What's Wrong with American Men Part 1

[tsmayotte]

Whats wrong with American Men and How to Help.


THE FAILURE TO TRADE, NEUTRALIZE AND DEFEND


The hallmark of so many great men's matches in last ten years (very few which have included Americans) has been dazzling groundstroke exchanges. The four world's best and a handful of others have showcased an ability to play extended points that often unfold from a TRADING of powerful strokes, followed by one player's attack being NEUTRALIZED or DEFENDED by his opponent. In these greatest of matches the top players have made their opponents pay by drawing errors or turning defense to offense.

Like never before the capacity to engage in this highly disciplined, patient and technically demanding defensive play is a requirement to enter the game's elite. It makes sense that Federer has often been quoted as saying that "he plays his best tennis when he plays his best defense." I can't imagine our best (and struggling) American men saying the same thing. (except perhaps Ginepri) Here in lies one part of the problem: America has an antiquated idea of what a skills world-beating male player must have and therefore, in part, we have lost our way in developing them.

It is astounding to think that not one top American male of the 21st century would identify defending or neutralizing as central to their games. A review of all our top men shows remarkable (I would say disturbing) similarities. Our two highest ranked men Querry and Isner would point to their FIRST SERVES and ATTACKING FOREHANDS as would Blake, Roddick and just about every other American male of the 21st century. (Marty Fish varies slightly from this mold) All these players have a major deficit in being able to TRADE, NEUTRALIZE, AND DEFEND. Mostly this has been from the backhand side, though problems exist on both wings for many.

This deficit has been the source of a disturbing and predictable pattern through the many painful losses on the American tennis landscape through the past 15 years. Over and over we have watched as Roddick or Blake or recently Isner, have been exposed as result of not being able to trade, neutralize and defend. All these players and many others all the way down through the ITF ranks, often feeling forced to hit overly aggressive forehands from deep in the backhand corner, or ineffective slices, have been worn down (particularly in 3 out of 5 set matches) by their more balanced opponents. Offense still matters tremendously, but it must be accompanied by solid trading skills on both sides. What is most disturbing is that our two most lauded upstarts, Ryan Harrison and Jack Sock suffer the exact same issues.

Many observers correctly see the part of the issue as a cultural one. Form top player and owner of the Sanchez-Casal Academy, Emilio Sanchez is in this camp. Back to Budge and Kramer to Sampras even to Courier and the early years of Agassi's development attacking play has been the signature style of our players. For years it worked beautifully. (except on the European Clay) Our nation's response has been surprisingly undisciplined and simplistic. Many, including the folks at the top of the USTA's Player Development Program have suggested that having our players train and compete on clay will help. Clay, they argue, will force our players to become more patient, disciplined and tougher. While this may have an impact in the long run there are faster ways to effect change; understanding and teaching the technique of trading, neutralizing and defending. Telling our players to be more patient and disciplined is not enough. We have to show them how to do it. This is where the American tennis community needs to get better.

Technique in tennis is like technology in the business world. Any close look at the best American players of the 21st century shows that many have been held back by subpar technique at some level.

So what constitutes great technique? A player's shortcomings and strenghts are as individual as the player himself, and the process of guiding a player to the top is a sophisticated one as one teaches in stages, layering learning of technique, tactics and the mental/emotional capabilities needed to make an assault on the top. But technique needs to better understood and taught to our developing players.

[tsmayotte]

Part 2

IT NEEDS TO BE STATED CLEARLY THAT TECHNIQUE, AS I USE THE WORD, means shape of swings, AND THE MOVEMENT PATTERNS, LOADING and AND USE OF ALL POTENTIAL ENERGY TO CREATE EFFICIENT MOVEMENT AND RACQUET SPEED. SOME UNDERSTANDING about BIOMECHANICS HELPS SEPARATE STYLE From SUBSTANCE. WHILE GREAT TECHNIQUE IS ONLY ONE PART IN THE ALCEMY NEEDED TO CREATE A GREAT PLAYER, ONLY WITH GREAT MECHANICS CAN AN AMERICAN PLAY WORLD-BEATING TENNIS.
THE EARLIER OUR PLAYERS LEARN THEM THE BETTER. AS FIXING THE PROBLEM IS TOUGHER THAN TEACHING IT CORRECTLY FIRST. ALSO, ONCE THE TACTICAL STYLE OF THE PLAYER IS MORE DEFINED THE UNLEARNING OF THAT IS DIFFICULT.
AMERICAN MALE PLAYERS AS A WHOLE HAVE NOT MASTERED THE SOPHISTICATED SKILLS NEEDED TO TRADE, NEUTRALIZE AND DEFEND. IN MANY WAYS DEFENDING IS MORE TECHNICALLY DEMANDING THAN PLAYING OFFENSE. SOME SAY IT IS OUR PLAYERS DON'T HAVE THE HEART AND THE WILLINGNESS TO SUFFER. My experience has shown me that their are many driven hardworking players. I THINK WE,THE COACHES, CAN DO BETTER.


