Rod Laver and The Mean Streak

[JeffMac]

Connors Backhand!

I see from the first point in the that Laver hasn't bought into the idea yet that his right foot can now leave the ground when he serves...old habits. He is still moving very well at 36.

The second point...I had almost forgotten how good that two-handed backhand of Connors was. Before he struck it I was trying pick what he was going to do with it...just take a look yourself. A beauty. Still the best backhand ever for me.

Incredible ball control that Connors had...matched only by his coach Segura apparently.

Nice find. I enjoyed watching it so much. Thanku.

For more info on the Connors backhand check out a book entitled Two-Handed Tennis--How to play a Winners Game, M. Evans, 1984. Some people think it's pretty good. The Borg, Evert and Austin backhands are in there, too. I've read it...no, I actually wrote it! If you read it, please let me know what you think. When I read it now, I think it's O.K. based on what I knew and understood at the time. If I were to redo it, I believe it would be a lot better book now. But, isn't that the case with everything else, as well?

[stotty]

The two-hander...

For more info on the Connors backhand check out a book entitled Two-Handed Tennis--How to play a Winners Game, M. Evans, 1984. Some people think it's pretty good. The Borg, Evert and Austin backhands are in there, too. I've read it...no, I actually wrote it! If you read it, please let me know what you think. When I read it now, I think it's O.K. based on what I knew and understood at the time. If I were to redo it, I believe it would be a lot better book now. But, isn't that the case with everything else, as well?

I have the book but cannot bloody find it! My father bought it for me many years ago. I remember thinking the book was before it's time and was really impressed with it. It's a long time ago since I read it so will have to refresh myself with it once I find it. I would like to see how it compares to present day thinking on the two-hander. Is Mecir's backhand in there or did he sneak up a little late for publication? He made his mark around 1984 or thereabouts? His backhand was really sweet...loved his disguise and the way he switched down the line.

Try to login to the forum now and again because if I find the book I would love to have an opportunity to talk to you about it...

I'll get searching...

[don_budge]

The Prince Bag...

Of course, D.B. will have to sport the dirty, green Prince bag. I no longer have one so you'll have to use yours. LOL Sorry about that!, but for the sake of accuracy it must be done.

http://www.theguardian.com/news/2000/jan/28/guardianobituaries

From the article…

"His book, Budge On Tennis, first pubished in 1939, was reprinted in the 1950s, and in 1969 came Don Budge; A Tennis Memoir. He and his first wife, with whom he had two sons, drifted apart, and in 1974 Budge married his second wife, Loriel. He sold the Don Budge tennis camp, Baltimore, in 1983 but remained on the board of advisers of Prince Racquets, and on the committee to pick the world's champion each year."


JeffMac…

Personally I would never be caught dead with anything "Prince" in my possession. The bane of tennis. Prince Racquets. They almost alone are responsible for fucking up the game of tennis…as you noted in your lamentation that the game is being played at a pace that is much too fast.

But Mr. Budge had other ideas. Much to my infinite disappointment one day in the late 70's, or was it the early 80's I happened to see that Don Budge was actually endorsing Prince Tennis Racquets in an advertisement in a tennis magazine. Anybody have this in their collection?

In 1973…in one of our many conversations Don confided a bit in me about the tennis world and the money situation. Although he was making a comfortable living from his tennis camp and a gig in Acapulco at the Princess Hotel he was sort of jealous of the amount of money that the "modern tennis players" were making at the time.

Of course this was the period shortly after the game went open and some money had begun to pour in. For all of his wonderful accomplishments…they had come a little too early for him to make a king's ransom. He wasn't bitter…he was much too cool to be that. But you could tell that he felt that it wasn't fair. Most people spend their whole lives figuring that little conundrum out…life isn't fair. Even for the rich and famous. No one here gets out alive.

I will never forget asking him the first time to "hit a few" and he said to me to go and get his racquet in the ball room there at the courts. I RAN for that racquet and it felt like I was carrying Excalibur to Arthur. A priceless memory. He was absolutely the kindest man. At least he was to me. For some reason he liked me…I was a real rebel too. A real handful. It didn't matter to him. He talked to me…he tried to help me.

