Inability to hit winners

[johnyandell]

Really, surely then, your tone has been misunderstood.

[sejsel]

I really prefer people who write essays than people who don’t make the effort. The word essay was used by sesjel.

If there is a negative connotation with this sentence/word you have to go to sesjel who first used this word. I only wanted to express that I appreciate people who make the effort to explain their thoughts in a thorough way.

I, for one, appreciate people who make the effort to understand thoroughly other people's thoughts and comments, even when they are put concisely, in a few short lines.

It seems - from all of the posts from the member quoted - that he appears not to have succeeded entirely in that.

One coach I have the privilege of knowing, one of about most knowledgeable people in tennis today in my consideration (during now over 22 years of my involvement in tennis) never gave opinions (on hardcore tennis issues) larger than 2-3 sentences.

He has more formal tennis education and playing and coaching experience than most ( if not any of us at the forum and wider ) will ever have.
Things and predictions he made about:
-some of the top 5 players then
-technique, biomechanics of tennis
-methods of teaching and training and practicing, on any level...
-...the list could go on forever...
every single meaning turned out exactly as he said it, and stands 100% or more - more than 20 years after.

Every of those few words had so much substance, and every single one can be seen, more than clearly, and in various vays, in very top levels of pro-tennis - today more than ever.
And not everything he said coincides (well, if anything more than elaborations on tactics) with the adopted school of thought of the quoted member.

I could write 10 times as much (and very specifically) on these issues, started in this thread, - as the member quoted at the beginning - however, seeing the tone and the contents of some of the statements and the remarks being written in his posts, I am not certain it would really be worth an effort.

I have seen similar kind of mental and other types
of approach to tennis, and thinking in tennis, taken by the people who have fared themselves to prominent positions in tennis on national level in some countries, resulting in devastating long-term consequences for generations of kids and the state of the sport in general in the whole communities - nationwide.

I knew and predicted what and why it will happen back then as I know it and see it now. I was not, nor I am alone in seeing it and saying it.

If there is a negative connotation with this sentence/word you have to go to sesjel who first used this word.

Negative only for someone who's nerve can be struck by it.
I would try to see it positively instead.

P.S.
More on the specific issues of this thread later on.

[sejsel]

I just reviewed half of the recent match Roddick-Federer. Roddick gets lot of opportunities to put pressure on Roger’s game. He gets lots of balls in zone 3 (low + bounce from service line till middle of back court). (I don’t think that anyone can make/is making power shots from there.) Most of the time he tries to approach the net with a top spin shot against the base line with a lot of power. And he gets punished at least 90%. That is why I think Federer is creating this game situation on purpose over and over again. Federer loves the power Roddick puts in his shots. Like Nadal loves the power of Federer.

From the beginning of tennis history the game developed. If one invented one year not to stay at the base line but go to the net and won most matches the next year somebody came up to lob this person and bring him back to the base line.
I am a Game Based Approach coach. What was good a year ago can be old and not relevant this year. So with all the respect to what coaches have achieved in the past if they don’t change with the changes of the game their remarks can be not relevant anymore. So from what I saw I conclude that the coach of Roddick did not help him with answers in the game situations against Federer. So to a former writer who claims that there is so much experience so they would have mentioned all the options already several times I disagree. Please do not understand me wrong concerning this. I think nobody has answers to the gameplay of Nadal right now. And do not understand me wrong concerning Roddick’s coach. Maybe he had a major contribution in getting Roddick to the semi-final. Maybe he changed Roddick to hit this forehand because he saw that the odds were in favor of using this stroke.

The big change in history IMO is what I tried to explain several times before is that the hitting zone of Nadal (with his Fh2/Fh2A technique) is 8 to 10 bigger than an other player. IMO you will need something beyond a gift from God to beat Nadal if you want to use power shots. IMO that is not likely to happen. And so IMO we have to look in other directions.

Possible answers to the game play of Nadal lie in:
1. understanding how counterplayers use your energy. What do they like and what do they don’t like.
2. understanding Nadal’s huge strike zone.
3. understanding Nadal’s technique (FH2(A) and BH2(A)). It will give you answers in what he can produce in different game situations. You might also want to use some of his technique against him.
4. the two examples I mentioned earlier in this thread. Exploring zone 3!
5. the last match Simon-Monfils.
6. the match Murray-Nadal just prior to the Australian open this year which Murray won.

