Lansdorp the Sage??

[labete]

Didn't Bob Lansdorp tell us how bad the Fed was, how he cried when he lost in Australia?? Well look at Federer now and look at all the grinders Lansdorp has produced, even if they were a bunch of world number 1 grinders

[airforce1]

Didn't Bob Lansdorp tell us how bad the Fed was, how he cried when he lost in Australia?? Well look at Federer now and look at all the grinders Lansdorp has produced, even if they were a bunch of world number 1 grinders

who are these #1s?
I'm not saying they are not there, but that I just don't know them.

I know of Pete, who I'm a big fan of, but very serve dependent for his greatness. If Robert gets credit for that serve, then why didn't we see more Pete's come from his stable? Pete was one of a kind in my book.

Also lindsey, but she, to me was just a testament to the weakness of the women's game.
Sharapova?

I do see Robert as one of the greats, but who are all these incredible players and what in their game did he promote especially?
I'm sort of looking for things like Stafanki has done. Clearly taken players that have peaked or stagnated and taken them to new heights.
Or is his niche getting them started with a very good foundation?

Just curious as to a more defined look at what makes him so good.

[johnyandell]

Who is "Bob" Lansdorp? I don't know anyone who answers to that name.

Uh, if you mean Robert I don't believe he said Fed was "bad."

And, yeah terrible about all his number one players isn't it? Pete was a grinder, and so were Lindsay and Sharapova, right? Uh, I don't think that's too accurate, but maybe they don't hit the ball big enough for you?

Probably all the players you coach play like Roger (the good Roger) not Nadal right? (And have world rankings that reflect that I'm sure...)

Seriously though these are just the honest thoughts of one guy who probably has the best record of any coach in personally touching players who succeed in pro tennis--think it's about 75 who made the top 100.

Pete in his autobiography went out of his way to say his forehand, one of the great weapons in modern tennis was "all Robert." And I think it's reasonable to argue that without the screaming flat ball striking neither Lindsay or Maria would have had their same results, as you couldn't call either a great mover...

Doesn't make him God, but I think it does make him worth listening to, and also, having the respect to at least get his name right and accurately characterize his players.

[airforce1]

Seriously though these are just the honest thoughts of one guy who probably has the best record of any coach in personally touching players who succeed in pro tennis--think it's about 75 who made the top 100.

75 players that have made the top 100. Wow, that is quite a record for one lifetime.

I'm still looking for one that was a grinder and made #1.

[robertlansdorp]

hey labete, if your first name is richard do you mind if we call you...well you get the point...

let's give fed the credit and see how he does when nadal comes back. fed is special but i still don't think you need to cry over tennis matches--hasn't been positive for most of the kids i've seen

other than that i think john pretty much said it all...

[sejsel]

who are these #1s?
I'm not saying they are not there, but that I just don't know them.

Probably since you weren't coaching any of them either...

I know of Pete, who I'm a big fan of, but very serve dependent for his greatness.

...And none other shot or his attitude had to do with him being great?
Gee, the rest of us watching tennis during that period must have been on some other planet.

If Robert gets credit for that serve, then why didn't we see more Pete's come from his stable? Pete was one of a kind in my book.

I, for one, actually do not recall him taking or being given credit for Pete's serve, there was some other coach (known from article- story on Pete Fisher from Tennis Magazine back in '90s) being responsible for developing it.

Every world no. 1 is one of a kind, there are limits even to what we call coaching.

Also lindsey, but she, to me was just a testament to the weakness of the women's game.
Sharapova?

And these statements are testaments to what?
Perhaps your personal knowledge about what it takes to take a kid at young age and shape it into a world class player winning Wimbledon at age of 17 - 18 ?

I do see Robert as one of the greats, but who are all these incredible players and what in their game did he promote especially?

Ok, they don't exist and there was nothing he did that made them great.

I recall that most of them had no game to begin with when he was working with them and even (in some cases) correcting some mistakes in technique and some bad habits, but what do I know...

I'm sort of looking for things like Stafanki has done. Clearly taken players that have peaked or stagnated and taken them to new heights.
Or is his niche getting them started with a very good foundation?

Larry Stefanki is one of the examples of the great coach, he has shown it times and times before. One of the top coaches I really appreciate and admire.
There was an interview with Larry before Connors (or just when) took over at Roddicks rodder. Larry was clear in saying that he couldn't see what Andy could get from that deal.
I, for one, thought back then that (despite my admiration for Jimbo) he was spot on.

