Playing Unconscious Tennis

Teachers clarify four approximate stages of learning. New to the game, you are unconscious of your incompetence (pretty harsh eh). Take a few lessons and you become conscious of your incompetence. More practice and lessons and now you achieve occasional conscious competence. And if you reach the heights you will finally experience unconscious competence.

Certainly this creates a simplistic dichotomy – but also highlights how much mental effort occurs to play well.

Consider the following scenario with an unusual degree of unconscious competence – the server hits a big one, you ready to stroke it, the ball lands very close to the line, you meet the ball cleanly if not perfectly, and then a moment after the fact you see the ball out and call it so. Has this ever happened to you? Somehow in the wink of an eye your unconscious mind noted “fault” and felt “no problem,” but the stroke was already underway, you could not stop at that point, but uncannily you hit the ball perfectly. Worse, on the subsequent second serve you wonder why you can’t hit that ball as well.

Somehow Roger Federer knows this story.  Five consecutive US Opens and five consecutive Wimbledon’s.  And within that amazing run Fed hit the lines so many darn times.  In fact, in the early days of his run Agassi presented his greatest challenge.  At the US Open he beat Agassi in 5 sets in the 04’ quarters, and 4 sets in the 05’ finals, but what stands out in my mind was his Palm Springs 2004 semifinal victory, 46 64 63 – where on so many occasions after 8, 10 and 12 ball exchanges Roger absolutely hit the lines with repeated winners.  At that point in time his supreme confidence removed all doubt.  And doubt, to my mind, is the conscious estimation of possible failure.  Within that 10 grand slam run, Fed played unconscious tennis, and it showed.

Roger may rise yet again, but these days he appears less able to play the ball to the lines, and as regards Nadal that may be a necessity.  In fact, in his recent loss to Andy Murray at the BNP Paribas Open, he indicated perhaps an inability to thread the needle. The following post match comments from Federer tell the story, “Murray is a great counter puncher and reads the game really well.  He knows he doesn’t have to play close to the lines because he can cover the court really well. I think that calms him down mentally. I think that is why he’s playing so well.”  This type of observation never occurred during his Grand Slam run – I hope he finds that form again.  That said,  unconscious competence is darn hard to achieve, much less reachieve.

Takeaways.  I am not exactly sure how to advise you to access your unconscious tennis genie.  But I do believe that by exploring how those unconscious moments feel (when the ball is barely out just as you are stroking it) you can get a handle on playing less with your conscious mind and more by letting muscle memory take center stage.

Postscript.  For another look at playing out of your mind, in this case as regards Arthur Ashe, check out Levels of the Game by John McPhee.

Playing to Win – Playing Not to Lose – Fire and Ice

Points conclude either with a winner or an error, truly nothing more. And as far as errors go, some are forced, some are unforced. And whether at the professional, tournament or recreational level; the following dichotomy tends to describe nearly everyone; some go for broke, others play cautiously. Some add pace often blasting the ball, others borrow pace slowing the ball down with excessive spin. As regards patterns of play from the backcourt, the hitter favors down the line, while the pusher (for lack of a better word, though truly I find the connotation unfortunate) plays crosscourt.

As regards our Davis Cup squad, which incidentally has totally come together under the firm hand of Patrick McEnroe, James and Andy are fire and ice. Their styles could not be more dissimilar.

James Blake plays to win. He goes for his shots, rips the return of serve, and looks to finish the point with a monstrous forehand. When the ball falls in all goes well, when off by even the smallest of margins, this sometimes top tenner falls prey to lesser players. At the end of the day his style of play may be due less to coaching or conscious decision but rather simply to personality. With a career begun 1999, having amassed in excess of $6 million dollars, and a best ever ranking of 4th in November of 2006, who can truly quarrel with his tactics.

Andy Roddick plays not to lose. Positioned 10 to 15 feet behind the baseline (I assume Connors gave up trying to change him), he chips one handed backhands and over spins topspin forehands – truly this may not do much against Federer, but Andy is a closer in Davis Cup, a stalwart of the team, and wrapped things up on Sunday with a convincing three set victory over Wawrinka, 64 64 62.

Takeaways: When you are running wide and into the corner – what is your best shot?

Plan A – blast the ball down the line (Blake)?

Plan B – float the ball crosscourt (Roddick)?

Plan A reduces your recovery time, and generally results in a mad dash scramble from corner to corner. Plan B – generally prolongs the rally, and reduces your opponent’s offensive opportunities. And where James plays many fast and furious points, Roddick prefers the longer more drawn out defensive rallies. In fact, the first point with Chiudinelli serving to Roddick, the players exchanged 26 ground strokes before the Swiss tired of the exchange and ended the point with an error.

Could Blake learn to play with a little more defense? Could Roddick add a little more offense to his ground game? Tough to answer? Considering personality, history, and fear of failure, change can be a daunting task.

The real question is for you – what is your plan on court? How do you attempt to win? And ultimately, what is your decision tree when cornered?

