A New Year's Serve

[bottle]

Revision

Four counts to get slightly bent arm parallel to the sideline, with fourth count, the stepping out, completing the job. The racket tip spirals slightly ahead of hand upward to a final position one could check in any clip of John McEnroe's backhand. The racket is really not very high. The tip is more around than the hand.

I find the mechanics of what then happens in count five, the hitting count,
complicated enough to require school work, i.e., study. After that, as everything blends together through practice, count five can become a simple drop and hit.

Next step, after that, might be to eliminate counts or beats altogether, after which somebody could simply describe this one hander as a gradual take-back followed by a drop and hit.

I think one reason nobody-- or should I say I myself-- ever thought to use McEnroe as a model for this shot before is his unusual grip: big knuckle on
1.5 . I've decided not even to worry about where my big knuckle is, and I'm putting heel of hand on 7.5 . And I just played a match, 6-1, 6-1, and I'm a little hyper sometimes but I'm nevertheless telling you: No backhand I ever tried comes close to beating this one.

[bottle]

Body, Arm and Soul

BODY is a backward-spinning vertical wheel. One could think of a Ferris wheel or a water wheel.

Front shoulder is down for the step-out, which of course means that rear shoulder is raised. Backward wind of the hips under the shoulders causes this. In other backhand designs the shoulders may wind around more. Here, we let ourselves be satisfied with a modest internal shoulders turn so as to achieve some downward slope. This results in a feeling that the entire body is cocked and ready to go downhill, along with a healthy, power-producing wish to delay the step-out until the last possible instant.

This preparation, which comes from the charming and provocative old VCR "Virginia Wade's Class" combines nicely with the ideas that step-out will complete the job of getting arm parallel to sideline and that racket should stay below rear shoulder. A very good question: How low CAN the racket be? Virginia Wade demonstrates her topspin backhand in the short VCR but demonstrates and EXPLAINS her flatter version, in which shoulder stays down so that arm, almost squeezed through a tunnel, can "really rip the ball." I wish I had extensive stop-frame film of Virginia Wade's topspun version. She might or might not do the same thing as John McEnroe.

Of great importance, I think, is total relaxation of the shoulders immediately after the step-out so that their quick leveling becomes part of the natural racket fall. I've searched for a cue that might help with this including "angulation" of the hips forward (from skiing) or maybe concentration on relaxing or not concentrating at all.

What body things happen next? 1) front leg extends, then 2) rabbit punch takes body off of the ground after contact, for a balanced landing on either foot frequently more toward the net.

ARM meanwhile is doing incredible things. I've listed them in this thread before but maybe want to do so one time more in hopes through alternate phrasing of making clear something difficult or previously misunderstood maybe even by myself. Even though Petrarch said, "He who knows how he burns, burns little," we'll defy that, take that chance, go for the Faustian bargain.

Let's return to Virginia Wade, this time to her description in the same VCR of how, in a serve, a proper pendulum action can take one's racket effortlessly down and up all the way toward the back fence. That's simple compared to what we want here, to put strings on outside of oncoming ball without relinquishing any of the subsequent strength and leverage we will unleash with our rabbit punch.

The shoulders, leveling, start the racket fall which continues with arm straightening as forearm pronates-- a lot of fall and gravity-assisted momentum a person would be a fool not to use. But the temptation to let the racket fall near body is resisted since you would never get strings on outside of ball that way along with loss of force. Arm swing is instead along a plane around body and out from it.

Is the gravity-assisted momentum still in effect then? Can it go around corners like a plumber's snake?

It can if you roll wrist straight (from forearm) and roll elbow down (from shoulder) and swing arm a little (from shoulder) with these simultaneous actions also in tandem, i.e., they begin together and they end together.

Most often front knee also extends during this mix.

[uspta146749877]

Stealing is a cardinal sin

Please read

http://www.tennisplayer.net/bulletin/showthread.php?t=1446

post #7

[bottle]

Very Bad

Good. I've always wanted to be a sinner. And now I'll do something I didn't plan-- report an experiment before I've even tried it. That must be the worst
behavior possible on this earth.

Wanted: More authority in guaranteeing that strings in a one hander make contact on outside of ball. The question posed in # 212 is whether gravity-assisted momentum can go around corners like a plumber's snake. Well, if you reduce sharpness of the corners the task becomes easier.

