Articles from the players perspective

[bowt]

Hey John

I would love to see more articles / interviews from the players perspective on the way they developed their shots

Sometimes I think the articles from professional coach's dont focus on the process by which players learnt.

[stotty]

Interesting point. Be good to get a top player's perspective on how his game developed and how much he attributes it to coaching and how much to working things out for himself.

I suspect great players both consciously subconsciously coach themselves and external coaching from others may play a smaller part than many think. It could be a critically important part, but a small part nonetheless.

Being as there are so many factors outside the control of a coach: height, natural athleticism, mentality (though can be worked on), degree of natural talent, receptivity to coaching, to name just a few. A coaches influence may amount to a mere 20 percent in some cases, perhaps a little more in others.

[gzhpcu]

In the old days, coaches didn't exist...

[kakashi]

hello

hello there Bowt that is great point... very interesting...

this is just like how did you learn how to speak English or language...

okay.. what is your first language? let's take on English.. okay.. if English is your first language.. do you remember how you developed your speaking? probably not.. it came more naturally right? okay how about your second language? well, actually mine is English... okay how did i learn? and what helped me most? well, probably being in US helped me most.. as far as teacher? maybe going school and etc...

okay back to tennis.. those who started early age, probably by the time they are 16 or 18 their game is already developed.. and if I ask them how to hit.. they probably can't explain too well.. i mean if you ask pros how you are hitting.. i mean they can show you but they can't really tell you in very very detail....it comes so natural to them.....

so those people who play good tennis.. ask yourself who did you develop open stance and semi western grip, or wiper swing??? for me it some what came natural... I do not remember people force me to hit this way.....

Back to coaching... okay how many players actually do follow what exactly coach taught??? see not many.. probably you found your game yourself....

but you see mr. Robert Landsdopr.. their student hit the way he teaches.. not so much mechanically but way they contact is very very similar... i mean this is very very good.. that's why he is legendary coach.. even professional players do use his method even they turn to pros...

So my conclusion..... again my teaching career and seeing too many different level of athleticism and different level of motivation... it is best to start from learing A B C D E alphabet.... you can not learn sentence without alphabet...

so what is alphabet in tennis? just hit the ball solid and finish high.. if you can do this then ask student to swing little high for more spin....

I believe coach name is Mitchell.. he has great article...

[johnyandell]

Yeah it would be interesting to try to get more responses from players. But they are notoriously uninterested in talking about technique. This is aside from the larger and very difficult problem of just getting access.

I used to ask a lot of technical questions in the press conferences, but have faded that approach. First it seemed to annoy the ATP media people and the other reporters. Second, the players were usually unresponsive, dodged the question, or were actually sometimes hostile.

As times goes by I suspect we may get closer to some of the inner circles of the some of the players but that is one of the aspects of the game that remains mysterious.

[jryle1]

Would love to know where Federer got that ridiculously beautiful and fluid technique from. Could actually watch him hitting forehands and backhands all day. The forehand is unique and explosive but so beautiful.

[stotty]

I've only had unfettered access to two international tennis players: John Lloyd and David Lloyd. They originated from the club where I teach and still regularly return to visit their father who still lives nearby. John Lloyd had a world ranking of 17 at one time.

When asked about their training and technical development, they are quite vague about the training and technical changes they underwent in their formative years.

Their father on the other hand - who coached them until they were 14 - maintains that he kept everything basic and allowed their style and strokes develop freely. "If you have the basics under wraps, the rest will take care of itself", is what he maintained.

I'm with JY, though, on the difficulty in extracting such info from top players. They tend to be vague, uninterested in technique, and seem to have no recollection of how they got from A to B in the tennis world. Most strange...and frustrating

[johnyandell]

I think what is happening here is an example of how player's translate technical info into their bodies. Sampras for example got an earfull from Lansdorp about extending on his forehand, etc. But later when I asked him to give me a couple of technical points he said he didn't know how he hit it, it was "just a natural feeling."

Coaches understand technique rationally and process it verbally for their students. Great players take that input and translate it into feelings and mental pictures and forget about the words.

We should all try to do it that way more.

[kakashi]

It is mysterious... Pros don't need to really give details to others or need to analyze their stroke..... i mean they have whatever takes to make living anyway...

I love Djorkovick's lesson in you tube......

there is always going to be the mystery of "wrist usage" or how they develop their stroke....

go youtube and type Clijsters age 9.. you will see she is hitting just like today....
amazing....

yes i do give credit to whoever was teaching back then.. but as you can see she is wonderful athlete......

but this is very very good subject here... none of the doctor in the world become doctor going through the steps..... I believe tennis pros are same...

Someone must have done great job to their tennis career....

[bowt]

Coaches understand technique rationally and process it verbally for their students. Great players take that input and translate it into feelings and mental pictures and forget about the words.

We should all try to do it that way more.

I think verbal coaching is terrible

showing a player a video of his own swing and then making a comparison to a pro who is a model is far better

[bottle]

This from bot: I need a study on that, bowt.