So what can be taught differently?
Analyzing in depth a number of Americans is impossible here, but let's take a look at how poor technique has held back a top American prospect, RYAN HARRISON. The goal here is to offer an example of how a players weakness can be broken down and understood, thereby offering a path forward. HARRISON is particularly interesting because his shortcomings very much mirror those of ANDY RODDICK's game. Both players suffer (Roddick still plays WTT and exhibitions) in their ability to trade and neutralize, in particular off the backhand wing. This much is obvious, ( though it is surprising that it seems neither players has addressed it in material way.)


Harrison's difficulties begin in the most basic of places, his unit turn. He does not rotate his shoulders, hips and feet fully enough as he moves to his backhand side. Small inefficient first steps emerge, discouraging an efficient footwork pattern. He rarely gets his main power source, his left leg, behind the ball, hence he suffers an inability to load well as he prepares to hit from that side. Because these loading steps are too short his base is often more narrow than it should be and his hips are not in a position to unfold as he tries to accelerate into the shot.


Harrison, like Roddick tries to compensate by muscling the ball with his upper body. The rigidity worsens the problem and what results is a stroke with minimal rotational power and very limited upward leg drive. (Remember technique is the shape of the swing and movement to the ball and loading) The result is poor ball quality. Even when he get adequate depth I am sure his opponents experience very little "heaviness" on his shot. All pros would tell you, (me included) that heaviness in and of it self has profound mental effectiveness on top of quality of the shot itself. I clearly remember being
impacted by volleying Sampras' running forehand.



Djokovic provides an instructive contrast. Following an exceptionally clean unit turn that includes a fuller rotation of the torso, hips and feet than Harrison, Djokovic is enabled to take an efficient path to the trading backhand which allows the best court position and a chance to get behind the ball. Djokovic's footwork patterns enables rhythmic movement with large steps and powerful loading. Maximum rotation and good upward drives ensues. Djokovic creates tremendous power by what is known as elastic energy which is available because all the prior elements have unfolded in the optimum way. Compared to Harrison almost all his trading backhands have vastly better ball quality.


What is less obvious is that off Ryan's trading backhand Harrison is often, as Roddick was, in a subpar body position to recover with balance and power. They often come off a backhand with a more narrow base and higher center of gravity than optimum, hence they are in a compromised position to move to neutralize or defend off the next ball if need be. Djokavic by contrast flows out of a backhand and establishes a wide base that makes powerful recovery available if his opponent is aggressive with his next shot.
Not only can Djokovic recover with more power but his wide base and low center of gravity allows him to move with rhythm and fluidity. Great player's movement flows from shot to recovery to shot like waves. Any breakdown in that chain caused by inefficiencies leads to loss of balance, power, and speed. Djokaovic is a example of greatness in all aspects. He is always using, and storing energy in an optimal way. In contrast Harrison's movement is choppy with a great deal of stopping and starting making trading and neutralizing more complicated than it already is at the top of the game.


Neutralizing off the backhand is perhaps the most demanding skill in tennis.
Good footwork patterns are required to maintain decent court position and the deeper positioning in the court and the open stance often used, requires excellent use of all available rotational and vertical power. As we have seen the higher center of gravity and more narrow base used by Harrison disrupts balanced fluid recovery and slows his first step. From here Harrison is further comprised as he begins the second cycle or shot. This cycle begins with another poor unit turn. Poor unit turn and subsequent footwork patterns leads to subpar court positioning, weak loading leads to worse ball quality. To compensate Harrison tries to take chances with court positioning hitting forehands from out of position and often goes for too much.


It would be exciting to try to work with Harrison on these changes, given the later development of top players there is still time for him to make an assault on the top. (there are a number of other elements in his game that could be improved) Beyond that, the most salient point here is that our best juniors should be learning these complicated skills as they work through their development. Sadly that is not happening on a large scale. It is also not happening on a large scale in our colleges.