I guess this is why I have this reverence for the old guys. Rod Laver too.

[ten1050]

I know that Roger Federer is human and has lost his temper on a number of occasions. Everyone knows that Federer's bad temper as a junior probably rivaled McEnroe's. However, I know a gentleman who was the head umpire for the ATP for two decades. He told me quite frankly that Roger Federer and Patrick Rafter were the only Grand Slam singles champions he encountered that were really nice people. I realize that his comment may sound a little corny, however he did umpire the finals of Wimbledon and the U.S. Open on numerous occasions. He witnessed these great players under tremendous stress, and he had to deal with their complaints and displeasure. I suppose the most inspiring aspect of Roger Federer was his ability to evolve from a racket throwing tennis prodigy to a beloved world champion who continues to amaze the tennis world today.

Norman Ashbrooke

[stotty]

I know that Roger Federer is human and has lost his temper on a number of occasions. Everyone knows that Federer's bad temper as a junior probably rivaled McEnroe's. However, I know a gentleman who was the head umpire for the ATP for two decades. He told me quite frankly that Roger Federer and Patrick Rafter were the only Grand Slam singles champions he encountered that were really nice people. I realize that his comment may sound a little corny, however he did umpire the finals of Wimbledon and the U.S. Open on numerous occasions. He witnessed these great players under tremendous stress, and he had to deal with their complaints and displeasure. I suppose the most inspiring aspect of Roger Federer was his ability to evolve from a racket throwing tennis prodigy to a beloved world champion who continues to amaze the tennis world today.

Norman Ashbrooke

What a lovely post, Norman.

Roger, like Borg, probably just found himself...what he was supposed to be on court to get the best from himself. I watched Roger play at Wimbledon this year. His inner calm and contentment was something exceptional to see. I think he enjoys the game more than anyone on tour today. He plays tennis for all the right reasons. He has developed over the years and has evolved into an amazing person. Tennis for Roger has been truly character building.

An umpire would know better than anyone who is nice and who isn't. Umpires bear the brunt of it and are in the best position to judge a player's character.

[don_budge]

What a lovely post, Norman.

Roger, like Borg, probably just found himself...what he was supposed to be on court to get the best from himself. I watched Roger play at Wimbledon this year. His inner calm and contentment was something exceptional to see. I think he enjoys the game more than anyone on tour today. He plays tennis for all the right reasons. He has developed over the years and has evolved into an amazing person. Tennis for Roger has been truly character building.

An umpire would know better than anyone who is nice and who isn't. Umpires bear the brunt of it and are in the best position to judge a player's character.

Excellent post yourself Coach Stotty. Norman must be a classic...in fact he is. I found this post from his past contributions. He was at the Don Budge Tennis Camp the same year I was. It is so nice to see that the experience he had with Mr. Budge had a lasting effect for him too.

Don Budge Tennis Camp 1972
During the summer of 1972, I had the great privilege of working at the Don Budge Tennis Camp in Maryland. Mr. Budge was at the camp nearly everyday, and I had the great fortune of playing doubles with him and against him. He was 57 at the time and still playing tournament tennis at Wimbledon in the senior doubles event. I will never forget the first time I attempted to volley a ball he had struck with his miraculous backhand! It felt like a flying brick had hit my strings. At that time I was playing Division 1 college tennis, and I had never encountered such a heavy ball. However, what really impressed me was his forehand. During the early 1970's, most of the top players like Laver, Ashe, and Rosewall had better backhands than forehands. Mr. Budge's forehand was just as extraordinary as his backhand. I believe one of the reasons I enjoy watching Roger Federer play so much is that he reminds me of Mr. Budge.

