She Sliced and Diced and Mentally Overpowered A Champion

Novak and Roger may play tonight, but the real story at this year's US Open is Roberta Vinci and her defeat of Serena Williams. Williams lost in the semi-final to Vinci, known more as an Italian doubles player, and fell short of a calendar grand slam.


Roberta Vinci. Unseeded. Ranked outside the top 40 in the world. Vinci may have lost in the final, but she showed how you beat a champion and a bully. She held her hand up and asked the champion to wait. She turned her back to the vocal shouting. She didn't break down when Serena yelled across the net. The Italian doubles specialist was first to her chair on the changeovers covering her head with her towel. And she hits a slice, one-handed backhand with very little pace and proved that slicing and dicing takes no prisoners.

Rarely in her career have we seen Serena hit a slice backhand, or a forehand for that matter, but this world number one doubles player from Italy forced one of the greatest players of all time to change her game. There wasn't much pace coming from Vinci's side of the court. Brad Gilbert calls her "DaVinci" and she lived up to that name as she sliced, diced, angled and artistically stroked her way to a victory ending a Grand Slam run - a feat only completed by three women previously and just one in the Open Era.

But Vinci changed the mental game as well for the first time ever on this American champion. She won over the New York crowd. Vinci stayed the course. As the match hit two hours, Serena tired but grew vocally louder. Every winner with punctuated with a screaming exclamation point. Vinci took no notice. She's 32 years old - no intimidation here. She's seen it all before. Vinci tossed and served and didn't take note of Serena showing her Nike's dress back straps as she tried to hold up Vinci's march to dominance. Vinci held her hand up when the Champion was ready to serve saying: "Just wait a moment - you make me wait on my serve? I'm gonna make you wait on yours." This Italian was not going to cower. She owned the court. She owned the crowd. And, she won.

The tennis was not stellar. Vinci took Williams out of her comfort zone, with drop shots, sliced backhands and approach shots, volleys and dozens upon dozens of lobs. Serena rarely sees a one-handed backhand - there are only 2 one-handed backhands in the top 100 women in the world. But what we forget is that a one-handed backhand hits the ball much earlier than a two-handed backhand. Serena wasn't prepared for the earlier contact of the ball - the Champion was on her back foot continually even on her masterful forehand. Serena hasn't seen slice like this in years. And she hasn't seen an opponent mentally as strong as Vinci was on this day since Sam Stosur defeated her on the same court in 2011.

Roberta Vinci may have ended a Grand Slam run, but she probably brought tennis back to a reality with a win reminiscent of a McEnroe, Edberg or even a Nastase. Let's see if Roger moves up to the service line on Novak's serve and plays more like a doubles player, reminiscent  of a Bob Lutz or a Stan Smith... or even an Italian doubles player named Roberta Vinci.

Doubles Strategy - Thirds Of The Court - Play Hockey Goalie at the "T"

Everything in life seems to be able to be broken down into statistics or rules or a theory. While grinding out my Sea Captain's license I learned the rule of sixths - there are 6 hours in each tide, with the most water running in and out of the tidal basins during hours two, three and four. In music, you have the circle of 5ths... a geometric relationship between the chord structures and harmonies in Western music. We all know the law of diminishing returns, and let's hope that does not pertain to our tennis games!

The Rule Of Thirds

In doubles, there is a rule which every player, from beginner to advanced, should know. The Rule of Thirds. When playing doubles, one should divide the court into thirds and cover the court in accordance with these thirds. Basically leave uncovered the third of the rectangle on your side farthest away from the ball being played by your opponents.

The red lines above delineate the court into thirds essentially. For an example, let's just say you are returning the serve and hitting the return from the "A" position and that you hit cross court back to the space where the "Player" is now hitting the ball. In effect, how would you shift to cover this wide ball? Well your partner who had been at the hotseat would hopefully close toward the net and follow the ball into the third of the court to the left and take a position close to where it is marked "C". But here's where most of us make our error.

From position "A" the returner should really move into position "B", slightly staggered in order to cover the lob. But also, really straddling the center service line. Why? Because the center service line marks the center of the middle third of the court. So, you and your partner are clearly covering the 2 thirds of the court closest to the ball being played. You cannot cover the entire rectangle that is your half of the court, so you leave the third farthest from the ball -('A') effectively uncovered - it is the hardest shot to hit for your opponent.