In the same interview, Larry was saying how he works at the time with a group of juniors and how much he's enjoying it.

I'm (not sort of, but definitely) looking for things that people like Lansdorp (and few other top coaches I have privilege of knowing and working with) do.

Taking a kid and molding her/him into a world class player. Or giving a kid fundamentals that will stick with him/her for the rest of their lives, and contribute in his development into a world class player. Over the course of years.

That has to be a whole lot of hard, tedious work (and even fun), a whole lot harder than taking an already developed player and improving on it.

Remember also that Lansdorp took on Myshkina when she was all out of sorts and brought her back out of long term, career threating slump she was dug in at the time. Nothing near Roddicks pre-Stefanki situation, actually far worse.
He did, in my book, better job than any of "top coaches" would have been able to in a given situation with that player.

You think she asked exactly him ( and no one else) for help, out of the blue, all clueless and not knowing whom to ask?

Just curious as to a more defined look at what makes him so good.

Well, if you can come close to his track record, we guess you might get the picture...
Just spend over 20 or over 30 years of developing kids into world class players, it will get clear....

It really eludes me why do many coaches on tour - in some people's minds - deserve more credit for steering top players, than people who developed, and to a large extend created(?) them into a top pro players to begin with.

[kmoranon]

""I'm (not sort of, but definitely) looking for things that people like Lansdorp (and few other top coaches I have privilege of knowing and working with) do.
Taking a kid and molding her/him into a world class player. Or giving a kid fundamentals that will stick with him/her for the rest of their lives, and contribute in his development into a world class player. Over the course of years.
That has to be a whole lot of hard, tedious work (and even fun), a whole lot harder than taking an already developed player and improving on it.""

It's a tough call here,I love what Robert does,taking a kid all the way from beginning to the top but every coach has their own niche .. not everyone great coach wants to stand out there with a young teen and feed ball after ball thousands of balls hitting the same stroke like Robert will do..
Some top players just needs a little something special or new to get them over that hump ,and sometimes it's just being a YES man like Agassi's former coach.. that will make a career or a re-surgence,like what Roddick is doing..








""It really eludes me why do many coaches on tour - in some people's minds - deserve more credit for steering top players, than people who developed, and to a large extend created(?) them into a top pro players to begin with.[/QUOTE]""

I worked with Pancho Segura and he did both of these rolls ,first with Jimbo,where he took Jimbo from an good player and natured him into being one of the greatest and then he was there for tons of already pros who came to see him for a quick fix,you might say... he never got his due credit for being an icon coach . There would never have been an Andre Agassi if there were no Pancho Segura.. Pancho taught Agassi's sister and old brother and who created that thought of taking the ball early.. he was the master of the two handed shot that everyone now uses..

[airforce1]

...And none other shot or his attitude had to do with him being great?
Gee, the rest of us watching tennis during that period must have been on some other planet.

I, for one, actually do not recall him taking or being given credit for Pete's serve, there was some other coach (known from article- story on Pete Fisher from Tennis Magazine back in '90s) being responsible for developing it.

Ok, they don't exist and there was nothing he did that made them great.

I recall that most of them had no game to begin with when he was working with them and even (in some cases) correcting some mistakes in technique and some bad habits, but what do I know...

I'm (not sort of, but definitely) looking for things that people like Lansdorp (and few other top coaches I have privilege of knowing and working with) do.

Remember also that Lansdorp took on Myshkina when she was all out of sorts and brought her back out of long term, career threating slump she was dug in at the time. Nothing near Roddicks pre-Stefanki situation, actually far worse.
He did, in my book, better job than any of "top coaches" would have been able to in a given situation with that player.

You think she asked exactly him ( and no one else) for help, out of the blue, all clueless and not knowing whom to ask?

Well, if you can come close to his track record, we guess you might get the picture...
Just spend over 20 or over 30 years of developing kids into world class players, it will get clear....

I don't really know what to say.... You have nearly completely misunderstood everything I attempted to say.
I say attempted, because I realize that I probably didn't write some of it as well as I should have. Also, so much can be lost in print due to loss of tone and expression. It's also tough as we try to express several ideas in a compact post, with limited tme.