So, why lower racket behind you-- from arm extending and forearm pronating.
Let body start the fall-- that's behind you-- but then slant the extension to the outside and proceed as usual.

The End

[bottle]

In Which this One Hander Rejects a Hard Roll and Digests a Soft Roll

A person can end with a slow, widening affair in which forearm ease-swings horizontally around before whole arm continues this ease-swing at which point he delivers the upward glancing rabbit punch via some opening of wrist. Schematically, this is interesting what with the constant lengthening of effective lever, but does it work? Yes if you don't rush anything.

If roll has a part in this, it's mild. One escapes the ever so stinging criticism leveled by a prominent tennis wag at Boris Becker: "He rolls his arm too much when he hits the ball (gasp)." Uh, three Wimbledons discounting doubles.

John McEnroe, on the other hand, does most of his rolling behind his back before he starts to swing. And guidance hand is close to body in the old swash-buckling pose of knight preparing to pull sword from its scabbard, which nobody ever said should point in a certain direction.

Going with a previous idea to keep roll of forearm, straightening of wrist and roll of upper arm all simultaneously in tandem, you can do this behind you as
hips go out, upper body straightens backward. This certainly resembles what
McEnroe does, in fact HAS to do, given his slice grip-- how else could he get his strings square and often beveled other than by turning his elbow down and humping his wrist like an inchworm? Well, with heel of hand on 7.5, you want similarly to turn elbow down and take wrist from concave to straight. McEnroe, he takes wrist from straight to convex. But it's all the same. You can ask your strings. They're very honest and will tell you. And you can do it behind your backward-straightening back.

Ever so slowly, I am concluding that the fact of roll rather than the when of roll is the big factor in getting strings to outside of ball in a position far enough back that you're strong. ("If you hit the ball TOO far in front you get weak"-- Ivan Lendl.) But there is nothing inherently wonderful in roll. To reduce it, you can tone down dive-bombing on the take-back, i.e., do lead with racket tip but not so much. And if you keep elbow pointed down a bit even in take-back you can flex or pronate forearm to get that loading action out of the way.

If any of this seems strange, it could be because very few teaching professionals since Lloyd Budge have trusted their students enough to speak in terms of mid-stroke alteration to wrist. But major alteration of wrist is what
McEnroe and many other playing pros do and for good reason.

[julian]

From W.Safire

A linguistic question for you-
in your quote "preparing to pull sword from its scabbard, which nobody ever said should point in a certain direction." is "which" referring to :
1.a sword
or
2.a scabbard ?

[bottle]

Or Even More Pertinent, Pointing Which Way?

Ah, my old friend the late William the verbal but war-mongering Safire:
"I got you, ha-ha, I got a rise out of you-- knew I could, you nattering nabob of negativity!"

I'd say if the sword is in the scabbard, why then everything is pointing in
one of two different directions and nowhere else. But if the sword won't come out of the scabbard, it might as well be set in rock, and if it still won't come out, you can't be the king of England.

I'm thinking in a one-hander the butt-cap on the sword handle could point at
the left fence post across the net of a lonely, single, mountaintop tennis court in Virginia built by Senator Paul Laxalt, former 15-year-old champion of Nevada and the best tennis player in Congress.

That would direct the scabbard point at the right fence post behind you if you were right-handed. If you were John McEnroe, the scabbard, sword and racket would all be quite level and parallel to the court surface at that point, which would probably be enough to make you fail a theatrical sword-fighting course.

Who cares what happens to the scabbard once the sword has left it! Does the racket go around perfectly level before it rises up or does it slant up or down a little? I don't know-- probably depends on which way the elbow
is pointing. When I look at the TennisPlayer filmstrips of McEnroe I see an
approximation of level swing before the racket goes up.

I may be unduly influenced though. With me everything is experiential, i.e., I have to have the experience myself. And I was in Budapest, Hungary because of this crazy lady, and I was in a big inflated bubble over red clay. I was watching a bunch of under-employed tennis pros who were holdovers from goulasch Communism all working with a couple of promising juniors. I couldn't understand a single word but did follow some of the body language, and what they were showing to the one-handers was to swing level before the racket goes up. There's nothing like a non-verbal tennis lesson to make an indelible impression.

Thanks for the input. None of those juniors made it to the top.

[bottle]

Oh Yeah, the Grammatical Question

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." --Ralph Waldo Emerson, not Fred, though maybe Fred agrees.

