Have you ever experienced hitting an amazing shot when you know it “doesn’t count”?
For me it usually happens on a casual swing at a serve that landed a foot out – so I call it out and just let’r rip.
No pressure. No expectations.
Amazing how those swings feel so smooth, and yet the result is a booming shot that paints a corner.
Just like hitting in practice, right?
In practice you aren’t concerned with winning or losing so everything is smooth and relaxed.
Effortless.
So why the 180 degree turn around in match play?
It comes down to one ugly word.
Fear.
Now that the shots you’re hitting really “matter” your mind is racing and the feeling of fear takes over:
Fear of embarrassment
Fear of letting down your doubles partner
Fear of disappointing your teammates or coach
Fear of losing to a weaker opponent
Fear of losing your reputation as a player
Unfortunately, most tennis players treat fear as the problem when it’s actually just a symptom.
Once you understand what the root cause of your fear (and how to best manage your particular issue –emphasis added by Tennis Whisperer) is it melts away leaving you free to play your best tennis.
Source: Jorge Capestany, USPTA
00Robhttps://www.tenniswhisperer.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/cropped-LOGOWhisperer1024-300x300.pngRob2022-12-16 07:16:102022-12-16 07:16:10Here’s Why You Play WORSE In Matches | ATP
Annacone started his tennis journey as a high-level player, where he had a very respectable pro career that saw him peak at No. 12 in the singles rankings. But he saw the game at an expert level, and was drawn to the coaching ranks where he excelled at a nearly unprecedented rate.
He started coaching Pete Sampras in 1995, and was with him for nine major titles. He coached Roger Federer from 2010-13, and the Swiss Maestro won a Wimbledon title and returned to the No. 1 ranking during that span.
Annacone was able to use transfer wisdom through teaching methods, and his core coaching philosophy is based on three pillars. The individual is made up of three things:
Their head, which is how they process stuff, how they figure out and problem solve.
Their heart, how well they can unconditionally compete.
Their physical attributes.
After digesting every bit of those components in his mind, then it was time to transfer the knowledge: “My philosophy is, how simply after that can I say what I need to say, the way they need to hear it.”
Sampras and Federer are of the greatest players to ever pick up a racquet, but as Annacone explains, they couldn’t have been more different to coach.
Sampras fit into Annacone’s “magician” category, in the sense that he could process information very quickly and didn’t necessarily need a lot of repetition to master certain elements of his game.
Federer, on the other hand, wanted to be coached and instructed thoroughly, with the caveat that he would challenge the methods and force Annacone to defend the reasons for his tactics. “I’ve never seen a guy happier on a tennis court,” Annacone said in regards working with Federer during countless practice sessions.
“The most important thing [with each player] is they knew themselves really well. Pete knew exactly how he wanted to be to achieve his goals, and Roger knew exactly how he needed to be to achieve his goals. Very different, but it worked for them.”
00Robhttps://www.tenniswhisperer.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/cropped-LOGOWhisperer1024-300x300.pngRob2022-12-05 06:29:052022-12-05 06:29:05Talking Shop with Coach Paul Annacone | ATP
When I was a young aspiring player, I often lost tennis matches by being too adventurous, which is my attempt to avoid admitting I was very impatient. I enjoyed playing the front court as much or more than staying near the baseline, and I never saw a short ball I did not want to attack.
Even by the age of twelve I would try and dominate my opponents with strong shots, or I would even serve and volley. Naturally, a game style with this risk profile produces plenty or errors. (In addition to an occasional spectacular play). After lost matches coaches would always tell me the number of unforced errors I had made. I never knew what to do with this information. (It’s not like it was my intention.)
“You made 41 unforced errors today!” a coach would say.
“What does that even mean,” I would respond rebelliously. “You’re just going for too much.”
I struggled with this feedback. How can I learn from this? In hindsight, I wish the coach would have helped me with situational play. When did the errors occur? How long were the rallies before I missed? When may I give myself permission to attack and when is patience more prudent. Certainly, an unforced error at the score of 40-0 is different from one produced at 30-40, don’t you agree?
Last week I was having a conversation with one of my adult clients about her most recent match. She mentioned that she had made too many unforced errors, and then she added a few more stats that she probably got from watching tennis on television. I told her that I was getting the gist of what she was saying, but I still could not get a good feel for the match as stats do not always paint the entire picture. I said that some stats are completely useless, and others can be counter intuitive.
