Luis Bruguera Interview: What Happened After Sergi?

[johnyandell]

Would love to hear your thoughts on Chris Lewit's latest interview with Luis Bruguera, "What Happened After Sergi?"

[stotty]

Love the interview

Would love to hear your thoughts on Chris Lewit's latest interview with Luis Bruguera, "What Happened After Sergi?"

I've really enjoyed the Luis Bruguera interviews, and it's a shame they haven't provoked greater response from members.

Despite his limited grasp of English, you can understand exactly what Luis means and wants to say...and what he said in this interview was important:

Once a nation has a very successful player, it's coaches will endeavour to repeat the system that created that player...and often in doing so narrow things down to the absolute necessities: forehand, backhand...and a decent serve. Just hit hard and be solid, consistent...don't miss...that's the way the Spaniards seem to look at tennis...and much of the rest of the world too.

You can understand now why the game has become so brilliantly good...but with limited repertoire. Just focus on and become excellent at what matters...chuck out all the rest...that's what the modern game is all about.

[tennis_chiro]

Sad but true

I've really enjoyed the Luis Bruguera interviews, and it's a shame they haven't provoked greater response from members.

Despite his limited grasp of English, you can understand exactly what Luis means and wants to say...and what he said in this interview was important:

Once a nation has a very successful player, it's coaches will endeavour to repeat the system that created that player...and often in doing so narrow things down to the absolute necessities: forehand, backhand...and a decent serve. Just hit hard and be solid, consistent...don't miss...that's the way the Spaniards seem to look at tennis...and much of the rest of the world too.

You can understand now why the game has become so brilliantly good...but with limited repertoire. Just focus on and become excellent at what matters...chuck out all the rest...that's what the modern game is all about.

And if you don't spend significant time developing the transition and front court game by the age of 16, it isn't going to happen. That investment of time will delay immediate success. But I still have hopes someone will see that more is possible. The rock solid forehand, backhand and serve are necessities, but it is possible to do more.

The next level of player will be a Monfils type of athlete with Nadalian focus and Federerian creativity and resilience. I don't know if it will take 5 years, 50 or a 100, but to get to the next level is going to take all of that. Djokovic will never have the transition and front court that earlier development of those skills could have given him, but he may not ever need them. Murray has better transition and front court skills, but his conservative instincts hold him back; he will never be as easily proactive as someone who exploited those skills more fully in his earlier years; Federer will never have the shot tolerance of the other three, but he may find a way to get a little better focused in the next two years and he still has the physicality to rise above anyone when all his tools are working. Nadal may threaten yet on the clay, but I can't see it anywhere else.

So who do you look for after these four wear out? Maybe Del Potro, but I just don't see the spring in his step to have the speed to stay at the top of the game for long. If I had money, I'd place a long term wager at Ladbrokes on Janowicz to be at the top of the game before he turns 27. Can't tell if he has the depth of character to go through that 3-5 year building process, but he is the only player I see outside of the top 4 who has the weapons and physicality to challenge for the top. Otherwise, I would say it is someone who we don't even know about yet.

don

[stotty]

And if you don't spend significant time developing the transition and front court game by the age of 16, it isn't going to happen. That investment of time will delay immediate success. But I still have hopes someone will see that more is possible. The rock solid forehand, backhand and serve are necessities, but it is possible to do more.

don

More like 14 if you ask me...16 would be a little late. John Lloyd's father guaranteed me many years ago what you are saying is correct. If a junior doesn't get comfy at the net early on in his playing years, odds on he never will...get comfy at volleying first, then learn the transition game...and then learn serve and volley. John's father was 100% correct.

I can understand the "sheep mentality" of coaches with regard to baseline tennis, but it's unnecessary. Nadal's and Federer's forehands (and their backhands come to that) were the finished article when they were twenty, and with a decade yet to play in front of them. It would have only delayed things a year or so in their younger years to develop a fuller game...would have been well worth it.

Federer had the chance to go on from when he beat Sampras at Wimbledon...to go on and be a great serve and volleyer on grass. But something held him back...stopped him...either his own insecurity in S&V... or something else...a coach maybe... saying don't...don't S&V. That was a tragedy. He could have had everything he has now AND a great serve and volley game to boot...what a shame...great though he is, he could have been greater still. He may have been able to quell Nadal...instead Nadal became a better player...Nadal has Federer in his back pocket and always will. That should never have happened. It was unnecessary.


Bill Tilden was right. Sacrifice results here and there throughout your career to learn new game styles...it pays off big time. Tennis in Bill's time was vastly different to today's tennis but these things are all relative. Bill had the answer to everyone in his day. He made a point of making damn sure he did. No one, before or since, has thought more about the game. He preempted just about every scenario that was ever likely to turn up. No reason a player cannot do the same now...80 years later.