I think I was very clear that Robert is one of the top coach of an era.
What I was trying to inquire about was,
more on what he actually had done, and with what players.
Not because I don't appreciate him or what he has done, but because I DO! Sadly, even though he is widely accepted as a premier coach, I've seen and heard more about what an a$$ he can be, than his contribution as a coach and teacher.

Other than hearing he spent some time with many of the top 100 players, I've read or heard very little on what his impact has been. That's what I'm attempting to ask and learn about. I truly expect that given his rep, that there are a lot of interesting things to learn and hear about him.
"Developed Players" is really a broad term, so I would like to hear more details if they are available or if he would care to share them. Maybe my background as an engineer and instructor at the Navy test Pilot School tends to effect the way I analyze relevant details. I'm not saying better, but just different in some ways.

The other thing I was asking about was- the OP idea that Robert developed a bunch of grinders. I questioned this because it didn't seem to be the case to me, but honestly I didn't know enough about who he had worked with. I don't see Pete, Lindsey, or Maria as grinders, so I was asking and curious about who he saw as a grinder. Do you think he developed a bunch of #1 grinders? Maybe he did? Share with me if you know.

I'm sure some of this is my writing, as communication is a 2 way event, so I'm sorry about my shortcomings in this.
But, what does me asking for more details on what Robert has done,
have to do with who I've coached or what I've done? I try not to blow my horn, but I have done some quite interesting things over my life if you are actually interested,

like today I spent my morning throwing passes for Calvin Johnson (#2 draft pick and one of the best receivers in the NFL), and running drills with the states top wide receivers at his annual football camp. I've got a ton of war stories (literally) from Div I college football, flying off carriers, working with spec ops (flying and MMA) and even some pretty good stuff with tennis, but I don't expect you really have an interest in hearing all that.

So maybe you can re-read my post with a different slant and understand what I was asking. Maybe we can both make use of this quote from you,

"Negative only for someone who's nerve can be struck by it.
I would try to see it positively instead."
and this one-
"There's also much to be won in keeping the content and the tone of the debate civil and relaxed."
thanks

[sejsel]

I
So maybe you can re-read my post with a different slant and understand what I was asking. Maybe we can both make use of this quote from you,

"Negative only for someone who's nerve can be struck by it.
I would try to see it positively instead."
and this one-
"There's also much to be won in keeping the content and the tone of the debate civil and relaxed."
thanks

I thought that discussion should be about issues, not about people to begin with.

In my eyes, the work of Robert Lansdorp was turned into an issue, by a number of - looking from aside - not so overwhelmingly positive posts - many by you - in several (if few) threads.

It really did not come clear how much you appreciate fellow coach's work to begin with - sorry if I missed on it.

I do not think that there was much of the "civil" or "relaxed" in the bunch of posts referring to Lansdorp, what came out (inadvertently or else) was almost the opposite.

I, for one, can also question any coach's work, his contribution to development of a player, etc.

I also know good work when I see it, and that kind of work should be at least clearly acknowledged to begin with - since in Robert's case many others took credit for much of what has been product of his craft and work to begin with.
I've seen that kind of thing happen way too often to begin with - it is easy to recognize in all its sadness. It does happen all the time, even today in world of tennis.

If you want the debate on how much, when, technical details in work with kids - well, that sort of debate is, IMHO, best lead by different means, or rather tone of debate and questioning, than the one seen in yours, and some other's posts.

I also think, when given the tone and "treatment" Robert, or anyone else is given by several people - for criticizing their idol(s), (he did the same on Pete's backhand - the man calls things bluntly as he sees them - so what?), the source of that sort of writing should be able to answer what I wrote in detailed terms, saying exactly how small or insignificant Robert's contribution might have possibly been (for the sake of argument) - or at least express the interest in what Robert has done so well in more honest and clear manner.

In the light of that, I think that your quote from my short debate with the member "nabrug" (some time ago) is fully and completely misplaced and taken out of context.

I can say that many people ready to "criticize" and demean work of the coach who is fighting even a tennis federation in some country over the technical issues in long term development of tennis players (and the right was on his side all of the time) often turn out not to know much about details and intricacies - in broad and narrow technical terms - of development of kids, and tennis - to begin with.
I am not referring to you here - since we do not know each other - but there is good amount of people like that- in and around tennis.