“What ya talking ‘bout Willis?” (she did not actually say this) I continued by asking my Harvard- educated student the following question:
“After the match, what would yourather have the stat sheet say regarding break points, 2/3 or 4/17?”
She looked at me slightly confused (she suspected it was a set up): “I want to say 2/3, but it’s probably wrong, isn’t it?”
“Yes”, I continued. “Think about it, a 66.67 percent success rate (2/3) is indeed much better than a 23.5 percent (4/17), but in this case it is still better to break your opponent’s serve four times, instead of only two”.
She agreed to it being counter intuitive. I only mentioned that my client was Harvard-educated to show that intelligence was not in question here. I wasn’t teaching Penny, the waitress from the Cheesecake factory (no offense if you are a waitress, or don’t like The Big Bang Theory).
For some reason we look at all those break point opportunities and consider it a failure. What can we learn from this? The more opportunities we give ourselves, the better it is. A mindset of neutrality will be helpful here, an unattached approach to the outcome: if the break happens, great. If not, great.
Another stat in this realm is net points won/lost. When you look at a ratio of 4/9, you might judge it as a bad ratio. The player won four points at net, and she lost five points. What if I were to tell you that those four points won were all at break point! Then we might conclude that the nine attempts at net were not enough. If she had attacked the net twelve times for instance, she might not have needed those seventeen breakpoints! Your personal call to courage and to be brave at the right moments is a key strength for a competitor.
In any case, tennis stats are helpful, but have their limitations. Match play will still come down to being patient at the right times, being courageous at the right moments, and staying disciplined all match. Use the stats to dig into those areas more specifically. Answer the questions ‘when’ and ‘why”!
[Our Tennis Whisperer teaches the GHOST LINE strategy to answer the ‘when’ and ‘why’ questions — emphasis added]
Tonny van de Pieterman is a tennis professional at Point Set Indoor Racquet Club in Oceanside, NY. He has previously been named USTA Tennis Professional of the Year for the USTA/Eastern-Long Island Region.
https://longislandtennismagazine.com/tennis-numbers Tennis By The Numbers | Long Island Tennis Magazine
00Robhttps://www.tenniswhisperer.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/cropped-LOGOWhisperer1024-300x300.pngRob2022-11-27 17:48:542022-11-27 17:48:54Tennis By The Numbers | AskThePro
Technique improvements are great, but if you’re in a pattern of losing to lower level players it’s NOT the answer.
A quick story from Olivier in France illustrates that perfectly.
He was able to play at a “9 out of 10” during practice but only a “2 out of 10” during matches, especially against players who were weaker than him.
During one particular match he actually completely lost confidence and feel for his backhand while his opponent floated him weak shot after weak shot.
Here’s how he tried to solve the problem at first:
“I had mostly looked at the technical aspects. I had looked at the internet already because I remember doing some drills and stuff like that because I was really thinking that I needed to find the technical stuff that makes me be more consistent in my tennis. But then I realized, no, what is happening that I lose all this confidence in just a moment, in just a second? So either I fix that and I progress so that I can see that it’s no longer a disaster or I quit and do something else.”
Olivier eventually came to understand a vital truth: if technique execution is good during practice but significantly worse during matches you do NOT have a technique problem.
You have a mental demon problem.
Mental demons cause a wide range of problems for players. Low performance during matches is just one of them but it’s definitely one of the most common.
Here’s how another one of our students describes it:
“I have a regular weekly match with someone I have been playing for many years. Our matches were always competitive but then I started overthinking my shots and forcing changes and he started beating me (badly).
Technique is a fundamental element to tennis success, but becoming fixated on it can cause big drops in match performance!
Source: Jorge Capestany, USPTA
00Robhttps://www.tenniswhisperer.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/cropped-LOGOWhisperer1024-300x300.pngRob2022-11-21 07:19:032022-11-21 07:19:03Technique Is NOT The Answer | AskThePro
Whether or not you agree, it’d be tough to argue Serena Williams hasn’t had an impact on women’s tennis and what it means to be an athlete, period. Her 27-year professional career is one of the longest in her sport’s history.
And the mental toughness she’s consistently displayed throughout the decades is certainly noteworthy, says Eric A. Zillmer, PsyD, a licensed clinical psychologist and the Carl R. Pacifico Professor of Neuropsychology and an athletic director emeritus at Drexel University in Philadelphia.
“Some people may be ‘broken’ by a crisis, while others emerge from a stressful experience sometimes even stronger than before,” he says. An abundance of research backs this up.