Where we make our mistake is not covering the alley when we are moving to the far third to position "C" - we usually do get there. Where we make out mistake is not straddling the center line and covering the "T" - where the center and service lines meet - like a goal keeper as most balls returned are going to cross that area. We have to move from "A" to "B" quickly and decisively.

By covering the two closest thirds of the court to the ball, we are in essence taking the easiest shot away from our opponents but also moving the "center" of the court to the left. The seam between us as a pair has shifted left and that is why it is essential to really straddle the center line to cover a shot that actually follows the red line through the court which is the seam between positions B and C at this point.

"But Coach, what about the uncovered third?" Well, in reality, you have most of it covered. A cross court lob deep to that third is the longest path for the ball to travel and the player in Position "B" can easily cover it given all that time. And... if the player at the "B" Position moves forward and cuts off an angled return headed toward the alley, only the alley closest to the net is completely uncovered. If your opponent makes the shot, give them a hand. It will be a rare occurrence. Good Luck!

The Greatest Player Of All Time... In My Book

So, over the past three months since I put this question out there, I have had people stop me, Facebook me, and write to me with their nominations. I list a few below and the validity of these nominations are truly excellent.

Jimmy's matches were always something special!

Jimmy Connors - Did you see the ESPN movie about the 1991 US Open in which Connors at the age of 39 defied the experts and beat Aaron Krickstein in probably the best remembered match ever in US Open history? Someone asked me this just recently. It changed Krickstein's career forever and was perhaps the greatest match of all time. I was outside the stadium in Flushing Meadows and hearing the electricity in the crowd was unreal. But one match and a comeback at 39 does not make Jimmy the greatest player of all time.

Martina Navratilova some of you have said. She's right there. What a player - going for broke and changing the way women played our lovely game by approaching and coming to net. One of the matches I remember most as a young player was the US Open final in which Martina lost - to Hana Mandlikova. Probably the greatest women's match ever played. But Martina's story behind her tennis is simply amazing. Leaving her communist heritage, moving to the States, breaking the homosexuality border in our sport. We have her to thank for a lot in our sport and in our world. Her persona is one of the biggest in sport. All this while winning 59 Grand Slam titles. Are you kidding me? Oh yes, and 18 singles grand slam titles - that's one more than Big Rog folks.

Oh but wait, Chris Evert has 18 Grand Slam titles as well. Can we include her in the conversation. You sure can. But, for me, she's not the greatest to ever pick up a racquet. She was a grinder from the baseline who outlasted opponents rather than beat them. But, she was a fierce competitor and a truly great champion.

Pistol Pete Sampras - Perhaps the most efficient player ever to play tennis and having just been surpassed by Roger Federer regarding Grand Slam singles titles ever, he is up there in my book too. His rivalry with Andre Agassi was one of the greatest in the history of all of sport. I can remember watching Pete win Wimbledon during my college years and just amazed at how he changed his entire game to win that coveted title.

This is a never-ending debate and I have thought long and hard about it as naming the greatest person to ever hit a ball in your sport is actually quite terrifying in a way!

So who's left?

You've probably guessed it. Serena Williams.

Best Player Ever...In My Book.

Serena has, like Martina before her, simply changed the game of women's tennis. Singlehandedly. We had all heard back in 1996 and 1997 that the younger Williams sister was going to be the better player but, rightfully, many questioned her stamina and desire to win at that young age. Would she live up to the hype and the reputation she was assuming? A big assumption.

She did and she continues to do so. Ok, so she's only 7th on the all-time Grand Slam honor roll with 32 titles to her credit. She's tied with "Fed" at 17 singles titles. I do think she has a few more singles wins in her. But, in this era of open tennis with massive qualifying events, the growth of the WTA over the past 20 years, and tennis rising once again to be one of the most popular sports in the USA and the world, Serena has been at the top of her profession since she turned professional at 14. And honestly, I don't see her grip of the "racket" sliding much. In fact, 2013 was probably her best year ever.

But in reality, her grip should be sliding. Let's put it this way. She won her first professional title in 1998, five years before Roger won his first. She's 32, same as Roger. He's spent more time at the number one spot, true. So has Steffi, Martina Navratilova, Evert, and Martina Hingis. But none of them took years off to fight injury or depression after the murder of a sister. In fact, after her break from tennis and restarting in 2011 after a pulmonary scare, she is 158 wins with 11 losses.