I would like to open a new thread about the differences between Ideal Technique Approach (old school) versus the Game Based Approach (new school). GBA is based on an incoming ball and an outgoing ball. The stroke you produce depends on 1. the Observation of the incoming ball 2. the Decision you make 3. your Technique and 4. the Evaluation of former shots (ODTE). So in GBA there is not one perfect stroke but there are several perfect strokes depending on the ball trajectory you want to produce. And the technique is only a part of producing a stroke and not the only thing like in ITA. A GBA coach will first look if a player can solve a game situation and will first look in the opponents court if the player can achieve his goals. Than if the percentages are not okay than you will look at the player and you have to find out which of the 4 (ODTE) you have to improve. So in this vision technique is only a means to reach goals and not a goal in itself.
So maybe now you can understand that answers like : “Possibly Andy is rotating more than extending compared to previous day.” are not interesting for GBA coaches. In it self it can be a right statement but you have to narrow it down and be more specific. I also read a question about which tension you have to use in a volley grip. As a GBA coach that question just gets relevant if after a long road of examinating the problem the tension is the dominant cause of not achieving the goals of the player. From my experience I think that the tension of the volley will not likely be the dominant cause in volley errors. I think that dominant causes of error lie in much more basic things concerning the volley. Do not understand me wrong here again. The question can be very interesting. It is like some people are looking for the perfect service movement. Although it could be far more effective for their game to use a solid “ugly” service motion with which they can achieve their goals. GBA is more about accepting the player and his technique like he is and helping him with his game in winning more matches in stead of forcing him towards “our view” of the ideal technique. The interesting question in this “Would the young Nadal got the chance to develop like he did in your group?” Or would you have changed him?

Nico Mol
Amsterdam
Holland


P.S.: I really prefer people who write essays than people who don’t make the effort.

There are efforts in one's life and one's involvement in tennis besides and beyond writing the lines in this (by me highly regarded) forum.

There's also much to be won in keeping the content and the tone of the debate civil and relaxed.

[gsheiner]

I, for one, enjoy Nabrug's insights although I do struggle a little bit to understand exactly what he is saying. I believe this is due in part to the fact that English is not his first language.

Nabrug -- I get where you're coming from in the Game based approach and I think there's tremendous merit in the practicality of this approach to players at all levels.

Where I have trouble ( and I think others as well) is understanding what you mean by your description of the forehand techniques. On this site, we have learned to describe the forehand using language like extension, wiper, double bend, straight arm, reverse etc.

I struggle to know exactly what you mean by forehand 2a/2b or forehand 1a etc.

Is there a way for you to reference video clips that establish what you mean by different forehands? Or perhaps, make a little video that explains what you mean?

Again, Nabrug I appreciate your insights and would just like to be able to fully get what you're saying.

Cheers,

[nabrug]

I, for one, enjoy Nabrug's insights although I do struggle a little bit to understand exactly what he is saying. I believe this is due in part to the fact that English is not his first language.

Nabrug -- I get where you're coming from in the Game based approach and I think there's tremendous merit in the practicality of this approach to players at all levels.

Where I have trouble ( and I think others as well) is understanding what you mean by your description of the forehand techniques. On this site, we have learned to describe the forehand using language like extension, wiper, double bend, straight arm, reverse etc.

I struggle to know exactly what you mean by forehand 2a/2b or forehand 1a etc.

Is there a way for you to reference video clips that establish what you mean by different forehands? Or perhaps, make a little video that explains what you mean?

Again, Nabrug I appreciate your insights and would just like to be able to fully get what you're saying.

Cheers,

With my former posts about FH2(A)/BH2(A) I wanted:

1. to help people who are still researching the Federer forehand. If you look at it as only one technique you have a chance that you will mix caracteristics and have a hard time in getting answers.
2. to say that FH comparisons from Nadal (with Young) with anyone else than Federer are IMO most of the time not relevant because he only uses FH2 technique.
3. to add that I can actually hit and teach them. Not to show off. But to give an extra argument to say it is not only a theory but I have actual proove.
4. to say that without Tennisplayer I couldn’t have come so far.
5. to say that now we can see the caracteristics at Tennisplayer there is a chance that coaches will only emphasize the caracteristics. The caracteristics will not automatically give you the shot. (The best example in this case is why people are asking about the two techniques. You can see all the caracteristics with Nadal. Just do these caracteristics and you have his strokes you might say. But it doesn’t work that way. There is also an inner feeling involved. That is what I call the essence of the shot. The essence of FH2(A)/BH2(A) is really different from FH1/BH1.)
6. to explain with the recent Kohlschreiber thread where Philip uses BH1 and BH2 in the movie scenes you can see there.