I do know, however, than anyone seriously involved in tennis should know better that even remotely epitomize such occurrences in the debate - even at this forum.

[airforce1]

not so overwhelmingly positive posts - many by you - in several (if few) threads.

It really did not come clear how much you appreciate fellow coach's work to begin with - sorry if I missed on it.

I do not think that there was much of the "civil" or "relaxed" in the bunch of posts referring to Lansdorp, what came out (inadvertently or else) was almost the opposite.

If you want the debate on how much, when, technical details in work with kids - well, that sort of debate is, IMHO,

such occurrences in the debate - even at this forum.

What debate? I lead every post about how Robert is widely considered to be one of the best coaches out there or of an era. How much more positive can one be???
Then I go on to ask what the things are that he has done in the process of earning this rep. I ask because I don't know, NOT because I think differently.
I expect the answers to my questions would do nothing but enhance his reputation.

The only negative comment about him from me was related to been his crass communication, which is clearly the most widely know detail about him. Surely someone like him is tough enough to answer a few questions about what he has done. I respect what he had to say about Pete's serve, cause many coaches would have come up with some crap about all they had done to make it better.
The thing about grinders was not negative. First, there is nothing negative about developing grinders; even if that is what he did. Second, I just said I didn't think that is what he did. Since I wanted to know more about this, I asked who these #1 grinders were, as I clearly am uninformed on 9/10s of who Robert has worked with.

I ask you again, Did you know of great grinders he developed? The answer either way is not negative, but yet just a statement of perceived playing style!

Remember, I suggested we BOTH keep to your fine advice on those quotes. Context was not an issue in this case. Your advice was excellent, so I concurred that it was a great way to operate. I think we should look at the positive and not look to stir up negative where none exists.

[sejsel]

What debate? I lead every post about how Robert is widely considered to be one of the best coaches out there or of an era. How much more positive can one be???
Then I go on to ask what the things are that he has done in the process of earning this rep. I ask because I don't know, NOT because I think differently.
I expect the answers to my questions would do nothing but enhance his reputation.

Ok, then number of posts relating to Lansdorp or his comments must have been surely misunderstood by me and few others.

The only negative comment about him from me was related to been his crass communication, which is clearly the most widely know detail about him.

I, for one, thought that he was well known primarily for his work with Sampras, Sharapova, Davenport, Austin, Myshkina, and few others.

Surely someone like him is tough enough to answer a few questions about what he has done. I respect what he had to say about Pete's serve, cause many coaches would have come up with some crap about all they had done to make it better.

He has already told about number of things done in his work with players he participated in developing. Anyone with access to tennisplayer.net can read about it in a number of articles written by him. Really.

The thing about grinders was not negative. First, there is nothing negative about developing grinders; even if that is what he did. Second, I just said I didn't think that is what he did. Since I wanted to know more about this, I asked who these #1 grinders were, as I clearly am uninformed on 9/10s of who Robert has worked with.

...Which is probably grinding more people's patience than mine, but I never claimed I'm perfect...

I ask you again, Did you know of great grinders he developed? The answer either way is not negative, but yet just a statement of perceived playing style!

Not much relevance here, really.
I wouldn't call technique he teaches and details in groundstrokes he warns about directed to "the grinding style" of tennis, however someone perceives it.

Remember, I suggested we BOTH keep to your fine advice on those quotes. Context was not an issue in this case. Your advice was excellent, so I concurred that it was a great way to operate. I think we should look at the positive and not look to stir up negative where none exists.

Context was an issue the minute the statement was used and misplaced; I agree that we dissagree here.

Great way to operate would have been to first read thouroughly what is written from Lansdorp in his articles, as well as what Sampras (and few others) have said about Robert's work.

I think that someone who has not been given near enough credit at the time when those who "owed" him took some majors doesn't really deserve to be referred to as an a$$, as someone did it earlier.

Let's not mix-up someone's perception of Roberts "communication" skills with Roberts work on the tennis court. John McEnroe wasn't known for being nicest person ever on the court - yet, in my eyes he will remain the genius - as a player (even in his technique), period.

By the way, everyone posts are at the forum for anyone to read.
I do stand for those few posts I have written at the forum.

It is really clear what has been written on Lansdorp, and by whom.
It doesn't strike me from those posts that much of what he wrote on technique, details of what, why and when is important, etc. has been fully appreciated, or comprehended in its importance, for that matter.