But Serena, and partly her sister Venus, have changed the face of tennis. One-third of all new junior players are either African-American or Hispanic. Television ratings for Serena are some of the highest ratings any sport has ever seen, including American football.

Serena, like Navratilova, had her own demons to overcome. Fighting racial hatred among the predominantly white juniors on the USTA junior tour while living in California and Florida, Serena also fought with her emotions. Personally, I am not a big fan of her personality, but how can you deny she's one of the fiercest competitors to ever take the stage on a stadium court - male or female.

But the main reason for Serena being the best that ever played? Well it's just that. When she is at the top of her game, she simply is untouchable and unbeatable. No one comes close. There is no one who can even come close. Her serve is up there with most male players at 125 miles per hour. Sharapova, Clisters, Henin, Capariati - all of her rivals pale in comparison. Sharapova, for all the love we have of her and how we think she is great, has just won one set since 2008 against Serena. Since 2004 Sharapova has this hallowed record against Serena. 1 win, 14 losses. Hello?

For Serena to be this dominant in a sport (even with her loss yesterday at The French Open) and with all that she has gone through... to accomplish her goals and be the highest paid sports woman in history... in all of sport...it just makes her the greatest all round player of all time.

This week in Paris will be interesting in that if both Venus and Serena win another round, they will have to play each other on the red clay of Roland Garros. Well, my pick will be Serena. But, Venus might have something to say. She has the best record against Serena although it's not a winning record. But I think little sis is just too good.

Roger Federer - The Best Player Ever?

One of my colleagues, Mary, said that she has to hand it to the ESPN commentators covering the US Open. "What other sport can last up to 4 hours with just 2 people to talk about? How can they fill all that time?" You're right, Mary. And, of course, while we were watching the Roger Federer's US Open at the hands of Tommy Robredo two nights ago, the issue whether Roger was the best player was discussed for at least 3 of the 32 games.

I love making lists, and on my list Roger is third. You may ask why. Here's why.

Number One, All-Time Primary Reason. Each and every great player in a sport has a rival, someone who brings the best out of his or her game. One thinks of Ali and Frazier, Bird and Johnson, Nicklaus and Watson. These are storied rivalries. In tennis we've had Navratilova and Evert, Sampras and Agassi... for Federer, that rival is Rafael Nadal. Between the two gentlemen, they have held the top two rankings in the world for close to 4 years, roughly 2005 through 2009. And in such great rivalries it is usually the case the two have close head to head records: Navratilova led Evert 43-37 for example.

Nadal 21 Wins, Federer 10 Wins

This is remarkable. Nadal really has Federer's number. And before you say anything: on each surface. Nadal has won 13 of the 15 matches they've played on clay, 7 of the 13 matches on hard courts and one of their three encounters on grass - that one win in the perhaps the greatest final at Wimbledon... ever.

One can argue with me that you can be the greatest player of all time based on number of Grand Prix wins, based on a sport's domination for 9 years, based on his or her game. I take all those into consideration and they are important. But I would also argue that if one were to be the greatest player in the world that we've ever seen, one needs to have a closer record against a rival. To have lost more than half the encounters begs the question: How can Federer be the greatest player of all time if he can't even beat the rival of his own era?

With Roger's career coming to a close I am sure in the not-too-distant future, I think this question is at the heart of the debate and a great debate it is. Keep thinking about it and perhaps it might help you to come up with your own list of the greatest of all time. I'll let you know who my number one and two are soon - and maybe there's a new one coming down the pike. Let's hope so. We're gonna miss The Fed more than we know once he hangs up his racquet.

The Evolution of the Grip and The Loss of The Continental

I was told one day years ago the following: Tennis was developed in Continental Europe and therefore the real first grip used was termed Continental. When the New World (i.e. New England) took on the sport of tennis, the Eastern grip was really developed on the East Coast of the United States. As you move the grip around the racquet, you move Western. The Western grips were established by West Coast American players and finally the Semi-Western and Full Western grips by the Australians.

Now, I cannot find anything to back that up, and the basis of the story may or may not be true. But, it's a nice story to use when teaching children tennis and geography and to use the sides of the racquet as a globe as you move around the world... and the racquet.