While mental toughness is talked about often in sports, it translates to everyday life as well. “Mental toughness and resilience can be learned,” Zillmer says. They’re skills and qualities that are accessible to everyone.
Ultimately, it’s about treating yourself well and cultivating a sense of purpose and belonging in the world.
Losing is a key part of competitive tennis. Here are three examples of how to better deal with it….
1. Find Joy in a Highly Competitive Sport — and Show It
It’s no secret that tennis is an especially high-pressure sport. Players compete alone, travel often, and are subject to constant scrutiny by the press and the sport itself.
Williams’s appreciation for all aspects of her sport, not just winning, is key to her success. “Sports by definition is competitive, hard, stressful, and deals with a constantly changing environment,” Zillmer says. Learning to enjoy all the ups, downs, and pressures of the job, at least to some degree, is the very definition of resilience and mental toughness.
2. Find Motivation in Setbacks
Serena Williams wasn’t always great. “When I was little, I was not very good at tennis. I was so sad when I didn’t get all the early opportunities that Venus got, but that helped me. It made me work harder, turning me into a savage fighter.”
She’s fought her way out of many scoreboard holes to win matches (including, famously, the 2012 U.S. Open championship match), and has been dubbed the “queen of comebacks”.
That kind of determination in the face of adversity is part of what defines mental toughness. Rivalry is a great way for people to learn resilience starting at a young age. Learning to cope with failure early on, and even be motivated by it, is another thing that sets certain individuals apart.
3. Lose With Grace
Losing is part of ALL sports. And Williams has lost many tennis matches throughout her career. She does it with grace — even when she lost the (presumed) final match of her career.
“Dealing with winning is easy, but losing is tough,” Zillmer says. If and when a loser does muster up that good sportsmanship, s)he actually has a lot more to gain by doing it graciously than sorely.
“In sports psychology, losing graciously can also help someone maintain belief in themselves, even after (or because of) a setback.” It can help keep your confidence up, which makes you more likely to succeed in the future.
When Ajla Tomljanovic was a little girl, she asked her father about a prized photograph of him holding a big trophy on his head. Ratko Tomljanovic was a great professional handball player, winning two European Championships for Zagreb, the capital of Croatia, and was the captain of the Croatian national team; before that, he was a member of the Yugoslavian team.
His daughter wanted to know where that shiny trophy was, because she had never seen it in their home. Ratko Tomljanovic explained that it had been a team award, and that he did not get to keep it. Unimpressed, Ajla told him that she would not play handball.
“I want the trophy just for myself,” she said.
So Ajla Tomljanovic chose tennis, and she is still striving for that big trophy, for a professional championship. She has shown the talent for it, though her nerves have betrayed her at times — what she calls “the bad Ajla.”
But on Friday night, Tomljanovic, who is ranked 46th, demonstrated to herself and the world that she had the mettle and the shotmaking ability to win a trophy of her own. If she wins four more matches in the coming week, it will be one of the most coveted in sports.
That night, Tomljanovic beat the six-time U.S. Open champion Serena Williams, 7-5, 6-7 (4), 6-1, in front of a raucous, partisan crowd in Arthur Ashe Stadium in New York to advance to the fourth round of the U.S. Open for the first time.
“I feel like I belong here now,” she said.
That was not necessarily what she was thinking in the moments before she took the court.
Tomljanovic was nervous, and for good reason. Williams was her idol, and Tomljanovic had never played her before. She had never played in Ashe. In fact, she had never even practiced on that court. She had asked tournament organizers if they could find a time for her to hit some balls in the largest tennis stadium in the world at least once, but nothing was available.
Then there was the matter of her playing the role of villain, of facing down nearly 24,000 fans, virtually all of them screaming for Williams to win, and millions more watching on television. It would make anyone a tad nervous.
Tomljanovic confided the anxiety to her father, who was happy that his daughter admitted to the nerves. Better than hiding them, he thought. Ratko Tomljanovic also knew about playing in hostile environments, especially in Europe, where handball is intensely popular and the stakes are high. He tried to calm Ajla by evoking the almost comical role of the hard-bitten veteran of scrappy handball matches — the kind of yarn he had spun to her and his other daughter, Hana, many times before.
“Don’t tell me you are afraid of the crowd,” he told Ajla. “I played in some terrible places with 5,000 people booing and spitting, and one time the crowd came on the floor and there was a big fight. Don’t tell me it’s hard because some guy in the 35th row is yelling at you.”