Norman Ashbrooke

The thing about Roger is his fundamentals are pretty much old school...if there is such a thing. I call it Classic Tennis. I was amazed how many times he was hitting his forehand off of the front foot at Wimbledon and I am convinced that his default position is one of a slightly closed stance. Roger finding himself? That is an evolutionary process. He not only had sound fundamentals in the beginning he had that love for the game as a boy that seemingly has never waned.

Bjorn Borg is my favorite psychological profile. So many people are sort of amazed at his stoic demeanor but if you intimately know Swedish culture and the great Swedish sportsman's mindset you realize that Bjorn was merely being Swedish. Swede's give very little away about themselves on a routing basis and I am certain that the limelight was a real dilemma for Borg. But both players really were grounded in themselves and most likely were deep down inside genuine human beings.

Including Patrick Rafter in the realm of nice human beings also is testimony to the Australian mindset...at least the "old school Australian". Guys like Nick Kyrgios and Bernard Tomic are the antithesis of the classic Australian and Harry Hopman (my coach in my tennis teaching paradigm) must be rolling in his grave when their behavior flares up on the side of boorishness.

[hockeyscout]

Including Patrick Rafter in the realm of nice human beings also is testimony to the Australian mindset...at least the "old school Australian". Guys like Nick Kyrgios and Bernard Tomic are the antithesis of the classic Australian and Harry Hopman (my coach in my tennis teaching paradigm) must be rolling in his grave when their behavior flares up on the side of boorishness.

Hopman may have molded Nick Kyrgios and Bernard Tomic like past Australian stars were bolded. Sometimes you can't blame players when it is the system that is flawed.

[stotty]

Excellent post yourself Coach Stotty. Norman must be a classic...in fact he is. I found this post from his past contributions. He was at the Don Budge Tennis Camp the same year I was. It is so nice to see that the experience he had with Mr. Budge had a lasting effect for him too.

The thing about Roger is his fundamentals are pretty much old school...if there is such a thing. I call it Classic Tennis. I was amazed how many times he was hitting his forehand off of the front foot at Wimbledon and I am convinced that his default position is one of a slightly closed stance. Roger finding himself? That is an evolutionary process. He not only had sound fundamentals in the beginning he had that love for the game as a boy that seemingly has never waned.

You're right. It's was very noticeable when he played Raonic how very often Roger got to the side of the ball and stepped forward into forehands. He got his body right behind the ball so well. He steps forwards more than the others I feel. Peter Flemming said Roger would prefer to step into forehands wherever feasible. I think he meant more neutral than closed.

The most spectacular part of when Roger played Raonic at Wimbledon was when, out of the blue, Roger would suddenly step up the pace of his forehand. I mean he can really belt that ball so bloody hard with tremendous timing and spin....vicious...but beautiful.

[gzhpcu]

Hopman may have molded Nick Kyrgios and Bernard Tomic like past Australian stars were bolded. Sometimes you can't blame players when it is the system that is flawed.

??
Don't follow you. Hopman of the golden age of Aussie tennis molded Kyrgios and Tomic? What flawed system are you attributing to Hopman?

[don_budge]

Hopman may have molded Nick Kyrgios and Bernard Tomic like past Australian stars were bolded. Sometimes you can't blame players when it is the system that is flawed.

I saw your original post about the "rebels" in Nick Kyrgios and Bernard Tomic. Absolutely correct...Harry Hopman would have instilled the right program in these young man's hearts. The love for the game. The amateurish love for the game. A childish love. Once his players went for the money he let them go. That's old school for sure but there is a thread that can be maintained in the system...such is the love of the game by Roger Federer. You don't see it any longer. It's just another reason why he is the living proof. He is a derivative of the writings of Bill Tilden. Nothing has changed under the sun except the size of the racquet. The fundamentals never change.

