about each and every point and how he can win it. He says, after the match, he was thinking how he "can get through this match" as a victor. 

Fred Perry with the only grip of the day: Continental

Tennis is broken down to the minutiae of each point, each stroke, each tape-touching ball. We look to Chase Review for the slightest one-hundredth of an inch that the naked eye of a lines-person can't discern...for the final say on a Murray serve in the final game that catches the very corner of the ad court's srvice box.

The swords of each gladiator bear the logo of a world-wide brand, Head. And yet, surely,  tennis is really a mental game aimed at the head of your opponent when there is so little to differentiate a forehand, backhand, or serve between these two players.

Murray serves the 6th game with ease, putting the pressure on Djokovic in the crucial 7th game. In the heat of the 5th hour, this truly remarkable sporting achievement must be something worthy of Nero and the Roman Empire. And Djokovic, starting to suffer physically under the watchful eyes of those in the Coliseum in Queens, loses the game easily leaving Murray to close out the match on serve.

It's over and Murray looks as if he doesn't know what to do with no further play necessary. Since childhood Murray has been pretending, creating and replaying this moment and this scenario in his head. His mind's eye has him hitting a winner, but in reality it's an unforced error by Djokovic. However, in his time working toward this sole objective, there has always been another point, another match, another ball to be struck.

But before the crowd's applause, there is that moment of silence after the last bounce. A stillness.

There are no more points to be played. Survival, success, and victory are odd when finally they are achieved. How strange is it that they leave us all, in sport and in life, a bit bewildered and in awe of ourselves and, perhaps, a bit empty inside.

Americans At The Top of Tennis! Oh, That's Just Doubles

Why Doesn't Doubles Get The Coverage It Deserves?

We are in the middle of an era where the media is harping on about the lack of American tennis players. Hold on folks.The Bryan Brothers are the best in the world in tennis and have been for the past few years. Oh yeah, that's just doubles.

I was so happy to see a photo of the Bryan Brothers winning the US Open on the cover of yesterday's Wall Street Journal. It was a testament, finally, to the dominance of this duo in their respective sport: Men's Doubles Tennis. And, given, that the majority of the viewing public (those with the finances that US Open sponsors American Express, JP Morgan and Chase are all vying for) plays doubles, I am surprised that doubles does not get nearly the television or media coverage that singles receives.

When I go and teach a clinic and discuss how the Bryan Brothers play often I-formation or Australian, most of my students look at me with a dazed look and say: "We've never seen them play." We should feature these brothers - they are simply the best the world has to offer.

Just How Good Are The Bryan Brothers At Doubles?

They are the best ever. Full stop. As Roger Federer can be said to be the best ever with the most Grand Slam singles titles, The Bryan Brothers are the best in doubles, matching that feat. Not only did Bob and Mike Bryan win the US Open this year, they are Olympic Gold Medallists as well. It's fortunate for them their sport offers so many opportunities for glory, but for a super duo like this, with 12 major titles under their belts, they have taken many of the opportunities and have owned the doubles landscape internationally over the past 5 or 6 years.

Rachel Cohen, of the Associated Press, writes that the Bryan Brothers were inspired by the "Woodies" - Mark Woodforde and Todd Woodbridge of Australia, who in their time at the top won 11 coveted Grand Slam titles in the Open Era, which began in 1968. This week, the Bryan Brothers broke that record - one which I personally thought would never be broken as the Woodies simply dominated the doubles court at most major events. You can read Rachel's excellent article here: Rachel Cohen on The Bryan Brothers

The Bryan Brothers are now tied with  Bob Lutz and Stan Smith with four US Open titles.

If you don't remember Lutz and Smith - they won over 40 doubles titles between them and in fact Lutz was number 7 in the world in singles and Smith topped the charts at number 1. They were a dynasty. Now they've been surpassed and yet so few tennis fans even realize.

The Bryan brothers have now won a Grand Slam title each year since 2004. The scary thing? They play doubles so their professional shelf life is longer. The expiration date for doubles players - well don't we all still play it on the weekends? These guys are going to be around for The Olympic Games in Brazil in 2016! I wouldn't put it past them if we see them in 2020 either. What's another 8 years?

Grunts, Groans, Gamesmanship and Grandstanding - The Hindrance Rule

I frowned. I cringed. I found ear plugs. I finally turned off the volume. As Maria Sharapova and Victoria Azarenka hit the cover off the ball, the grunts and the exhalations became louder and more vociferous. I know that the powers that be in the television production trailer could turn down the on-court microphones. But that's not the point.

The point is that, in fact, both Maria and Victoria, are in violation of the Rules of Tennis. Both grunts on each stroke they took were long after their point of contact and therefore are a "hindrance" to the opposing player. The opposing player has the right to play the ball as it approaches without any interference from the other side of the net. A hindrance could be a hat falling off, or a doubles partner hitting a short lob and saying "back, back" to her partner... or a moan or grunt as we saw yesterday.