So I'm not a stickler for grammatical rules, which are never as absolute as some people think anyway. And I'm quite sure that the good grammarians, like Safire, are more interested in clarity than ironclad rules. It almost has to be true of a newspaperman. But I taught college English not too long ago and was surprised by the desperate need that some students felt for a grammatical curmudgeon. They'd never encountered an actual teacher who was anything like Safire, and I found this sad. They'd only had permissive English teachers and never a single strict one all the way up the K-12 plus ladder. So I tried to perform that role for them while being more permissive with others.

The sentence referred to by USPTA146749877: "And guidance hand is close to body in the old swash-buckling pose of knight preparing to pull sword from its scabbard, which nobody ever said should point in a certain direction."
The pronoun "which" pretty clearly refers to the antecedent "scabbard," I think. When writing I don't reflect on grammatical rules any more than -------77 or I reflect on minutiae of technique in hitting some backhand during a match. That work has to have been accomplished before. During childhood would be good but one can't always have that.

I don't seem to get called on grammar too often, but this is a good spot-check, like freezing the end of the circular swing on a topspin backhand, to see if you're going to get strings on outside of the ball. I re-examined the sentence with some trepidation but was pleased to see the antecedent to "which" just in front of it or as close to it as it could possibly be. I learned that as a principle in eighth grade English but again in newspaper and magazine work. If you want to be clear, put the antecedent as close as possible to the relative pronoun. Words in between may or may not create dissonance and incomprehension. If "which" refers to sword, not scabbard, the sentence is truly lousy, but I assure you I meant scabbard. Maybe if you always keep antecedent pretty close to relative pronoun you build up some credibility and people won't think you're a fruitcake too much. Think of all the people who haven't been hired for some job because of a grammatical slip.

This discussion is not as irrelevant to tennis teaching as some may think. Every good teaching pro I've known, except maybe one of those goulasch Communism era Hungarians I was talking about (they'd been drinking and falling apart, and could you blame them after all those sport subsidies were cut off?), had an excellent command of English and was a hell of a good talker, starting with Shea Brown, Jim Kacian and Walt Malinowski and ending with a bunch of virtual friends here and at other tennis websites. It's a requisite, isn't it? Or does somebody think they can teach tennis with a video-recorder alone?

Both images and words know how to obscure, I'm afraid. One tries one's best. The biggest cop-out is not to take on anything too difficult. Do that and you can look great any time and probably get the girl, too.

[bottle]

Chicken Wing Revival

Everybody agrees that a chicken wing backhand is the pits of the world. On the other hand the rabbit punch method I've been advocating postulates a slow racket approach to the ball followed by a violent rip as you clench your two shoulder-blades together.

If you're coming around so easily and feelingly and touchingly to the outside of the ball what possible difference could it make whether this finesse starts from near or far? And if there's no real difference, why not choose from near and steal some time for yourself and live easy?

To run the experiment, simply follow the prescription of the last several posts, only point the handle end of your sword scabbard in front of you at right fence post. This is a complete change of fence posts from the John McEnroe model and is accomplished by eliminating the easy long-arm swing from the shoulder joint. Now the instant the arm eases straight you rip.

You may think I'm joking. This shot, however, if not immediately as effective as the other, is just as promising. I like especially the way leg extension from knee blends with arm extension from elbow-- very simple.

[bottle]

Which would you Prefer: A Good Cue or a Complete Scheme?

Well, at the very beginning you might need the scheme. Or depending on the way you learn, maybe scheme out at one quarter way into your career. If trying to channel your caveman forebears you wouldn't want to get overly conceptual too soon. The better you then get, the less information you will need and in fact require-- yes you MUST shrink the information down again. And when you achieve the ultimate athletic prowess of Buddy Apollo, the cue for your next stroke might be something as simple as the sound of the ball leaving your opponent's racket.

In the chicken-wing-to-rabbit-punch one hander I have started to examine, certain invitations for a new cue quickly become apparent. Since the stroke is more minimal than John McEnroe's, which is exceptional for its extreme minimalism already, there aren't any ready made conversations available. So one is more apt to make up stuff on one's own. Since the preparation is to the side rather than behind, it falls within one's peripheral vision.

We've felt that in the McEnroe model and the present one both, an essential ingredient is rearward straightening of the back to make it tall and at the same time lower the racket. I've suggested that you could send out your hips beneath your shoulders for the same result. Now, however, you can see your hands and racket and make them loop through solid connection for identical result.