You talk about building structures and any architect will begin to talk about the foundation. That which you build upon. Where is the remnants of the foundation that Tomic and Kyrgios were built upon? Well...the proof is in the pudding. It was shaky. Parents, money, coaches who didn't install the magic. It's the magic of the game that entices the player to become a student of the game. To never stop learning. To never shirk the challenge. To always rise to the occasion no matter what, no matter the odds. This is the Harry Hopman school of thought. The equation didn't include the money factor...the money variable. Children don't need to be enticed with money...they are most interested in having fun. Rod Laver and Roy Emerson wrote a book "Tennis for the Bloody Fun of It". More of Hopman's influence. The Aussies passed it forwards from generation to generation. Here is the key for success on a national level. Think of it..."Harry Hopman is the coach". In modern terms of course.

You're right. It's was very noticeable when he played Raonic how very often Roger got to the side of the ball and stepped forward into forehands. He got his body right behind the ball so well. He steps forwards more than the others I feel. Peter Flemming said Roger would prefer to step into forehands wherever feasible. I think he meant more neutral than closed.

The most spectacular part of when Roger played Raonic at Wimbledon was when, out of the blue, Roger would suddenly step up the pace of his forehand. I mean he can really belt that ball so bloody hard with tremendous timing and spin....vicious...but beautiful.

I definitely would not read more neutral than closed into it. If he didn't say it he probably didn't mean it. The fundamental step to the ball is the back toe is in line with the front foot instep. This goes across the board in all of sports and just because tennis has been engineered into a backcourt game with two hand backhands changes nothing. This nonsense of teaching a recovery step on every stroke is sheer malarky.

In the Roger Federer paradigm (don_budge's "Living Proof") he is going for the blow on every single shot. Of course like a boxer or a fencer he isn't able to be full on aggressive all of the time and he will be parrying and playing defense some of the time. But minimum of the time. His whole game is created to "maintain pressure on his opponent". I watch Federer when he is warming up and what I see is what I say...back foot bit toe in line with front foot instep. Of course he doesn't hit this way every single shot but when he is full on attack, more often than not he is fundamentally correct (FC).

Teaching neutral is not going far enough. You teach to tie. Play to win...like Roger Federer. Roger is not thinking in terms of recovery steps all of the time. In fact he wants to reduce recovery steps. That implies playing defensively and he is all about maintaining pressure on his opponent at every single possible opportunity. He doesn't let up. Wimbledon was an excellent example as he never let up the entire tournament. Straight sets right clear through to the final. He put so much pressure on Marin Cilic he was crying in his chair wishing his mother had never had him. It was VICIOUS and BEAUTIFUL.

Nobody can flatten out that forehand like Federer. Nobody uses the kind of footwork that he uses on a routine basis. Nobody is playing the same kind of ball that he is. Everybody else is playing some kind of defense...Roger is on the attack. At 35 years old he is dominating the field.

*stotty and hockeyscout...read the first four pages of this thread. It's quite amusing...I think.

[hockeyscout]

Connors Backhand!



For more info on the Connors backhand check out a book entitled Two-Handed Tennis--How to play a Winners Game, M. Evans, 1984. Some people think it's pretty good. The Borg, Evert and Austin backhands are in there, too. I've read it...no, I actually wrote it! If you read it, please let me know what you think. When I read it now, I think it's O.K. based on what I knew and understood at the time. If I were to redo it, I believe it would be a lot better book now. But, isn't that the case with everything else, as well?

Where can I find, buy or download this book?

[hockeyscout]

??
Don't follow you. Hopman of the golden age of Aussie tennis molded Kyrgios and Tomic? What flawed system are you attributing to Hopman?

I meant things may have been different for Kyrgios and Tomic if they were moulded under the Hopman system.

For whatever reasons no one has solved the enigma of both of these players.

My theory is very simple - internet and video games. I think both of these young players are addicts, and its like crack cocaine. My daughter was introduced to this when she went back to Canada, and her ability to perform was severly effected. I did a lot of studying on how to parent through this, and I have focused on educating her a lot about the hazards so she can make the right choices moving forward. Basically, in a nutshell what happens is it starts to shut off pathays in the brain. They did MRI's of kids who were played a lot of games, and basically the brain was shut off into a zombie state, and when they took them off the games, began education and awareness you could see brain pathways were enlightened and shining on the MRI with activity.