It was not exactlyMickey yelling at Rocky. It was a speech designed to lighten the mood, and it worked. Ajla laughed. “She doesn’t care about what I did, at all,” Ratko said, chuckling.
But then he brought out another motivational tool. He mentioned one of his favorite movies, “For Love of the Game,” in which a pitcher for the Detroit Tigers, played by Kevin Costner,reflects on his life and careerin the midst of a perfect game.
“But she didn’t know the movie, so I had to explain it to her,” he said. “I told her, ‘You have to be Kevin Costner today.’”
In the film, he told her, the pitcher focuses explicitly on the catcher’s glove and ignores everything else in the stadium. Ajla understood, and she followed the advice with her own unique resolve.
She blocked out all the noise, the roars for Williams, the indecorous cheers when Tomljanovic missed a serve, all the celebrities in the stands, the video tributes to Williams and her own childhood adulation for Williams, a 23-time Grand Slam champion standing across the net and playing as well as she had in years. But Tomljanovic was better.
“From the first moment I walked on court, I didn’t really look around much,” she said. “I was completely in my own little bubble.”
00Robhttps://www.tenniswhisperer.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/cropped-LOGOWhisperer1024-300x300.pngRob2022-09-04 16:00:512022-09-04 16:00:51How Ajla Tomljanovic Faced Down Serena Williams and 24,000 Others
This week’s question comes from our club captain: Denis. “With finals approaching do you have a philosophy for tiebreakers?”
Ah… tie breakers. Regrettably most people hate playing tiebreakers! Why?
For some reason, as the pressure mounts towards the end of the set, many feel they have to overplay. Even though it was their current play that got them to the tie breaker!
Now is NOT the time for those trick shots, topspin lobs or the screaming sideline winner that just misses! CONSERVATISM is the name of the game. So what’s our preferred strategy?
First a little background. At our Badge level whether Grade 1 or Grade 10, most points are LOST. Read that again, yep most players beat themselves. Therefore, your basic strategy is to ‘give’ your opponent a chance to miss. You’ll find that, as the pressure builds after 3 or more shots, your opponent will try to finish the point and probably make an error.
So the basic strategy is strong and steady wins tie breakers. Get your first serve in, get your return of serve in play and hit your shots to ‘big targets’ typically down the centre of the court and midcourt to stay in the point. You’re trying to get your opponents to hit the ball to your partner at the net, who has a much greater chance of winning the point for your team.
And to improve that ‘first serve in’ percentage, take a little more time to prepare to serve (i.e. don’t rush) since this is the only time you have control of the point. Nothing happens until YOU serve — use the time to calm down with a little slow breathing. And perhaps, a little more spin to help your control if that’s within your capabilities, otherwise just aim for the middle of the service box. You want a 80% success rate.
When you’re receiving, err on the side of a higher net clearance and aim for the centre of the court to get into the point. A lob return can be a great return in a tie breaker. Even so, lob high — give ’em a chance to miss.
Recognize, there is no need to overplay and do more, rather just try to do more of what you’re been doing a little better. Trust yourself, your game, and do your best. Just keep playing. You might surprise yourself. I guarantee you’ll surprise your opposition!
And lastly, the most important point is always the next one. It’s never over until you shake hands.
Go Manly Lawn! Rob
00Robhttps://www.tenniswhisperer.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/cropped-LOGOWhisperer1024-300x300.pngRob2022-08-08 17:05:112022-08-08 17:05:11Badge Tie Breaker Strategy | ATP
ATLANTA — The phrase “future of American men’s tennis” mostly inspires groans these days, as 74 Grand Slams have come and gone since Andy Roddick lifted the U.S. Open trophy in 2003.
Invariably, the burdenof that drought falls on the American youngsters who quickly rise up the rankings, start making an impact on the ATP Tour and then run into the Grand Slam wall that Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal and Novak Djokovic have erected over the last two decades.
So let’s not saddle Ben Shelton, just 19, with that kind of albatross. But we can say this: The rising University of Florida junior, who won the NCAA singles title in May, is very, very good. And he’s on the precipice of a career-defining summer that may well put himon a very different trajectory from the one that seemed laid out for him just a few weeks ago.
Shelton, whose father Bryan is a former top-100 player and now is the head coach at Florida, played his first ATP-level match Tuesday, at the Atlanta Open. He won it in pretty straightforward fashion, beating veteran pro Ramkumar Ramanathan 6-2, 7-5 and letting out a big scream as he put away an overhead on match point.