So we now have three different cues for the same body action and are poised to choose the one we like best, maybe a different one on a different day.

[rosheem]

I'll take a good cue any day

That is why I am such a big fan of Doug King's articles. They're full of little cues, and many of them seem to click with me right away. He does a great job of describing how things should feel.

Then again, sometimes it helps to watch video clips over and over for about 20 minutes before I go out and hit...no words or cues at all.

Even better, hitting with someone who hits exactly the way I am trying to hit. That way, I can shut down all of that noisy left-brain nonsense and just plug into the rhythm and go.

Interesting path you're on with the one-hander. I haven't had a chance to really dive into each post, but I see some things that I've worked through and continue to work through with my own one-hander.

My tendency is the lay-back (or cock or bend) my wrist too much in the backswing, which leads to trouble squaring up at contact, which then leads to needing to use the wrist to square up at the last moment, which is not good (at least with my grip, because it usually results in the shear you wrote of).

Would be interested to hear more on weight shift, as I tend to get on the right foot to early and sometimes make contact with the left foot off the ground (not always looking like the pros who sometimes do this).

[nabrug]

Well, at the very beginning you might need the scheme. Or depending on the way you learn, maybe scheme out at one quarter way into your career. If trying to channel your caveman forebears you wouldn't want to get overly conceptual too soon. The better you then get, the less information you will need and in fact require-- yes you MUST shrink the information down again. And when you achieve the ultimate athletic prowess of Buddy Apollo, the cue for your next stroke might be something as simple as the sound of the ball leaving your opponent's racket.
....
So we now have three different cues for the same body action and are poised to choose the one we like best, maybe a different one on a different day.

I prefer a teacher who will not tell me but just teach me (my body) the inner system of nowadays tennis strokes. And than let me (or better let my body) decide what caracteristics I am going to use in a given game situation.

So there for, for example, is footwork always a caracteristic and not an essence of tennis stroke production. But having that said, after first teaching the inner system, I offer set footwork patterns to my players (I do the same and other things like Bailey*). Unlike the essence I am open to the outcome. I let the body of the player decide what footwork works for him. But I think in offering the footwork patterns the body can experience a few new ideas.


*Like Bailey and others I stole all the caracteristics and essences from the top players. Nothing original from me. You can see the footwork patterns in every match. There is where I got it from. I think you even see it better when you know the inner system because caracteristics always have to support the essence of stroke production.

[bottle]

Tennis: A Set of Delays

I'm with Oscar Wegner in complete opposition to set footwork patterns. And "characteristics" and "essences" seems to me one of those academic European intellectual distinctions that makes me glad to be a simple-minded American. So, sorry, Nico, I guess I'm as opinionated as you.

Rosheem, I like Doug King, too, but think he's SO persuasive you sometime have to watch out, e.g., all his beach ball stuff, which wonderful and stimulating as it is, has little relevance to a Federer type forehand. More specifically, he had me convinced for a long time that the wrist ought to be going backward, cushioning, as you contact the ball. Now I think nothing of the sort, but of course I've since had ball-dropping experiences of my own and the benefit of Carrera Kent's intelligence as seen in this forum. I now see a "mondo" where wrist lays back and an "anti-mondo" where it closes at last instant to take racket tip way out to right. That's thinking of arm system as separate from body-- a bit confusing. Also, when wrist opens forearm rolls down (sim); when wrist closes forearm rolls up (sim).

On one hander I like your question about weight shift and discussion point on wrist. On "weight" I remember Peter Burwash's old arguments in "Tennis" and his book TENNIS FOR LIFE about the inconsistency of players who seek a perfect, cross-over-the-bridge linear weight shift that can only deliver desired weight into the shot some of the time. He was for getting out on front foot instead as the rule. I translated this in my own words to "Step, press, hit."

Studying the John McEnroe clips has made me aware of a later kind of weight shift judging by where his feet often come down. I think I've noticed him landing perfectly balanced on one foot or the other but with BOTH feet often ending up closer to the net. But I don't think he ever leaves the ground before he's hit the ball. The legs take him up as his racket swings around on slightest of downward trajectory (net effect: a level swing), then the rabbit punch starts just before contact. If you're going to fly, the best time is after contact and only as natural result of all that came before.