Well, these letters reveal the overall bias on this website, which is at least interesting. The fact is, some players do better when they thoroughly explain some new idea to themselves, put it in their own words and then take it out to the court.

A player who wants to get better and isn't lazy will take stimuli and encouragement from wherever he can get it, which means the stimuli can be visual, verbal, physically manipulative, happen in a diner or a bar or in the eighth hour of sleep, etc., etc. I'm always suspicious of people who rail too much against the benefits of language. Most of the time they're simply people who hated their English teachers, which could mean they weren't read to enough or maybe their English teachers all were jerks, it's possible.

The distinction in language that interests me most is between that which is overly dry, logical, heavy and dull, and that which is somehow sensory. Visual is one but not the only sense that language can handle. And photography and film, greatly beneficial, frequently lie just as much as any other form of communication. Imagery in language, like scientific and medical illustration, can get into some places that film can't, so why not use every available source?

Of course the beautiful animals at the top can learn at warp speed with a single stealthy look in contrast to us mere mortals, but here's the amazing thing: Most of the players reading this are not in the top ten, they just think they are.

I admire dancers more on this point-- they're good at taking BOTH visual and verbal cues.

[stotty]

This from bot:
Imagery in language, like scientific and medical illustration, can get into some places that film can't, so why not use every available source?

I think the point here is many coaches do use everything at their disposal. It's the student's interpretation of what he/she has been taught in the past that seems to register very little meaning. The two top players I have spoken with attribute very little importance to the coaching they received. They remember being given tips and cues but then mostly going away working things out for themselves pretty much.

Top players are notoriously vague about there formative years but what little they do say can't be ignored. It's more about imagery and feel for them, and good players may well learn more from each other than they do from coaches. Where coaching is most useful is where players reach a technical impasse with a stroke and the only thing that will sort it out is good coaching. This is the real value of coaching and at top level it can make all the difference.

But I stand by my belief that top players have a great capacity to self-improve simply by playing and working things out for themselves. You only have to look at past greats to see that.

There was nothing more frustrating than seeing Younes El Aynaoui at a coaches conference when asked what type of grip he used for his forehand. His reply: "I don't know...I've never really looked or thought about it"

I kid you not! So don't look for any profound answers by game's elite. Most of 'em don't seem to have a clue!

[gzhpcu]

Sampras once said he didn't want to talk about his service, as it would only confuse him. Ivanisevic when asked, said "I throw the ball up and I hit it..."...

[gzhpcu]

I kid you not! So don't look for any profound answers by game's elite. Most of 'em don't seem to have a clue!

Lucky guys, they just do it...

[tennis_chiro]

Selective memory

I think the point here is many coaches do use everything at their disposal. It's the student's interpretation of what he/she has been taught in the past that seems to register very little meaning. The two top players I have spoken with attribute very little importance to the coaching they received. They remember being given tips and cues but then mostly going away working things out for themselves pretty much.

Top players are notoriously vague about there formative years but what little they do say can't be ignored. It's more about imagery and feel for them, and good players may well learn more from each other than they do from coaches. Where coaching is most useful is where players reach a technical impasse with a stroke and the only thing that will sort it out is good coaching. This is the real value of coaching and at top level it can make all the difference.

But I stand by my belief that top players have a great capacity to self-improve simply by playing and working things out for themselves. You only have to look at past greats to see that.

There was nothing more frustrating than seeing Younes El Aynaoui at a coaches conference when asked what type of grip he used for his forehand. His reply: "I don't know...I've never really looked or thought about it"

I kid you not! So don't look for any profound answers by game's elite. Most of 'em don't seem to have a clue!

I will bet that very few good players who learned how to play have any strong recollection of all the time they spent initially not being able to get two balls in a row over the net. Most pros were indoctrinated into the game at a very early age and had their basic strokes set by the time they were 12, if not sooner. Someone helped them get through that initial, very difficult stage. If they set them up with enough of the basic essentials, they were able to go on from there. If they had been allowed to develop habits that would have kept them from reaching their potential, we would not be talking about them right now. Do you remember how many times you fell learning to ride a bike? Or who was holding the bike so you could get started? Do any of you remember how many times you fell learning to walk? I have no recollection of either? If you go to an academy early enough, you learn from what you see around you. Most of the American juniors who do well had a lot of instruction early on. Certainly, Roddick, Fish, Agassi and Sampras all did. From what I have heard of Spartak in Moscow, those players are coming out of group classes where they are drilled on certain fundamentals early on.

Just because the players can't remember the instruction they had, doesn't mean they didn't have it. At an advanced stage once they had their strokes, that may be different. But Rafa had Uncle Toni. Roger had his Australian coach that meant so much to him. The Williams sisters started on Oscar's videos courtesy of Richard and then had significant help from Macci. The way I heard it was 4 satellite level pros would show up at 8 in the morning to play with them, either one on one taking turns or 2 on 1, but the girls were always the 1, ...for 3 hours in the morning and 3 hours in the afternoon. This went on for about 3 years, before Serena was even 12, maybe earlier (somewhere around 91 to 94). That's where they got their considerable edge.

don