In doing some research, the 1860s saw the use of a Western Grip - and we thought it was a new grip in the 21st Century (well at least I did)! And perhaps my story above holds out as Californian Bill Johnston played our splendid game in the early 1900s and used his Western Forehand grip to help the USA win seven consecutive Davis Cups. His forehand was considered the best in the world at the time and he finally relinquished his number one American rank to Big Bill Tilden in the early 1920s.

The modern game of tennis sees most of the students learn a forehand first and usually, with an Eastern grip where the knuckle is straight behind the racquet's grip, taught primarily to help juniors with their groundstrokes. For years, through the 1960s and 1970s, many students of the game, initially held the racquet with a continental grip and then moved over to the Eastern grip. This is how I learned and, perhaps you may call it old school, there are some advantages to this progression or at least familiarization with the Continental grip.

Once we are out of our comfort zone at the baseline, the Continental grip is ubiquitous. In reality, any time one moves forward, the continental grip is really the grip of choice. There are several reasons for this and many of my students ask "When should I change?"

The only time I can think of keeping your full forehand grip, whether it be Eastern, Semi-Western, or Western as you move into the court and toward the net is on a ball that is presented to you above waist height where you can really hit top-spin on an approach shot. If the ball is low and forcing you to reach, well then the "Do the Continental with me..."

The Continental grip really forces the racquet head to angle upward underneath the ball at contact if contact is made in front of the body. Therefore on any low ball, requiring slice or simply to get it back up over the net, the Continental grip alleviates the flat racquet head position with the strings flush to the net which is caused by an Eastern or Western grip.

This comes in handy on a low approach or a low volley. I harken back to Andy Roddick, who too often didn't change to a Continental grip and one can remember how many balls would be caught by the net as he approached. The picture above illustrates this. The racquet head is flat to the ball and flush to the net, whereas a continental grip in the same situation would allow the strings to be angled upward.

One of the greatest players at the net and inside the court was Stefan Edberg. I had the opportunity to practice with him just prior to Wimbledon years back and at the net he was flawless. I use a more recent photo, but look at the Continental grip and the angle of the racquet as it approaches the ball.

Same ball, same place on the court... different racquet and hand angle due to the grip. In fact, I think you can spy his index finger up along the back of the grip. The next time you practice volleying, try just volleying with your index finger and thumb on the racquet and controlling the racquet head angle with the heel of your hand. Those three points of contact are really what control the racquet in a Continental grip, not fingers three, four or five.

Unfortunately, we teach the Eastern or Western grips all too often and all too long with our juniors who spend hours on the baseline. A good opponent, noting that you are not comfortable at the net, will bring you in to net and test that volley. Once you leave the backcourt, you leave that grip behind at the baseline. Andy found it hard to change and if he found it difficult to change, as one of the best players in the world, so is a junior looking to climb the rankings who doesn't practice it or learn it early on in development.

If one feels comfortable with the Continental grip, they can remain in that grip for even a return of serve if they feel they don't have the time to change grips on a service return. Once at net, no need to change grips between a backhand or forehand volley or an overhead. All Continental. Simplicity.

In each lesson, I try to reserve at least 15 to 20 minutes of the hour to working with a continental grip - whether it be for the volley, approach shot, overhead or serve. A good junior player, in fact any player, should feel comfortable with the Continental grip. And if you are an odds maker - well that's four strokes with a Continental grip compared to the one stroke for the other forehand grips.

 

 

The Drop, Technology, Media and The Penalty of Being the Best and Worst in Sport

Technology, Media And A Penalty Drop

After his round Friday, Tiger Woods was just behind the leaders and thinking how he could overtake the leaderboard on the third day at Augusta. He received an early morning text message to meet with the Rules Committee and was told that he was receiving a two-stroke penalty for an improper drop.

The rule, in and of itself, is vague. The rule stipulates that after entering a hazard an option is to: "Proceed under the stroke and distance provision of Rule 27-1 by playing a ball as nearly as possible at the spot from which the original ball was last played." But, this is golf. Rulings are always complicated. But now, they take on even more complexity when the media, television and Twitter are involved.