On "wrist," I'm intrigued by your saying that you lay back wrist in the back-swing. What's wrong with that? It can stay there for slice (with a slightly different grip unless you're McEnroe). For topspin drives you do need to close it straight but why does this have to be last moment? I've done that but don't recommend it. Maybe what I'm about to lay down here and wrote before I knew anybody would be responding today will help:

On one hander: Step, press, delay, hit. Seems much too much. But it's all after you've delayed the step-- taken together, fast and continuous in other words. And everything is so stripped down by now that's possible.

The press, for which I found three different cue options, now earns a fourth:
Turn key in ignition to send hips forward, shoulders backward (and with the racket arrangement going down because, though twisting, it's solid with the shoulders coming back.)

And "turning the key" reminds to cock the forearm slightly the other way as part of the slow take-back before that. I want a little tension between coiling
forearm and elbow staying down a bit-- as everything goes back.

Great control of wrist straightening in speed and amount both comes from combining the move with forearm roll. And we're rolling bent elbow more down at the same time, all part of the press.

Next comes simultaneous straightening of knee and easy straightening of elbow (I call it a delay because you're trying to touch the ball without getting violent yet).

Am ready then for A) rabbit punch or B) no rabbit punch but arm lift up and out for more of a finessed but still top-spun shot.

[rosheem]

1HBH: Development 'Ceiling'

I just went back and read through a whole bunch of pages in this thread.

It's interesting to me, because I have engaged in the same kind of "note-to-self" exchanges throughout my two years of learning this game. The only difference is that I was emailing myself instead of posting to a forum. I also have a notebook in my tennis bag.

As for the backhand, I have chosen to model Kohlschreiber. Obviously, his grip is more behind the handle than McEnroe. There are probably certain elements of the stroke that are tightly tied to the grip and some that may be more universal. I have worked through, and continue to work through, many of the issues you have raised throughout this thread.

When you first mentioned Don Budge, I initially thought "why would anyone want to model such an old-school stroke?"

Then I went and looked at the clips of his backhand. Very cool. Surprisingly "new school" and very athletic-looking. It would be great if we could see it with modern high-speed cameras and different angles.

I have a large, unfinished basement. I use it as a drop-hit laboratory. The ceilings are only about 8 feet high or so. Not a problem on the forehand, but I have smacked the rafters plenty of times on the backhand follow-through. That makes it difficult to really pull the trigger on the stroke when I'm working on it down there.

The way you've described the action of the wrist from concave to straight or straight to convex is one thing that I'm not sure of, and I wonder if it relates to the grip difference. I seem to produce a more consistent shot if I keep the wrist relatively stable.

One thing I really like to do when working in my drop-hit lab is to simulate an open-stance backhand return-of-serve. This forces me to really work the shoulder-blade squeezing action, which I find translates to well-hit shots.

As for the Doug King issue: The way I see it, no matter how great something is, there is always room to question it or test out other views or approaches. I saw that there was a big debate on another thread between the double benders and "The Imitative or Federer-influenced Category of Modern Retro Forehand" camp.

I love Federer's forehand. I've tried often to imitate it. I think there is a sense of freedom and flexibility when the arm is liberated from the body. I understand when some instructors say that it's too complicated for the club player to model, but I totally disagree with that view.

Before I stumbled upon Doug King/Jeff Counts, though, my attempts to imitate Federer resulted in unreliable contact; too much of a sidearm axe-throwing motion and too much racquet speed too early in the stroke.

Now that I have improved my timing and have learned to manage my racquet better and manage the flow of energy better, I can feel the Federer forehand in a totally different way. But in the process of all of this, my own forehand has emerged and I'm pretty happy with it, which allows me to take a position of neutrality in the debate. I'm sure some would argue that this is not possible, but I don't see it that way.

Anyway, I've only been playing tennis for two years so it will be a while before I feel like I'm in a position to state that one way to do something is better than another. I'll throw a dash of this or a sprinkle of that on my forehand any time, and I hope my strokes never lose the plasticity to allow for that.

I really enjoy your writing. Thanks for continuing to share. I'm wondering if we can hope for a new thread title, though. (I enjoy the individual post titles, by the way) Maybe for the new year?