Before I go into the particulars concerning the semi-final, here is last year's final in which Serena Williams was penalized and lost a game due to an intentional hindrance.



This was a clear intentional hindrance with a shout out prior to Sam Stosur hitting (in this case missing) the shot.

Here is a clip from yesterday's match. You will note that both Sharapova's and Azarenka's grunts are heard long after the ball has crossed the net and are in fact tailing off just as the opponent hits the ball - just like in the Williams/Stosur match above.



Clearly, the grunts are a hindrance just as Serena's outburst prior to Sam's touching the ball. However, the interesting point to be made is whether the grunts are an "intentional hindrance". By the rules of tennis, there is no question. They are. And in fact, a point penalty should be awarded for each occurrence. Rule 26 reads:

If a player is hindered in playing the point by a deliberate act of the opponent(s), the

player shall win the point.

However, the point shall be replayed if a player is hindered in playing the point by

either an unintentional act of the opponent(s), or something outside the player’s own

control (not including a permanent fixture).

In fact, I would argue as a former ATP Tour chair umpire, that the grunts and noises are a deliberate act and an intentional hindrance - if not only for the fact that the volume of grunts goes up on winners and is lower on run-of-the-mill shots. We saw clips yesterday during the match of Maria Sharapova practicing - not a grunt to be found throughout the clip. Therefore, the grunts are in fact not something done unconsciously, but done with an intent to prove a point.

But the second half of the rule is what really should force the chair umpire into action and if I were in the chair, I would look at the second part of the rule to make this decision - "something outside the player's own control." Grunting, or the power to abstain from grunting, are clearly within the player's control to allow the opponent to hit without a hindrance. Therefore, these moans, groans and grunts are an intentional hindrance.

Needless to say the tennis was superlative. But, the gamesmanship was not. And it is gamesmanship, which is what the Rules of Tennis, at their core, try to uphold. I believe that the ATP and ITF should enforce Rule 26 as written and penalize the players according to the code. It would allow me, if nothing else, to enjoy the tennis without ear plugs.

The Spheres Of The Tennis Swing

In order to simplify a backhand or a forehand groundstroke, I often teach what I term "The Spheres of The Swing" which is another way of saying keep the racquet on one side of the body.

Often, a student will come to me and say he or she is late on most hits. Usually, what I see is that the student has taken the racquet back beyond the perpendicular (pointing at the back fence) and around behind their derrieres or rear end. If, as a professional teacher, you can see your student's racquet behind their butt, the racquet has gone back too far.

Rick Macci, one of the leading teacher's in the country, describes "tapping the dog" on the forehand as one way to stop the student from taking the racquet back too far. I use it as a tool to keep the racquet on the forehand side of the body throughout the stroke. If you look at the link below, Roger Federer hits the "tap the dog" position, which is palm facing down around hip height, at 0.48 seconds in the video. From there, he almost pulls his hand forward while extending his arm, which puts the racquet into the perpendicular to the net and back screen position just before the racquet head begins to move forward.

Remember this: If a student goes back too far on the backswing and behind their back into the other sphere, chances are they are going to be late making contact. Also, if the swing forward starts behind their back, their swing tends to be more circular, with a centrifugal force and focus, around their hips and bodies, rather than with a linear focus toward their objective and through the ball's path. Keep it simple and keep the racquet on the forehand side of the body while hitting a forehand and vice versa for the backhand.

A Class Act - Del Potro and Roddick's Retirement

Having seen Juan Martin Del Potro play at numerous tournaments and in Florida practicing several times, I had always thought he was disinterested in terms of his place in history. However, today, with his win over Andy Roddick, Del Po as he is called generally was a class act and I hope that the youngsters of today were watching as he took a back seat, albeit with a win, and allowed Andy his day on Arthur Ashe court.

Put yourself in Del Po's shoes. You can't win. If you win the match, you are "the loser" as you put the leading American player into retirement. If you lose, you're a loser on the biggest stage in tennis, losing to the 20th seed and ending your own tournament run.

Late in the fourth set, Del Po left a Roddick serve that was clearly out unchallenged. He didn't want to put the crowd on the opposite side of the net along with Andy. The Argentine kept a very quiet vigil on his side of the net and played possibly one of the best matches he has ever played at The US Open. He wasn't fazed by the emotions of the night, nor was he allowing Roddick to dictate the points or the time - he came out when the chair umpire called time and he took the full 25 seconds between points on each point. Calm, collected and poised.

What I found truly gracious was how Del Po simply said to Tom Rinaldi of ESPN after the match during the on-court interview that it was Andy's night and that he should take the microphone. Andy, as expected was emotional. And Del Po stood throughout the speech and the crowd's appreciative applause.

It was a great night on Arthur Ashe Stadium Court and it was a fitting end to a great career and a very good opponent proved why he is one of the classiest players on the tour.

The US Open - Entering A New Frontier & Era

The Stadium at Forest Hills

My first memory of the US Open is when it was held at Forest Hills and the prize money was something in the region of $25,000 for the champion. It was a quaint tournament, having moved to New York from its original home in Newport, Rhode Island, where it had started as The National Championship on grass courts.