My intention was not to really describe what IMO is the essence of the technique. First I wanted to know what these first messages would do. If there would occur interesting discussions which would give me new input to continue in my search for answers. Than later on if people would have reacted actively I might have done that. It did not occur.
Two reasons:
1. In retrospect I can see that I used a debating style. I prefer to make firm statements to get a good discussion. Maybe a little too firm. Not to hurt anyone. Why should I? If you really look unbiased at the contents of my posts you see real contents and no accusations. But everything is in the eyes of the beholder. Secondly my word choice is limited. If you know twenty words to describe different shades of feelings I only know one. So my feeling for nuances will defenitely be far below average in the english language.
2. The tension between the worlds (!) of ITA and GBA. ITA is mainly looking at the player. GBA is first looking at the other side of the net. ITA sees one perfect stroke. GBA sees more solutions in the various game situations and with corresponding techniques. GBA sees ITA as old school. I think the same and want to add that this era needs you to change to GBA. A new Nadal is much more likely to appear with GBA than ITA. And that is a very strong argument IMO. ITA is limited. And when I say limited do not use the negative connotation but only that it is not looking at more answers but is limited. So in GBA vision answers like John gave in this thread are limited and therefore not right (debating style again!). I wanted to have a discussion about in which game situation he wants Roddick to use a certain stroke. A discussion never appeared. Instead you could clearly see the defence mechanisms. It is a normal thing when you are confronted with new developements which demand to look at the game in a different way and that certain assumptions who once used to be right are now wrong. I know the defence feelings. I have them myself. It only gets annoying if people maintain to their views when they are confronted with new developments they can not avoid.

So for now I don’t feel the need to show how you can hit FH2(A)/BH2(A). The efforts to get the interest from John Yandell for GBA have failed, no discussions are occurring and I feel my interest for this forum fading. Maybe that is a good thing and a sign I don’t belong here.

[uspta146749877]

Ita

Just to clarify-an average coach based in US
knows very little about ITA.
Therefore it is very difficult to understand a post above

[johnyandell]

Uh, sorry but your psychoanalysis is, in addition to being insulting, not really hitting the mark. Your opinion of yourself is so high that you assume that myself and every else is somehow required to respond to your insights. That isn't the case here, or in the rest of the world.

So far as I am concerned I don't really care if you every post again. But if you are actually trying to get a dialogue going you are going about it in the wrong way.

You were asked a few times to post clips showing the differences in the stroke categories you created. That would help, but you haven't done that. So far as Andy goes, I'm just not very interested in that topic. If you are great, but again, you need to respect the right of others to respond as they choose and also to respond to the tone of your posts. I'm sure it's not just on the internet that your style puts people off who could potentially be helpful to you. Instead of trying to learn from that you play victim and misunderstood genius. Very very boring.

[nabrug]

Uh, sorry but your psychoanalysis is, in addition to being insulting, not really hitting the mark. Your opinion of yourself is so high that you assume that myself and every else is somehow required to respond to your insights. That isn't the case here, or in the rest of the world.

So far as I am concerned I don't really care if you every post again. But if you are actually trying to get a dialogue going you are going about it in the wrong way.

You were asked a few times to post clips showing the differences in the stroke categories you created. That would help, but you haven't done that. So far as Andy goes, I'm just not very interested in that topic. If you are great, but again, you need to respect the right of others to respond as they choose and also to respond to the tone of your posts. I'm sure it's not just on the internet that your style puts people off who could potentially be helpful to you. Instead of trying to learn from that you play victim and misunderstood genius. Very very boring.

You are the one that insults by using words as abrasive, arrogant and bitchy AND DO NOT MAKE THE EFFORT TO EXPLAIN THEM. So you do not give me the chance to react and defend myself. That is the cheapest way of responding. And you use insinuating words as myriads etc..

You are calling me a psychoanalyst. But don't you know that you are playing that role all the time? You are assuming all the time what I think. "I'm sure it's not just on the internet that your style puts people off who could potentially be helpful to you."

I never said that I expected that because of genius everybody had to reply my post. I only explained that I wanted that (because I have myriads of questions still unanswered). And that it did not happen. Just as a fact. So I am respecting the right of others to respond as they choose and also to respond to the tone of my posts.

If you read my posts you must have read all the questions I ask myself concerning the game and all the things I still don't understand. Would I do that if I was a real genius or thought I was? So it is not true. But it is a cheap trick from you to call me arrogant because I think I am a genius (You say that I am the psycho-analyst?). So than you have me in a box (the arrogant persons box). And that is very easy for you because you than never have to talk with me again. Which you by the way never did concerning the contents of my posts. And again I state this only as a fact. I would have liked it. But you chose not to. And I respected that from the beginning.

If you are not interested in Andy Roddick why did you respond in this thread?

I do not play victim and misunderstood genius (Who is the psycho analyst?). A victim of what? Of you? Or others? That you/they are not responding? No sorry I don't feel that.

I have seen the phrase Very very boring before in an other dispute you had with someone. Besides very akward using a phrase several times gets.......Very very boring.

And than again like I often say "it is only tennis" I look at this situation and see two (or more?) grown-up people have a dispute about sg. concerning tennis. "it is only tennis". ("Are you a genius?", "Yes", "In what?", "In tennis", "Very very boring".)

[johnyandell]

Uh, this is not very convincing. I am going to guess you are not ever going to see it from my point of view, and I have absolutely no desire to argue about it. Why don't you go and find the shots and post the links?

I know you like the resources on Tennisplayer, so put them to use and possibly something positive can come out of this waste of energy. If Nadal's forehand is unique show us the actual examples and find links that show the other versions.