“It’s really special,” said Shelton, who was just a few blocks from the courts of his childhood at Georgia Tech, where his father coached until 2012.
But with each tournament he’s played, the bigger story is that Shelton himself might be special, and his performance could very well force some decisions about his future much faster than anticipated.
As of now, Shelton is slated to return to Florida in the fall. But after performing well in several Challenger-level events and impressively winning his first round here, he’s on a fast track to the top 200 in the world rankings. Brad Gilbert, the longtime pro player, coach and ESPN analyst, wrote on Twitter that Shelton will be “top 50 for sure.” And the U.S. Open already has granted him a wildcard into the main draw, which would be a guaranteed $75,000 in first-round prize money — if he turns pro.
“That’ll definitely be a talk later in the summer with my parents and my team and we’ll make a decision based on where my development is and what’s going to be best for me not just on the court but off the court as well,” Shelton said. “There’s no real results or rankings that are going to sway my decision in a big way.”
There’s plenty, of course, that could bring Shelton back to college. It’s a comfortable place for him, he wants to complete his finance degree and it’s certainly a big deal to play for his father on one of the most successful teams in the country.
But as he goes through the process this summer, it certainly seems possible Shelton and those around him will conclude that he’s just too good to go back to school.
“I’m just a college guy out here having fun,” he said. “I don’t put too much stress on my matches. I’m focused and want to do the best I can, but it’s not do-or-die for me out here.”
Shelton will get a better sense of where he stands on Thursday when he faces No. 25-ranked John Isner, who has won the Atlanta event six times. After going 11-4 against pros ranked mostly in the 150-300 range, this will be Shelton’s first opportunity to see how he stacks up against a top-100 player.
But regardless of how it goes against Isner — and certainly it’s a major step up in class for someone who hasn’t turned pro yet — it’s Shelton’s explosive game at 6-foot-3 that is drawing as much attention as the results.
With a big lefty serve that averaged 126 mph against Ramanathan and the ability to get a massive kick on his first and second serve, Shelton already has a legitimate weapon that can win him matches. But he also appears to be very solid off both of his groundstrokes and is very comfortable coming into the net to finish points behind both his power and slice. Shelton won 15 of 22 points when he came in for a volley or overhead.
“I love to get to net, be able to use some of my hand skills, athletic skills and going up to get the ball (to put away overheads) is one of my favorite things to do,” Shelton said. “I could have done a better job today incorporating my serve and volley and getting to net quicker in points but I think that’s a big part of my game and a big part of my development.”
Only the hardest of hardcore tennis fans would have been watching Shelton on a Tuesday afternoon in Atlanta, but it was easy to see why he’s been a dominant college player, going 37-5 in singles last season. It was also a huge advertisement for other tournaments this summer and fall to offer him a wildcard entry, as Atlanta did. Every tournament wants to boast that it helped launch a great career.
It’s far too early to project that Tuesday’s match was the debut of the next great American champion, but at the very least Shelton appears poised for an interesting and successful pro career. Shelton may have some things pulling him back to college for another year, but if he keeps playing like he has the last several weeks, it will be difficult to turn down the opportunities he’s creating for himself right now.
Follow USA TODAY Sports columnist Dan Wolken
00Robhttps://www.tenniswhisperer.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/cropped-LOGOWhisperer1024-300x300.pngRob2022-07-28 07:39:452022-07-28 07:39:45NCAA champion Ben Shelton
In our previous column on rackets, we make reference to the key advantages of a good restring in managing your limitations!
The tournament pros are absolutely fanatical about their choice of strings and the associated string tension — which they change to suit both surface and playing conditions — and often during a match. I still carry two rackets in my bag each with a slightly different tension to accommodate the changing playing conditions at Manly Lawn.
Conversely, our average tennis player puts what I euphemistically call “two dollars worth of nylon” in a $200+ high performance frame — and expects to play consistently well and without injury, especially tennis elbow.
Most club players who play two or more times a week are well advised to get a GOOD STRING JOB every 8 to 10 weeks depending on the season. Aggressive players who blast the ball with big western forehands need to update every 3 to 4 weeks or so. Yep, strings go loose and dead — and performance suffers!
Trust me when I say, your game will improve at least a POINT A GAME with a good restring! You might even be encouraged to take a few lessons to help better manage the rest of your limitations.
So what constitutes a GOOD STRING JOB?
First a little science education since modern strings come in different materials and thicknesses, each designed to suit different playing styles. In the table below, you’ll notice the differences in the main and cross strings and the dependence on whether you want control, power, comfort (did I mention managing tennis elbow?).