A television viewer initially made contact with a Rules Official at Augusta noting that the drop on the 15th hole was in violation of the rule. The Rules Committee investigated and decided that no rule had been violated. Then, Tiger, as he does so often, said too much. In his television interview he said that he had dropped "two yards" behind his original divot and hit the same exact shot. The Rules Committee then decided that there was intent to achieve a better position and thus assessed the two-stroke penalty. All because of a television viewer and a television interview. My question, initially, was where was the Rules Official walking along with Tiger's threesome? Obviously not on the ball if he or she didn't notice a "2-yard" difference. In fact, it looked more like two feet in reality. But, then again, a good on-course official may have been able to avoid this whole issue. As a former official, I look at the official on the spot.

A friend of mine asked yesterday if Major League Baseball could have changed the first base call that cost a perfect game. First base umpire Jim Joyce cost Tigers' pitcher Armando Galarraga a perfect game back in June 2010 when, on replays, he clearly missed a call at first base on the last out. We all saw it. Major League Baseball and Jim Joyce had to stomach the mistake and move on. Viewers called. But there was no change in the call.

On Friday, viewers called, the Committee made an initial decision, viewers called, Tiger spoke, The Committee changed its ruling - it's hard being the best in the world. Everyone sees you and actually listens to you.

Did we see every swing of the club of Adam Scott on Friday? No. How about Angel Cabrera or Brandt Snedeker? No. But we saw almost every stroke that Tiger took, including the drop. If we hadn't, Tiger would be just two strokes off the pace. Being the best in the world has its drawbacks.

Technology, Tennis And The Penalty Of Being A Lower Ranked Player

While on tour with the ATP Tour as a chair umpire, a similar outcry came from the players who were not on the same level as the tennis Gods of the time: Jim Courier, Andre Agassi, Pete Sampras and Steffi Graf. The lesser players felt they were being penalized by Cyclops, and then Hawkeye. Now known widely as Chase Review, the system that can verify a ball being in or out at professional tournaments, the ball tracking system is not on every court at every tournament in the world. It usually is found on stadium court and perhaps another "show" court, as they term it in the industry. I find the term "show court" an interesting one as it denotes a difference from other courts.

Show Courts and Lesser Courts - all are used at tournaments but all do not have the same number of officials or Chase Review.

I always felt that lower-ranked players were penalized long before the Hawkeye system. On the tour, televised courts receive a bigger plethora of line umpires. If you look at a televised court, there are almost always three officials along the back screen on each side. One umpire calling the center service line and an umpire on each sideline. The non-show courts have just two officials at the back of each court and one official is required to run from the center of the court after calling the serve to the sideline. I know while I played, I found this quite distracting. As an official, I found it darned right difficult to cover that sideline after a 126 mile-per-hour serve.  But television, in its way, demands a bigger and better team of officials for the "show" courts. It demands Chase Review. And that actually makes for better line calls.

Walk, Talk and Walk

Sports personalities, as they gain insight into this media age, will do the walk on course or court, talk the interview and keep it short, and then walk away from the microphones. Twitter has, on so many occasions, created celebrity sports figures wide-ranging issues. As we pass through the Social Media century, I believe we will find that more and more celebrities and sports personalities will clam up. Tiger's post-round interview on Saturday was a lot shorter and a lot sweeter than normal. He probably doesn't want to get another two-stroke penalty, unwittingly.

As for us in the industry, we should perhaps revisit the rules of our individual sports and realize that perhaps instant replay is not always the way forward. Perhaps Major League Baseball has it right not allowing instant replay or review. The call on the field stays in almost every situation. The rules are part of the game on the course, court, field - wherever the game is played. The rules should stay on the course. They should not be subjected to the Twitter and Social Media fad, which will come and go. Golf, and its archaic rules, will be here a lot longer than Twitter, and even Tiger.

Time To Make The Call

There are certain times of the year that bring into relevance how quickly time flies and how a year, which seemed to last so long when we were children, tends to shorten as we grow older.

My daughter just turned four this past week. For us in our 40s, a year goes by so much more quickly than when we took in everything as kids. My daughter said, "Daddy I was three for so long." Whereas to me, it seems like yesterday I was helping the nurse put sensors on my daughter's chest to ensure her heartbeat was regular after walking her from the delivery room. A former tennis partner once said to me years are simply shorter as you get older. She was right.

Years are marked in different ways: Holiday songs started to be played on the piano in our household around the 10th of December... Strawberries and cream in late June for Wimbledon weekends on the television... unpack the football or rugby ball in early September for those crips Autumn weekends.