In subsequent posts I want to explore the “midline of the opponent’s angle of play” and attempt to diagram consequences of down the line and cross court patterns. Truly this may be as difficult to explain as to learn, for in my own case it came rather late as a 30 year old former hard court player trying to learn backcourt patterns on the slow rubico. My friend Juan Weiss always told me to “be more patient” but the specifics of that patience is what I plan to explore with you.

Postscript. The best ticket in professional tennis (aside from a center court seat at a Grand Slam final) may be the Saturday David Cup doubles venue. In Birmingham, with the Tie even at 1-all, doubles was pivotal. A US win would give a comfortable margin with Roddick to play Sunday. A loss would create significantly more pressure where the US would have to sweep both Sunday singles matches. The Birmingham arena was packed, the noise was incredible, and where sometimes ATP doubles matches are an after thought, this was the real deal. And on this stage Bob and Mike Bryan were (as usual) superlative. Cruising early in the match, having won 40 of 47 points on their first serve, and breezing through the first two sets, the Swiss finally broke serve to capture the third set, and took the fourth set to tiebreaker. Tiebreakers can be all about luck, where a let cord here, a ball one inch out there, decides the set. But in this instance the US played spot on – Wawrinka and Allegro never converted a first serve (odd), the Bryans only hit one second serve. Result – 63 64 36 76(2).
The US advances to play Croatia in the quarterfinals.

Just how loose is loose?

Grip tension, holding the racquet firmly at impact, just how tight do we hold the racquet?  Good question, and probably many different answers.  We have all felt the racquet turn in our hand from off center hits, but perhaps the attempt to stabilize the racquet for the collision may lead to other problems.

Consider the following experiment recounted both by Stanley Plagenhoef (Fundamentals of Tennis) and Howard Brody (The Physics and Technology of Tennis).  A ball machine shoots a ball at a racquet fixed firmly in a vise, and shoots a ball at a racquet either hanging from a rope or balanced on its butt cap on a table.  So the contrast is between something firmly fixed, and totally loose if not unhinged.  The experimenters then compare the rebound velocity from the fixed and free racquet.  Stop for a moment.  Common sense tells us the fixed racquet will produce greater rebound velocity.

Incorrect.  Both balls rebound with equal velocity.  Explanation.  When the ball hits the strings a wave moves down toward the handle, but the ball has left the strings before the wave reaches the handle, nullifying any gain from the fixed grip.  I know this sounds crazy, and a few of the locals much smarter than me (quite a large group actually) explain that yes this is true.  Rebound velocity does not increase by tightening the grip.  However it will be true that the racquet will be less likely to turn in your hand, but that for better or worse is another issue.

So on your next visit to the courts, look at other players around you, evaluate for yourself the varying levels of tension you see – hopefully someone will appear graceful and flowing, not overly tight, and present a delightful contrast to others who over work the racquet, and often acquire tennis elbow in the process.

Finally, this past week we saw Pete Sampras in an exhibition at the SAP – and as ever the Sampras serve is truly a thing of beauty.  Loose, flowing, effortless, pinpoint accuracy.  And check out the grip – his fingers on the racquet hand are actually OPEN!!!

Roddick under (re)construction

Andy Roddick has chosen yet another tennis coach, this time Larry Stefanki.  From the list of Tarik Benhabiles, Brad Gilbert, Dean Goldfine, brother John Roddick, Jimmy Connors and Patrick McEnroe, Stefanki has now joined the effort.

Certainly Benhabiles got this thing started, and Gilbert was on board with the US Open title and the briefly held number One ranking.  But results have paled in recent years when compared with the early promise shown

Interestingly, Roddick has less a sense of court position and patterns of play at the net, than he does for the big serve.  But it is so darn hard to retool at any point in time, and perhaps harder yet at the professional level.

Stefanki has had a formidable resume working with John McEnroe, Marcelo Rios, Yefgeny Kafelnikov and Francisco Gonzalez.  So far he has had A-Rod on the track and eating far differently, such that he has dropped 15 pounds and covers the court much better.

But, can Larry remake this game, to add a real backhand approach, better volleying skills, a more consistent return of serve, and a less predictable pattern of play?  Well if pedigree counts for anything, Stefanki’s time with the legendary Tom Stow may serve him well.  Tom was willing and able to take anyone’s game apart, so much so that deconstruction may actually be an understatement. 

Coupling this incredible serve with the Tom Stow “All Court Forcing Game” would be just amazing.  Skills include borrowing pace from the baseline when returning serve, moving forward on any and all short balls, and a simpler more efficient hitting technique – for Andy could hit his groundies with far less tension and more effect.

Larry – I hope you can do it – the kid deserves more Grand Slam titles.

Nadal and the Two Handed Backhand

Serving wide to the backhand corner has been employed by serve and volleyers and now by the heavy baseline players.  And when returned poorly, most points end with a winner to the open court.  Certainly Rafa sidepsins nearly every ball to the Fed backhand in the ad court.  And the wicked spin, coupled with a more or less average backhand return, gives Nadal a constant advantage in this court, and may also partially explain why Fed struggles to convert break points.  The similar tactic occurs when Fed serves out wide in the deuce court – but – as we all now see the Nadal backhand may be every bit as deadly as his forehand. 