Thickness is pretty screwy since 18 gauge string is thinner than 16 gauge, go figure!
You can see from the graph above that the typical $2 nylon (16G) has high durability (to ensure rackets have a good shelf life) and low spin potential ( aka “feel/control”)! How did that new Wilson play with the $2 nylon strings?
Even at my tender age, I still use a hybrid combination of 18G multifilament Gamma Live Wire on the mains and Babolat Blast (Nadal’s string) on the crosses. Yep as I’ve aged and reverted to social player status, I’ve gone for more control and less power by reversing the mains and the crosses per the table. The 18G Live Wire is more lively (plays like gut) and gives me much more feel. The Blast allows me to give the ball a nudge and more topspin when I need to.
And now the string tension. Most players string the crosses the same as the mains and expect the tension to be even itself out throughout the racket during stringing. Well that’s the logic anyway. The GOAL was always to get an even string tension in the racket to increase the ‘sweet spot’. Yep, for most of my playing life I relied on that logic too. Of course my ball watching was so much better than, and I played with gut, so miss hits were infrequent. And yep it’s SOoooooo Wrong!
Several years ago I ran into a older, chain smoking racket stringer in California who set me straight — and he didn’t hold back! Turns out that what most people miss is the impact of FRICTION on the Crosses when you’re feeding the string under and over through the Mains. Whatever tension you string the Mains at, you ADD 5lb to the Crosses to counter the friction. Here’s my current stringing pattern to illustrate this key point:
So Obi Wan how should I translate this to my game? Well most rackets come with a suggested stringing guide for tension. Start with the mid range for the racket for the Mains and then string the Crosses 5lb more. Then adjust up and down as required until you’re comfortable with the tension. Aside, typically you can use a lower tension that the one you used previously; helps your feel and control.
Just ask Tommie for ‘Rob’s restring’ if you want to try this type of restring at the Manly Tennis Centre. You’ll find an immediate benefit of a bigger sweet spot — and most of your misshits will go over now as your control is significantly improved.
As for the choice of string, well that depends on your game. I’ve given you the guidelines in the table above which you can probably figure out yourself. Even so, probably better to go talk to Scottie when you want some pro advice about what strings may suit your individual playing style. Or ask me.
To repeat you’ve got to manage your limitations — and using better technology (whether frame and/or strings) is a great way to do this. Cunning and guile will only get you so far! Invest in the technology!
Make a regular investment in a GOOD STRING JOB using the latest materials technology; it’s absolutely worth it for your psyche alone!
Sincerely,
Tennis Whisperer
00Robhttps://www.tenniswhisperer.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/cropped-LOGOWhisperer1024-300x300.pngRob2022-07-13 18:11:272024-01-16 01:25:05A Good String Job Can Manage Your Limitations
Wimbledon still has a couple of days to go, which is helpful because 48 hours gives us time to have another 48 opinions on Nick Kyrgios, to add to the thousands we’ve had on Kyrgios over the past eight years. This is Australia in 2022: Girt By Nick.
Kyrgios is now a human hottake generator, in that the endless hot takes on him now generate their own hot takes about the earlier hot takes, and on and on until we die. You’re reading one right now, so please watch for any sudden change in your vital signs.
To sum up our rollercoaster journey with the tennis terror from Canberra, let’s go to the social media-speak Nick himself loves so much: It’s Complicated. WTAF. FFS. And so on.
Because let’s be honest: it’s as easy to write the column ‘‘ Ten Reasons To Love Nick Kyrgios’ ’ as it is to write the column ‘‘ Ten Reasons To Hate Nick Kyrgios’’ .
You can sensibly and sarcastically wonder out loud what it is the Kyrgios fans love about him. Is it the verbal abuse? The violent treatment of racquets and balls? The spitting? The tanking? The narcissism? Equally, you can ask the Kyrgios haters what it is they hate. Is it the breathtaking talent? The shotmaking audacity? The charming impudence of his approach to the game’s stuffed shirts? His refreshing honesty that winning isn’t everything? What’s not to love? And what’s not to hate?
Kyrgios contains multitudes, and it is entirely possible that by Monday he will also contain a Wimbledon title, a triumph that will challenge us to reconsider him once again. Rarely have Australian sports fans been presented with a dilemma quite like the one we face this weekend.