There are many very good coaches in this nation. Also, knowing and understanding these skills in no way is a guarantee that your student will do the hard mental and physical work to integrate them. The culture of the players who surround you pulls strong Understanding what is necessary and substantive and what is style ranks as a tough a skill as there is in coaching. Still as a former good player who was desperate to become great I would have relished the chance to understand more fully how to improve. We as coaches have to feel and act on that same desperation.

[GeoffWilliams]

Shadow swinging is a good way to unlearn. I shadow swing once or twice a day walking my three legged shepherd, for hundreds of swings each walk. Weaponry wins championships, not pushing/trading/defending/neutralizing. Players who are equally adept at defense, will lose to the one with better weapon skill. That's how Delpo won the 2009 us open, the only guy to break the top four domination since Safin. 2-1 sets down, he just outgunned a neutralizing Fed, who became too defensive/trading/trying not to miss. No consistency results weapon/defending without very good unit turns and footwork. Upper/lower body concert. The top players are just better at footwork/unit turning, faster when they have to be, and set up way ahead of time when they don't.

jula after operation

[10splayer]

Shadow swinging is a good way to unlearn. I shadow swing once or twice a day walking my three legged shepherd, for hundreds of swings each walk. Weaponry wins championships, not pushing/trading/defending/neutralizing. Players who are equally adept at defense, will lose to the one with better weapon skill. That's how Delpo won the 2009 us open, the only guy to break the top four domination since Safin. 2-1 sets down, he just outgunned a neutralizing Fed, who became too defensive/trading/trying not to miss. No consistency results weapon/defending without very good unit turns and footwork. Upper/lower body concert. The top players are just better at footwork/unit turning, faster when they have to be, and set up way ahead of time when they don't.

jula after operation

It's this sort of thinking that has put us back as a tennis nation. However, your dog's way cool.

[stotty]

Great post...

What a superb post, tsmayotte.

I think the whole technique issue is interesting. Style versus technique...where do the two separate?...do they separate at all?...since every aspect of a stroke must have a bearing...an effect...an outcome. Technique is a moving target and hard to define in exact terms anyways. And there's always more than one way to skin a cat...whether the cat is a forehand, a backhand or a serve. The judgement calls are sometimes tricky for coaches.

The whole attack/defense strategy has spring up out of nowhere over the past five years. It has always been part of the game but these days players like Murray and Djokovic can turn defense back in to attack in a moment...and then slip back to defense again and wait for the next moment. And yes the positioning of Djokovic is superb for these type of exchanges. It's phenomenal how Djokovic and Murray can steal points from others like this. A lot of it has to be put down to their incredible movement and efficient preparation...and sheer shot tolerance.

I think American tennis has been caught out here with it's default "aggressive mentality", though it has served its purpose well for you in the past. But today, learning the ebb and flow of defense/attack is the way to go. Sadly I don't think you're anywhere near it as things stand at the moment. Sorry, I'm a Brit and probably have little right to comment but just couldn't hold back my two cents.

I think your post is excellent, tsmayotte, and deserves much comment from others on the forum. I have much to add and will do so when I get a little more time.

[johnyandell]

You guys realize that is Tim Mayotte, right?

[klacr]

Tim Mayotte is spot on. I'd love to add more to this thread but Coach Mayotte took the words out of my mouth.

Very happy Tim decided to contribute to this forum. Great stuff and I appreciate it.

Years ago, Tim Mayotte was generous enough to speak to a group of young aspiring tennis professionals at Ferris State University for their Professional Tennis Management program. I appreciated his candor, knowledge and respect for our craft.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

[sfrazeur]

Awesome post by Tim Mayotte!

[GeoffWilliams]

You guys realize that is Tim Mayotte, right?

Gentleman Tim. Forgot he was a silver medal Olympic winner.

http://www.watchlivetennis.org/tennis-news/tim_tayotte_hired_as_national_coach_by_usta.html

[GeoffWilliams]