Its interesting how the old school folks see the potential issue here. don_budge once asked me why I don't bother with these phones - and I never gave it much thought till now. I understand they are as bad as drugs for kids. I also think they will give you cancer and fuck up your sperm count. My nanny carries my phone LOL. She doesn't understand why. I am freaked out about the radiation and dont even put it up to my ear.

I am trying to teach my daughter that a phone is simply something that needs to be used to make money or gain you an asset, and should never be used as a form of entertainment or socialization.

But, that is a tough mountain to climb when she see's other children using them.

The interesting thing I see right now is the SMARTEST kids are the ones that are THE MOST at risk.

There is something to be said for talented artists being addictive personalities, so I am really taking this one seriously.

Twenty to thirty years from now we will find out that computer companies purposly made these games addictive for children just like the tobacco companies lied to the public about the addiction - health effects.

I hope my daughter see's these other kids are losers who are addicted to the crack, I am even amazed at all the tennis coaches who have their heads in the phone all the time. What the heck will happen in five or ten years. I really think we have an epidemic on our hands here.

How the hell Hopman would deal with the issues todays coaches are faced with I am not sure.

This cell phone deal has produced a generation of kids that are very different.

[stotty]

Where can I find, buy or download this book?

https://www.amazon.com/Two-Handed-Te...+Evans%2C+1984.

[don_budge]

Its interesting how the old school folks see the potential issue here. don_budge once asked me why I don't bother with these phones - and I never gave it much thought till now. I understand they are as bad as drugs for kids.

How the hell Hopman would deal with the issues todays coaches are faced with I am not sure.

This cell phone deal has produced a generation of kids that are very different.

Nope...sorry that wasn't me. I have been talking about the down side of the cell phone generation since day one. Hopman would definitely not permitted phones on the court when practicing. If he could he would certainly discourage video games. We don't know how badly this is going to affect the human race long term. Everyone is so in awe of artificial intelligence. It's going to come around and bite us in the ass one day.

Singularity. When the computers start talking to each other...we are fucked.

[gzhpcu]

I meant things may have been different for Kyrgios and Tomic if they were moulded under the Hopman system.

For whatever reasons no one has solved the enigma of both of these players.

My theory is very simple - internet and video games. I think both of these young players are addicts, and its like crack cocaine. My daughter was introduced to this when she went back to Canada, and her ability to perform was severly effected. I did a lot of studying on how to parent through this, and I have focused on educating her a lot about the hazards so she can make the right choices moving forward. Basically, in a nutshell what happens is it starts to shut off pathays in the brain. They did MRI's of kids who were played a lot of games, and basically the brain was shut off into a zombie state, and when they took them off the games, began education and awareness you could see brain pathways were enlightened and shining on the MRI with activity.

Its interesting how the old school folks see the potential issue here. don_budge once asked me why I don't bother with these phones - and I never gave it much thought till now. I understand they are as bad as drugs for kids. I also think they will give you cancer and fuck up your sperm count. My nanny carries my phone LOL. She doesn't understand why. I am freaked out about the radiation and dont even put it up to my ear.

I am trying to teach my daughter that a phone is simply something that needs to be used to make money or gain you an asset, and should never be used as a form of entertainment or socialization.

But, that is a tough mountain to climb when she see's other children using them.

The interesting thing I see right now is the SMARTEST kids are the ones that are THE MOST at risk.

There is something to be said for talented artists being addictive personalities, so I am really taking this one seriously.

Twenty to thirty years from now we will find out that computer companies purposly made these games addictive for children just like the tobacco companies lied to the public about the addiction - health effects.

I hope my daughter see's these other kids are losers who are addicted to the crack, I am even amazed at all the tennis coaches who have their heads in the phone all the time. What the heck will happen in five or ten years. I really think we have an epidemic on our hands here.

How the hell Hopman would deal with the issues todays coaches are faced with I am not sure.

This cell phone deal has produced a generation of kids that are very different.

OK, I completely misunderstood what you were saying...