Remember years ago when Edberg kicked the ball up and out to the backhand corner of the ad court, most one handers struggled to get the ball down to Stefan’s net rushing feet, and his Wimbledon and US Open titles are a testament to his kick serve and volleying prowess.  But over time, Jim Courier developed a strong two handed reply, and after an initial loss to Edberg in the US Open finals he reversed form at the Australian Open.

The current trend in the modern game is to play with more and more topspin, creating higher and higher bounces, and over time this does in fact create problems for the one handed players.  Indeed, the lower bouncing grass courts at Wimbledon served both Sampras and Federer well.  But as the ball gets up on the backhand wing, the two handed stroke has definite advantages, and we see this clearly with Nadal.

Where once the game was played with one handed strokes, and players moving forward – Laver, Gonzalez, Smith, Ashe, Newcombe, Roche – the list goes on and on – now we are are adopting a backcourt game with heavy semiwestern topspin forehands and deadly two fisted backhands.  And just as Sampras modeled his game from videos of Rod Laver, we have legions of youngsters emulating our new King – long live the King – his name is Rafa 

Nadal – who else

I was riveted to the television screen in the early morning hours – pulling for Federer but equally if now not more so, coming to love the game of Nadal as well.  Though this is a game that you and I play, as well as enjoy as spectators, truly these guys do things with the ball, from positions on the court that I believe you and I will never truly understand.  As close as Federer hit the ball to the line, as forcefully as he dictated play, Nadal answered time and again with outright winners from unimaginable positions.

But at this point in time, it is all about Nadal on break points, Nadal in the fifth set, and Nadal absolutely refusing to lose.  Patrick McEnroe spoke of Rafa’s uncanny FOCUS against Roger in the fifth, and this is not about hitting big shots or elevating his game.  It is simply about the refusal to make mental errors, refusal to lose his nerve, and refusal to make errrors.  Against Verdasco he never faced a single break point in the fifth set and won an astonishing 100% of the points played on his own second serve.  Against Federer, same story, he never faced a single break point in the deciding set.

And as champions have distinguished themselves with the best second serve in the game – Sampras, or winners from any part of the court at any time – Federer, now it is the impenetratable will that elevated Nadal above the pack.

In his interviews he graciously deflects praise but insists that he is always getting a little better.  If that is so we are in for an amazing ride.

Sampras and his record can breath easy for a while – thanks to Rafa the King.

Welcome

Playing this wonderful, challenging, yet sometimes terribly difficult game gives you and I a lifetime of tennis fun.  But to my mind, there are so many elements to master, that it can be nearly impossible to sort out the grips, the stances, the tactics and so much more.  And to view many of the magazines, it appears we are simply given a host of tips without any way to categorize or simplify the material.  To my mind, and reader I sincerely believe this will help you, there are simply 5 fundamental areas, the 5 lessons (to borrow a phrase from Ben Hogan) as it were, that give you the keys to playing better tennis.  Further, as I know more about your game, I can direct you to the specific lesson that will most address your present needs.  Simply put, there are 5 keys, 5 areas of mastery to play this game well.

1. Balance Posture Leverage and Footwork
2. Hitting the Ball
3. Spinning the Ball
4. Court Awareness
5. Getting into the Point

All the posts, instructional products, webinars, evaluations and more will fall within one of these simple five categories.  And I believe that the simplicity that flows from these five keys will open the door for you to significantly improve your game.

When you are green you are growing – when ripe you fall off the tree – here is to the green and the growing !!!!!

The Split Step

If you are as much a fan as I – then we are both so looking forward to the upcoming 2009 Australian Open. Will Nadal extend his dominance over the men’s field? Can Djokovic defend last year’s title? And what of Roger Federer – does he still have more in the tank? In the last few months he has accumulated more and more losses, but the record of 14 Grand Slam titles is so tantalizingly close. And in the women’s game, it feels to be a wide open draw – with Ivanovich, Jankovic, Safina and the Williams equally in the hunt.

But, imagine for a moment the classic tennis commercial where the spectators move their heads from left to right, following the ball from one end of the court to the other. Interestingly the same thing occurs when we watch a match on television, that is our eyes follow the ball.

In this way we enjoy the match, watch the incredible movement and shot making, but entirely lose track of if not the awareness of the split step – the all important readiness that occurs each and every time the opponent hits the ball.

So try the following the next time you view a match (either live or on television). Watch one player the entire point, if not the entire game. Do not follow the ball, but listen closely to the hit on the opposite side of the net.

Then observe when where and how the player you are watching splits. Does the split occur before during or after the opponents hit? Does the hit occur always on the center of the baseline? If not where does it occur? Are there times when a player runs through their split, and if so what has occurred to enable them to do that?