As a lifelong tennis nut, my own journey with Kyrgios has been long and complicated. I remember the time he first made me sit up with a start in the middle of the night, saving nine match points on his way to the Wimbledon quarter-finals in 2014. Everything seemed possible then. I loved the guy, and I’ve spent a lot of money supporting him, flying to Darwin to watch him in the Davis Cup, and finding myself sitting next to Ken Rosewall at Rod Laver Arena the night Kyrgios played Nadal at the Australian Open in 2020.
Rosewall (who seemed bemused by Kyrgios more than anything else) never won Wimbledon, but he was a living reminder of a time when Australians always did. From 1922 to 1972, Australian players hoisted the men’s trophy 18 times. In the 50 years since, we’ve managed it just twice, Pat Cash in 1987 and Lleyton Hewitt in 2002.
We desperately want another man to win the greatest title, but Kyrgios – with as much raw talent as any Australian player has ever had – complicates the hope. And some of that is actually quite simple for some of the reactions: it’s racism. But racism does not explain all or even most of the contentious relationship.
I fell off the Kyrgios bandwagon last year, and after eight years of ferocious loyalty I’m finding it very hard to get back on it – even with a Wimbledon title in sight. The eternal promise had given way to eternal complaining. The bad behaviour too often crosses the line. The self-aggrandisement – the boasting about his crowd sizes and his self-proclaimed stature as the saviour of modern tennis – almost echoes Trump in its narcissism.
And so here we are, wondering what comes next.
Perhaps we can look to the past to summon some optimism. Hark back to John McEnroe, who was literally persona non grata at Wimbledon (they refused him the honorary club membership given to all champions) until his genius and his grit turned him into a beloved elder of the sport.
Ditto with Andre Agassi. He even boycotted Wimbledon for years because of the all-white dress code. Then he turned up, wearing white tracksuit pants like a spirit returned from the 1920s, and won the whole show. Agassi 2.0 was born right there on the hallowed London lawns, past demons cast aside.
Could history repeat? Will we come to love Kyrgios like we did those tennis toddlers of the past? We’re about to find out if Nick can wake up to the fact that the grass really is greener on the other side.
Neil McMahon is a freelance writer.
00Robhttps://www.tenniswhisperer.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/cropped-LOGOWhisperer1024-300x300.pngRob2022-07-08 07:46:102022-07-08 07:46:10DO WE LIKE KYRGIOS? IT’S COMPLICATED | SMH
One of the last barriers separating tennis from other sports came tumbling down on Tuesday, when the ATP and even the USTA opted to allow coaching during matches on a trial basis for the rest of 2022. The trial starts immediately after Wimbledon, and when the US Open unspools in late August, it will mark the first time that any type of coaching is permitted at a Grand Slam tournament.
We know what tennis lost in this transaction: The distinction of being the one major sport in which the athlete, even in the heat of competition, must be a self-reliant problem-solver. But what did the sport gain?
One answer to that question is easy: replenished integrity.
As the popularity of tennis swelled over the years, the increasingly high stakes and a pressurized environment has led to a widespread and flagrant disregard of the rule against coaching in real time. Thus, tennis has been lurching from one coaching controversy to another—from the machinations of Ion Tiriac to the ghastly ruckus that may have cost Serena Williams her landmark 24th Grand Slam at the 2018 US Open to the recent, incessant dueling between chair umpires and the Tsitsipas family.
ESPN and Tennis Channel analyst Pam Shriver spoke for a great swath of her colleagues when she told me, “It’s time for this. Seeing how they were having a hard time enforcing the no-coaching rule, why not?”
Proponents of the change cite an additional potential benefit: enhanced interest among fans and television viewers. They see the rule change as a win-win, yet if history is any indication, that bonus is far from guaranteed. But there is tremendous pressure on tennis officials to make the game more marketable to a larger and less expert audience. Elite coach Brad Stine told me, “I tend to lean toward tradition in our sport. But I think this is a nice non-invasive way to produce a better overall product.”
There are prominent dissenters, though. Tennis Channel analyst Jim Courier, a former world No. 1, wrote in a text message: “I consider myself a progressive but do not support this initiative. How many tennis fans have been saying for years how much more they enjoy WTA tour matches (where coaching has long been allowed) compared to the Slams where coaching is not allowed? It is not essential to the game and is one of the things that differentiates tennis…[you] figure it out yourself.”
Courier’s skepticism is warranted. The ATP held a trial run of on-court coaching in official matches in 1999, allowing one coaching visit per set. ESPN analyst Brad Gilbert guided Andre Agassi to three titles before the ATP abandoned that experiment. But he is now adamant about eliminating the rampant cheating and convinced of the entertainment value of visible coaching.