Part 2

IT NEEDS TO BE STATED CLEARLY THAT TECHNIQUE, AS I USE THE WORD, means shape of swings, AND THE MOVEMENT PATTERNS, LOADING and AND USE OF ALL POTENTIAL ENERGY TO CREATE EFFICIENT MOVEMENT AND RACQUET SPEED. SOME UNDERSTANDING about BIOMECHANICS HELPS SEPARATE STYLE From SUBSTANCE. WHILE GREAT TECHNIQUE IS ONLY ONE PART IN THE ALCEMY NEEDED TO CREATE A GREAT PLAYER, ONLY WITH GREAT MECHANICS CAN AN AMERICAN PLAY WORLD-BEATING TENNIS.
THE EARLIER OUR PLAYERS LEARN THEM THE BETTER. AS FIXING THE PROBLEM IS TOUGHER THAN TEACHING IT CORRECTLY FIRST. ALSO, ONCE THE TACTICAL STYLE OF THE PLAYER IS MORE DEFINED THE UNLEARNING OF THAT IS DIFFICULT.
AMERICAN MALE PLAYERS AS A WHOLE HAVE NOT MASTERED THE SOPHISTICATED SKILLS NEEDED TO TRADE, NEUTRALIZE AND DEFEND. IN MANY WAYS DEFENDING IS MORE TECHNICALLY DEMANDING THAN PLAYING OFFENSE. SOME SAY IT IS OUR PLAYERS DON'T HAVE THE HEART AND THE WILLINGNESS TO SUFFER. My experience has shown me that their are many driven hardworking players. I THINK WE,THE COACHES, CAN DO BETTER.


So what can be taught differently?
Analyzing in depth a number of Americans is impossible here, but let's take a look at how poor technique has held back a top American prospect, RYAN HARRISON. The goal here is to offer an example of how a players weakness can be broken down and understood, thereby offering a path forward. HARRISON is particularly interesting because his shortcomings very much mirror those of ANDY RODDICK's game. Both players suffer (Roddick still plays WTT and exhibitions) in their ability to trade and neutralize, in particular off the backhand wing. This much is obvious, ( though it is surprising that it seems neither players has addressed it in material way.)


Harrison's difficulties begin in the most basic of places, his unit turn. He does not rotate his shoulders, hips and feet fully enough as he moves to his backhand side. Small inefficient first steps emerge, discouraging an efficient footwork pattern. He rarely gets his main power source, his left leg, behind the ball, hence he suffers an inability to load well as he prepares to hit from that side. Because these loading steps are too short his base is often more narrow than it should be and his hips are not in a position to unfold as he tries to accelerate into the shot.


Harrison, like Roddick tries to compensate by muscling the ball with his upper body. The rigidity worsens the problem and what results is a stroke with minimal rotational power and very limited upward leg drive. (Remember technique is the shape of the swing and movement to the ball and loading) The result is poor ball quality. Even when he get adequate depth I am sure his opponents experience very little "heaviness" on his shot. All pros would tell you, (me included) that heaviness in and of it self has profound mental effectiveness on top of quality of the shot itself. I clearly remember being
impacted by volleying Sampras' running forehand.



Djokovic provides an instructive contrast. Following an exceptionally clean unit turn that includes a fuller rotation of the torso, hips and feet than Harrison, Djokovic is enabled to take an efficient path to the trading backhand which allows the best court position and a chance to get behind the ball. Djokovic's footwork patterns enables rhythmic movement with large steps and powerful loading. Maximum rotation and good upward drives ensues. Djokovic creates tremendous power by what is known as elastic energy which is available because all the prior elements have unfolded in the optimum way. Compared to Harrison almost all his trading backhands have vastly better ball quality.


What is less obvious is that off Ryan's trading backhand Harrison is often, as Roddick was, in a subpar body position to recover with balance and power. They often come off a backhand with a more narrow base and higher center of gravity than optimum, hence they are in a compromised position to move to neutralize or defend off the next ball if need be. Djokavic by contrast flows out of a backhand and establishes a wide base that makes powerful recovery available if his opponent is aggressive with his next shot.
Not only can Djokovic recover with more power but his wide base and low center of gravity allows him to move with rhythm and fluidity. Great player's movement flows from shot to recovery to shot like waves. Any breakdown in that chain caused by inefficiencies leads to loss of balance, power, and speed. Djokaovic is a example of greatness in all aspects. He is always using, and storing energy in an optimal way. In contrast Harrison's movement is choppy with a great deal of stopping and starting making trading and neutralizing more complicated than it already is at the top of the game.


Neutralizing off the backhand is perhaps the most demanding skill in tennis.
Good footwork patterns are required to maintain decent court position and the deeper positioning in the court and the open stance often used, requires excellent use of all available rotational and vertical power. As we have seen the higher center of gravity and more narrow base used by Harrison disrupts balanced fluid recovery and slows his first step. From here Harrison is further comprised as he begins the second cycle or shot. This cycle begins with another poor unit turn. Poor unit turn and subsequent footwork patterns leads to subpar court positioning, weak loading leads to worse ball quality. To compensate Harrison tries to take chances with court positioning hitting forehands from out of position and often goes for too much.