I remember the move to Flushing Meadows and the USTA National Tennis Center. As a traditionalist, I was sad to see the move to hard courts, but the crowds and attention the tournament was receiving was forcing the move as it was outgrowing the club setting at Forest Hills.

Jimmy Connors had ushered in a new age with his two-handed backhand, his T-2000 metal racquet, and his brash, loud attitude on the court. Too often we remember McEnroe and his temper and tantrums, but Connors was there first. In fact, Connors is the only player to win the US Open on grass, clay and hard courts. I was lucky enough to be at the Open for Connor's win over Aaron Krickstein in 1991. Connor's 39th birthday couldn't have been more special. It put an exclamation point on his era and then allowed the new boys like Agassi and Sampras to move forward into the limelight for good.

But I think we are at a defining moment in tennis for both men and women. With Serena's dominance on the women's side over the past decade moving into its final years and Roger Federer not as dominant as he has been, we are seeing a host of new players and new attitudes and strategies enhancing the US Open. Interest in the sport is gaining and with matches lasting well into the early hours of the morning, the Open has become a prime-time TV event.

But what is different about the US Open having attended last year and going again this year, is the size of the event. Having been the first tournament with lit courts and being the only Grand Slam to have been played every year since its inception, it is again at the forefront of creating a special event. From the sheer size of its stadia and grounds to the live entertainment off the courts and the massive merchandising machine both on the grounds and through television and internet commercials, the US Open is perhaps now the biggest stage in tennis - bigger than Wimbledon Center Court. Even as a traditionalist, I have to say Wimbledon is far behind the Open in terms of grandness.

I am not sure it's good for the game or not. Time will tell. Perhaps we will look back in years to come and think of the US Open in 2012 in Flushing Meadows as quaint. Perhaps the tournament will move to Los Angeles and truly become a celebrity bash and a paparazzi field day. Perhaps it will grow to even bigger extremes. I am sure the players will be fabulous and the tennis superlative. They are the timeless chess pieces within a commercial marketplace.

That said, I wonder what the courts look like at Forest Hills this week. I still miss the sobriety and solitude of a bygone era.

The US Open Serving It Up Nicely

Perhaps I am more in touch with the matches this year as I grow another year older, but it seems to me that the level of tennis being played at The US Open is stellar earlier in the tournament. Yesterday's match with Andy Murray and Feliciano Lopez was truly an amazing shot-making display and I am enjoying watching Leyton Hewitt right now against David Ferrer

Maybe it's the stories behind the tennis that is adding to this year's tournament and I am seeing the play through rose-coloured glasses. Kim Clijsters finishing her career on court in the mixed doubles tournament... Andy Roddick announcing that his next loss will finish his career...Sloane Stephens making a mark on the women's side from the USA.

I followed Sloane last year as she powered up her tennis game. With a team of fitness and strength coaches behind her, she appears to have the discipline and the self-confidence to be a major part of the WTA Tour over the next year. She certainly shows great speed, agility and form while playing.

Perhaps it is that this year appears to be the year of the older male player - Ferrer... Federer... Hewitt... and Fish. Mardy is pushing his way through the draw and now meets Roger Federer, 4 months his senior - both men being born in 1981. Ah... 1981. John McEnroe was champ on the men's side and Tracy Austin beat Martina Navratilova in the final - 3rd set tiebreaker. I remember the match and I wonder if I will remember this year's final as well 21 years from now. I hope so.

Andy Roddick

I was watching on television last night along with the biggest attendance for an early round at the US Open wondering if this would be Andy Roddick's final match of his career. I was hoping it wouldn't be - losing to a newer kid on the block is not really the way one would like to bow out. Fortunately, Andy won.

Over his career, Andy has been tempestuous and resilient off court. Fabulous and lacking on court. His immense serve probably covered up a few weaknesses early in his career, like a backhand volley. But as he progressed through the ATP Tour year after year, he worked on his weaknesses and made perhaps his biggest impression by winning the US Open in 2003.

But for me, the indelible mark left on his career is the epic Wimbledon final against Roger Federer. If you would like a recap of the match, you can find one here at The Daily Telegraph: Telegraph Recap 2009 Wimbledon Final.

Andy is not my favourite American player - that will always be Pete Sampras on the men's side. But he deserves a great sending off. The media has treated him with disdain at times and yet Andy has been a Top 10 player, and ranked Number One back in 2003, for most of his career. Only a few stalwarts have been able to do that in the last 40 years and you can name them on three hands. Only 15 players have ever been ranked longer than Andy at the number one position.  And, to put that in perspective, Number 12 on the list of length being ranked at number one is the media's darling: Novak.

So, I look forward to watching Andy's next match and fingers crossed that he continues his run here at The Open. I think when history is written in years to come, he will always figure as a commanding performer within his sport and certainly at the arena that is the Open.