[bottle]

An Old Year's Backhand

Fabulous stuff. Just what I've always wanted to see. I'm afraid to look at Kohlschreiber's backhand, though. I'll do it but might not ever be the same.
I like John Yandell's theory of "flavor of the month," but have to say, the urge to mimic and imitate is very healthy (if a bit time-consuming) and keeps the sport alive and people young and leads to unexpected discovery and maybe even to some ideas the "experts" didn't think of. The trouble with experts and playing pros is that their livelihood is involved and they just about always go with things that caused them to win before. What if every playing pro has an
inner Andy Roddick serve that doesn't look anything like Andy's serve,
but we and they will never know because they're not sufficiently interested
in accessing it the way the angry teen-ager Andy was? It does take something special to be an inventer, even a bad one. Tour technician Ben Ford suggested that it takes the experience of old age, but Roddick's and Lendl's youthful inventions defy that, and Rosheem doesn't sound anywhere near as old as Ochi and me...

About moving wrist-- I don't have much information, to tell the truth. McEnroe certainly does it big time but I can't tell if he's also opening it during
contact. Anyway, I got the idea from reading Lloyd Budge, Don's older
brother, the guy who lured Don away from baseball to tennis, and also from the tennis writers Talbert and Old, combining extremely sketchy information from both sources. Lloyd's book,TENNIS MADE EASY, is considered by some one of the best half-dozen tennis books ever. It's certainly low key, which is nice. There's a lot about tightening up the bone-muscle structure in the wrist just at contact. And with all the teaching pros around who want to emphasize basics (nothing wrong with that so long as they don't get wheedle-voiced about it and pedantic and chase people away), it's my contention that the basics haven't changed as much as the chauvinists of modernity would claim.

Here's what I wrote before I read Rosheem's entry (everyone should have such a basement as Rosheem's-- sounds a bit like the set-up where Tony Roche developed his volleys). Look at John McEnroe again. Does he use the same sequence you (I) do? No. Does he inchworm his wrist exactly when you roll yours straight? No. There appears more SIM (simultaneity) in his level swing; perhaps there's more force also and it's not a "feel" as I have conceived it. The inchworming, it seems, might occur either behind him or when he rounds the corner.

I still like my idea of keeping roll behind me and then feeling for the ball in two linked parts-- 1) forearm swings on still elbow, lengthening arm, and 2) the lengthened arm continues to outside of the ball and 3) the rabbit punch lengthens effective fulcrum a second time as it finally accelerates the racket head from one's spine.

But is the transition from 1) to 2) also accelerative? Are you shifting through first, second and third gears or from first directly to third? I like from first directly to third but maybe that's personal preference. It allows hand to proceed at constant speed to ball by slowing down the long-armed part of easement "swing" just a bit.

This discussion so far pertains to the longer, more McEnroe like version I've described in recent posts. While I've no doubt considered having one option defeat the other for purposes of developing myelinization or muscle memory, right now I feel like keeping both.

Short version: Excellent for service returns, taking ball on rise, dealing with jammer balls when I otherwise might be late. The shot is very solid and good for re-directing the other person's speed.

The longer version is a little more comfortable, however, despite pretty good efforts to make the short stroke rhythmic, also. There is more space in which to hit the ball: It's a more relaxed way to play; whenever I have time this can be my staple backhand (I'm thinking right now).

One stroke I fully designed but plan never to use involves rolling arm behind, thrusting with leg as forearm swings arm long and then swinging hard with an independent arm swing to rabbit punch one-two sequence. It was good at daydream level and worked in dropping-ball practice; but, I think it will become unreliable if I subject it to the slightest pressure or even to an oncoming ball (the first one I tried went over the right fence, which pleased
my opponent even though he had to go and get it).

So if I want to hit a supersonic backhand, which I would only do from now on as a reward to myself for getting WAY ahead in some match, I will hit a Virginia Wade flat backhand, something I learned about 25 years ago from the VHS VIRGINIA WADE'S CLASS. That's a shot where you delay step-out, keep front shoulder down and maybe use a gravity drop for some free speed after which you squeeze arm through the low tunnel created by your still downward sloping shoulder. Unfortunately, I wasn't then able to make the transition from that to the Queen's Jubilee's Wimbledon Champion's topspin backhand.

Recently, I saw a DVD of the British comedy team Saunders and French in which a very attractive lady announcer interviews Jennifer Saunders and Dawn French after they have just lost in doubles 6-0, 6-0 at 2002 Wimbledon.

"Can you explain why you lost?" the announcer asks.

"Lack of ability," Saunders says.

"Can you think of any British woman tennis player in the past who might inspire you?"

"Well, uh...Virginia Woolf."