But there is one, absolute moment, when I know summer is just around the corner. I am sure it is the same for many people who visit the islands in the summer months. It's the phone call to or website visit to The Steamship Authority - the company that ferries the throngs, the workers, the visitors and the islanders to Nantucket and Martha's Vineyard.

Three days in the truck ready to load on to the ferry.

There is a sense of calm when I look at the schedule and see four boats debarking from Woods Hole to Vineyard Haven four months away. There's always a bit of trepidation that all the ferries are going to be sold out, but somehow, even when sold out, there's a way those ferries fit most of the "standby" line alongside a truck or deep in the corner of the vessel.

I park my truck on the deck, stretch my legs after the three-day drive from Florida, go upstairs and grab a beer and head outside onto the passenger deck to watch the Vineyard appear over the horizon. Yes, that rock - it's still there a year later.

For years, I visited Nantucket. All through my post-college years, I rented a house on Surfside Beach in early September, after the throngs had departed back to their suburban homes. Nantucket felt more real at this time. Albeit having been there on July 4th to mark our country's birthday is a great day on the island, I prefer the quieter times on the island where I have unrestricted access to all of Nantucket's natural assets and beauty.

The same holds true for Martha's Vineyard. I arrive there in early June to "set up shop" and unpack for the three months during which I call the island home. Restauranters are remodelling for the season, white lines on tennis courts are being laid out, and there's only one boat working the three car ferry to Chappaquiddick - The Chappy Ferry. I have time to meet people and enter into real conversations in comparison to during the season when I gasp for air and collapse into my apartment at 7.30 to cook and sleep. So early June is the time to rest up, enjoy and relax with the possibility of experiencing all that such a wonderful, special island has to offer.

I've arrived.

It's a strange feeling indeed. When I turned my back on the Vineyard last September and boarded my ferry home, I couldn't wait to get onto the mainland. But now, I am looking back ready to get on that spit of sand once again and enjoy the summer months with friends and acquaintances I have made. It's like the conversation never ended and the 9 months on the mainland were simply a blink of an eye. How time flies as we get older.

I have new tennis drills and ideas ready for the season, goals set in terms of work and finance, but that seems to take a back seat to the evenings bicycling past the gorgeous homes with the warm, amber lights radiating out onto the cobbled streets.

And, unfortunately, the time flies by and before I know it, it's Labor Day. I'll be ready for the migration South, but will know this feeling will be around faster than my daughter's birthday in February.


Yep... back to the website. I think I'll go on the 10.45 from Woods Hole which gets me into Vineyard Haven for 11.30. Get some time to visit The Black Dog before I head over to Edgartown to let the summer begin.

Inauguration Day and an Inaugural Run At The Australian Open

New Year's Eve may come and go, but I always get a bounce in my step in mid-January every four years when the USA shows that we can do pomp and circumstance pretty well. We may not have a King or Queen, but we do lay out the red carpet for our president every January 20th.

This inauguration was no different and I watched intently as Barack Obama and the politicos in our nation's capital put on a show. I have to say, Beyonce Knowles has a set of pipes and the arrangement of our anthem, The Star Spangled Banner, was one of the best I have ever heard. If you haven't heard or seen it, here is the performance. Beyonce Knowles National Anthem

That aside, we Americans have some business "down under" in Australia, another "colony" which in fact still has The Queen as Head of State. In a very interesting match, the up and coming American Sloane Stephens, will take on Serena Williams on Wednesday in what might prove to be a match for the memories. The time is coming when Sloane will take over the American baton in this sport's relay and it might be at this tournament that she appears in the theatrical spotlight in this inaugural run in the first major of the year.

Sloane has the power and athleticism to compete with Serena who has been playing some of the best tennis of her career over the past two years. They both have power games and big serves. Stephens at the age of 19 is in her first major quarter final and in the biggest match of her career as of yet against her country woman. Serena and Sloane are friends and practiced together frequently while playing the Federation Cup.

Whereas Serena is playing through her matches quite easily, Sloane had some tough struggles to get to this point in the tournament and this may in fact serve her well as she has been tried and tested in the Melbourne stadium. Serena has not been and nerves will play a role here for sure.

She may not win her first quarter final tomorrow, and in fact Vegas has Serena as a heavy favorite, but I think Sloane's time is here and she will take that baton from Serena soon enough and it may be as early as 2013. I'll be tuning in late night.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.