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.