[johnyandell]

Air Force,

My take on this whole thing is that you make a lot of backhanded critical and dismissive comments and then you act surprised and claim you've been insulted when people react to them--actually it's the other way around --you're the one starting it. Then you compound the problem by defending everything with tortuous explanations and excuses. A friend of mine refers to this technique as throwing bricks from the closet and I think that's a fair assesment.

There is also an issue of credibility here. First you appear to be unaware of what Robert has actually written on the site. Second you assume that you are in a position to evaluate Robert and make a lot of inferences about what he does/does not/should do, as if you were his peer. You're not. It's the Mary Carillo "I'm an expert" fallacy.

So the posts come across as arrogant and off putting and don't really contribute anything, other than to make you look bad. You should just take the critical feedback you're getting, learn something, and try to improve.

John Yandell

[sejsel]

John,

There are several threads at the forum (as you have certainly noticed) in which Lansdorp is referred to in not really mild manner (in my eyes) by this member.

Now, anyone involved in tennis at some level, especially coaching, should - IMHO at least be clear in something called professional courtesy to begin with - before unleashing anything close to number of posts diminishing the work we all know is painstaking, tedious, requiring in knowledge and understanding of stroke mechanics, discipline, and all that is required of a kid and a player to become great.

It really did not come clear to me from the posts, on the contrary - I have seen only sort of negative conotations towards Robert.

Call it as you want - I do think that one should stand by its words and defend them with arguments - not by looking to try to discredit the "opponent".

I really did not see that airforce addressed anything I wrote except for my bluntness, which was - IMO - in place and fully deserved by him.

I really cannot see what sins Robert is guilty of (at least towards airforce and some other members) to deserve the tone he got from them.

In a way, the tone and the content of what he and some other wrote is demeaning to anyone successful in this line of work.

The way things were going, good that you ended it all swiftly with your post - what you wrote was really my take on things as well.

[airforce1]

Air Force,

My take on this whole thing is that you make a lot of backhanded critical and dismissive comments and then you act surprised and claim you've been insulted when people react to them--actually it's the other way around --you're the one starting it. Then you compound the problem by defending everything with tortuous explanations and excuses. A friend of mine refers to this technique as throwing bricks from the closet and I think that's a fair assesment.

There is also an issue of credibility here. First you appear to be unaware of what Robert has actually written on the site. Second you assume that you are in a position to evaluate Robert and make a lot of inferences about what he does/does not/should do, as if you were his peer. You're not. It's the Mary Carillo "I'm an expert" fallacy.

So the posts come across as arrogant and off putting and don't really contribute anything, other than to make you look bad. You should just take the critical feedback you're getting, learn something, and try to improve.

John Yandell

you and Sjesel are surely entitled to your opinions based on your take of what you read, and I already clearly accepted responsibility for not being a professional PC writer on a forum in a post written in 10 minutes.
About the only thing to learn from your critiques is that people will believe what they believe, regardless of what has actually been written or said.

I commented only on the one negative of him that even his daughter talked to him about; nothing bad about his tennis. On the other hand, I said many nice things about his tennis and rep. You can't quote one bad thing I've said about his tennis, only honest questions. Sejesel is the one with long tortuous, blow by blow comments, but since you side with him, that is Ok, right?

As for as me being his peer and unqualified to critique, I have to laugh given my background as a consultant and professionally trained instructor and evaluator in several disciplines far more technical than tennis will be in the next 50 years. Of course as usual, you have made your opinion with nearly NO info on half the issue you comment on. At least I'm trained enough to know the difference between a question and an insult.

But I'll be satisfied to drop it at this point if you like.

[sejsel]

Well, I, for one, am not claiming to be a brain surgeon, or having to be one to see and understand some of the intricacies of tennis and tennis related coaching.

Even though I am involved in some work in the field of "computer science and engineering" - and that discipline is - believe me - very "technical" as well.

Those nice thing said about Robert did not come so bluntly across recently, so I do firmly stand on every word I wrote.

Take it, as well as my experience and a little bit of knowledge in tennis, as a belief or well grounded facts.

I am as well perfectly happy to drop it as of this post, any further comments on this I can give outside the forum.

Especially since parts of this marry-go-round thingy are reminiscent of some Kafka novel, or re-living that old Monty-Python parrot sketch.