It would be exciting to try to work with Harrison on these changes, given the later development of top players there is still time for him to make an assault on the top. (there are a number of other elements in his game that could be improved) Beyond that, the most salient point here is that our best juniors should be learning these complicated skills as they work through their development. Sadly that is not happening on a large scale. It is also not happening on a large scale in our colleges.


There are many very good coaches in this nation. Also, knowing and understanding these skills in no way is a guarantee that your student will do the hard mental and physical work to integrate them. The culture of the players who surround you pulls strong Understanding what is necessary and substantive and what is style ranks as a tough a skill as there is in coaching. Still as a former good player who was desperate to become great I would have relished the chance to understand more fully how to improve. We as coaches have to feel and act on that same desperation.

Blake needed to learn this from Gilbert as Agassi did. No one is as low center of gravity on returns as the Joker. Keeps his chest forward on the returns, and uses an extremely wide base, to return from, lowering that center of gravity and increasing lunge range.

[tennis_chiro]

Message to Tim

Tim,
I'm a little confused. I love your train of thought here that more is required today than the old simple aggressive nature of American tennis.

I know you were part of the PD program out of NY for at least a little while and I thought that was during the time when Higueras had already taken the lead as far as formulating instructional philosophy for the USTA PD program. My sense is basically from a bit of a distance although I have attended seminars Jose has led for HP coaches. I thought much of the "Spanish" system he wants to incorporate into our players by getting them to better "receive" the ball, is very much about doing exactly what you are talking about. There is more about Jose's philosophy in his article right here on Tennisplayer:

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/famouscoach/jose_higueras/learning_to_play/learning_to_play.html

I have other objections to the USTA PD program that are more in line with the arguments (not all, but most) put forward by your contemporary, Chris Lewis in this recent article he put up:

http://www.tennisconsult.com/develop-american-tennis-stars/#comment-5692

If I can read between the lines a little bit, you are saying that the actual program doesn't measure up to the theoretical program that Higueras is advocating in his article in spite of the resources that they have at their disposal in the USTA PD program. My experience is that they are not doing a good enough job of developing the necessary fundamentals to execute the kind of shots that can hold up in the "turn defense into offense" kind of paradigm you are saying now dominates the pro game. And they shouldn't be doing that. They should leave that task to the developmental coaches that have brought their players along to where they hit USTA PD radar. I think USTA PD should be focused on supporting those coaches and creating situations where more players can get the kind of stroke development practice and match practice that Jose says is so important through arranged interaction and practice sites. I'd prefer seeing the USTA support those developmental coaches as they go out with their elite students to try their hand at international competition and lower levels of the pro tour. However, I know that won't happen. At the same time, I think it is possible that they could wake up and realize they should leave the development of players to the coaches who have traditionally provided us (and continue to provide us with ) our best players.


don

Tim, you probably don't remember me, but I had the privilege of meeting you when you played my Huggy Bears tournament with one of the sponsors, Tony Forstmann, in 1991. You managed to take a set off that year's champions, Fred Stolle and Wally Masur, not a small feat. I didn't get to see much of you as I was busy picking up the pieces from a couple of hurricanes. One was Hurricane Bob that destroyed the place and almost wiped us out the day before the tournament started. The other was the Rosewall/Warwick match against Ted Forstmann/Danie Visser in the quarterfinals. I'm not sure which storm gave me more grey hairs, but I really regret that I didn't get a better chance to spend at least a little time with you.

[sfrazeur]

Geoff, on a side note, will you please crop your pictures in the future? I'm on a 32" HD monitor and your pictures are always huge even to me.

[jasonfrausto]

You guys realize that is Tim Mayotte, right?

Yes John I almost think he would like it more if we were candid with him rather than groveling at his feet I certainly appreciate what he has to say, but what I'm more interested in hearing about is why he departed the USTA?

I'm as big a believer as anyone in technique (stroke/footwork) etc, but I also believe there is a certain fluidity you see in the games of European/South American/Spanish players that you typically do not see from Americans. That issue in itself could be tied to court surfaces, playing styles etc, but to me it can also be attributed partially to making things overly mechanical too often.

So while I certainly respect what Mr. Mayotte has to say, he has accomplished much more in tennis than I ever have, does he think the game can be overly technical to the detriment of creating a fluid and more natural looking player? When I look at Ryan Harrison I see a technically inferior forehand, I also see a guy who needs to work on his movement and mental game.

[tsmayotte]

Tim Mayotte

Hello Everyone,
Thanks for all the insights and thoughts.

Here are a few thoughts that attempt the address a couple themes so far.

1. I believe we as coaches have to and need to do a better job
separating substance from style. While Nadal's and Federer's
forehands look very different they have almost all the same
substantive elements. Good split and turn, efficient and powerful
footwork patterns that include great loading steps, great preparation into
the pull position, and unloading that maximizes rotation, vertical and
at times lateral energy (on neutral and closed stances.) That is why
they have great forehands. Don't look at the style of the wrap around
finish or above the head finish or the way they prep their racquets.

It should be stated that players have limitations or strengths based on
physiology that creates a range of substance of what is best or obtainable for a player. Getting good hip and shoulder rotation is a subtance needed in all great serves. But I would not teach certain elements of Sampras' serve. Sampras' amazing flexibility allows him rotation not doable by most. As coaches we need to ascertain when a player has reached a good enough place so they can practice it and make it work were it needs to work, under the pressure of the tournaments.

2. If the article were to continue it would have stated that the elements that make great defense possible,make great offense possible. Hitting a great neutralizing bankhand may be tougher than an attacking inside out forehand because usually you have to create tremendous power when moving back and hence have mostly only rotation and vertical power at your disposal instead of the lateral power of a short forehand. Still playing offense has different and difficult elements to learn. Our players need both and we need to teach both.

3.
My hope is to create a useable vernacular that we as coaches can have to discuss the substance of technique
in a meaningful way. The academic tennis world (for lack of a better term)
has attempted to create one but the language is often too arcane for
the coaches in the field. Regardless, we as coaches need a language
so like doctors or other professions, we can communicate.

4
To John's point, I think he is right on when talking about the fluidity of the clay court players. I tried to address that very point when I talk about the balanced, rthymic movement of Djokovic. Technique sounds choppy and robotic but great technique creates fluidity and power and control etc. I like the anology of a wave. The best way to build and use power is in smooth wave-like movements.
Clay encourages this as the deacceleration happens more smoothly than on hard courts.

5.
Next, Jose at the USTA intuitively had a sense of all this. He clearly understood the impotance of the mind set of playing defense and the suffering and hard work that was required to change the culture of American tennis. These are important and necesary but hardly sufficient to creating great players. He does not own enough knowledge about what constitutes substance and hence struggled mightily to teach and develop top players and coaches. For instance he often talked about "receiving" the ball or "aborbing power." To demonstrate Jose often showed a boxer falling back when being punched to show what absorbing meant. I did not like the image since one better be able to create power, not absorb it, to hit a neutralizing forehand 80 ft away that will keep Federer (or Lendl for me) from hitting a forehand winner.

I would never say the technique is everything but like in everything else in this
world, we better have a great knowledge base from which to draw or else we are not serving our players. I like to think of technical knowledge like technology. It's good to have it but we need to make it work in the best possible way for a human being in a real world situation in the here and now.

6. I think all coaches should try to work with 6 and 7 and 8 year olds. I found it so humbling, but it forced me to understand all the elements that are required to analyze and understand what makes a great player like Djokavic, better than a good one like Harrison. We have to grasp and learn to teach the foundational elements.

Please keep pushing and asking hard questions. This whole process is humbling beyond what I could ever have imagined. Like great players we all need to defend and learn.

Tim

[dimitrios]

I think USTA PD should be focused on supporting those coaches and creating situations where more players can get the kind of stroke development practice and match practice that Jose says is so important through arranged interaction and practice sites. I'd prefer seeing the USTA support those developmental coaches as they go out with their elite students to try their hand at international competition and lower levels of the pro tour. However, I know that won't happen. At the same time, I think it is possible that they could wake up and realize they should leave the development of players to the coaches who have traditionally provided us (and continue to provide us with ) our best players.


don

Don, don't know if you saw this in a recent issue of the WSJ:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324906304579038682358575194.html

A key quote, relevant to what you've mentioned: "The USTA says the budget will remain the same and the academy will offer full-time training to players who live nearby, but the USTA will devote more of its resources to players who visit periodically and then return home to their own coaches."