“I was massively in favor of it (on-court coaching) in 1999, and 23 years later I still am,” Gilbert said. “There are pieces in the plan that I don’t like, but I’ll live with them just to have it. It adds a lot of plot and creativity to a match.”
One of the most powerful arguments against allowing coaching is the advantage it gives to players, like the major stars, who can afford to hire top coaching talent. “Hiring a coach used to be prohibitively expensive,” Shriver said, “But now pretty much everybody has one.”
I consider myself a progressive but do not support this initiative. … It is not essential to the game and is one of the things that differentiates tennis…[you] figure it out yourself. Jim Courier, former world No. 1
The new ATP rules address the two most prevalent forms of illicit coaching: the use of hand signals, and furtively delivered verbal advice. Under the plan, ATP mentors will be obliged to occupy seats close to the court at opposite ends, where they will be free to use unlimited hand signals as well as communicate verbally when their proteges are on the same side of the court. But verbal communication that disrupts the flow of play or “hinders” an opponent is forbidden. Chats will have to be confined to “a few words and/or short phrases (no conversations are permitted).”
I’ll leave it to better minds than mine to determine exactly when a few words becomes a conversation. Curiously, coaches will not be allowed to chat with players when they leave the court, which looks like yet another strategy to combat the growing plague of bathroom and injury-treatment breaks. Even more curiously, endorsing on-court coaching of any kind was apparently a bridge too far for the ATP. Could it be that ATP honchos lacked enthusiasm for the WTA’s bold foray into on-court coaching?
Starting in 2009, WTA events allowed a limited number of coaching visits with players during changeovers (complete with audio for TV viewers). The approach became business-as-usual until Covid put the kibosh on it. However, it was about as interested as conversation at the 30-minute oil change. You can certainly watch it happen, but is it really that compelling?
Nobody has been clamoring for the resumption of on-court coaching. Fans—television viewers, mostly—became privy mostly to anodyne pep talks delivered to stony-faced, zoned-out players during changeovers. Apart from familiar pleas to stick the first serve or to be patient in rallies, the visits rarely produced useful strategic, tactical or personal insights. Part of the problem: No coach was honest—or dumb—enough to share nuggets of precious intel while everyone had their ear to the keyhole.
“Obviously, there will be some open talk about strategy and stuff,” ESPN analyst Jimmy Arias, the Director of the IMG Tennis Academy, predicted. “But a lot of coaching is—I don’t want to say baby-sitting—but it’s about helping a player in different ways, making everything as easy as possible to help him go out on the court relaxed.”
I’m looking forward to this. If I can help Hubie (Hurkacz) in any way, that’s great. … If you have a few different plans or ideas and he’s on the fence you can now give him a nudge in the direction you want. Craig Boynton, current ATP Tour coach
Coaching in real-time can be a perilous business. Arias said that the best game plan can go “out the window” if the player—who is ultimately the employer and boss of the coach—won’t or can’t execute it. An opponent also has a lot of say in the efficacy of any given strategy or tactic.
“Coaches will be 100 percent under a microscope,” said Arias, who is willing to accept the trade-off between self-reliance and greater entertainment value. “It could get very interesting. We know that some players like to take their emotions out on their coaches. I’m not sure how the coach is going to react when he says, ‘I think you should do this. . .’ And on the microphone his guy goes, ‘You’re just an idiot, go get my lunch.’”
Craig Boynton, the coach of world No. 10 Hubert Hurkacz, is more sanguine. He believes that the intense scouting and preparation that now takes place before matches leaves little room for surprises. One of his favorite quotes about coaching is, “You don’t need to teach the greats, you just need to remind them.”
Boynton, whose protege Hurcaz is shy, diligent, and self-controlled, added: “I’m looking forward to this. If I can help Hubie (Hurcaz) in any way, that’s great. It’s a positive if you can (legitimately) encourage a player, give him a little clearer direction. If you have a few different plans or ideas and he’s on the fence you can now give him a nudge in the direction you want.”
However the experiment turns out, ATP coaches will now find themselves in an unfamiliar place: the spotlight.
00Robhttps://www.tenniswhisperer.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/cropped-LOGOWhisperer1024-300x300.pngRob2022-06-24 07:22:472022-06-24 07:22:47Coaching Comes Out of the Shadows
PARIS — On an obscure court at Roland Garros, in a women’s singles match that drew scant attention, 63rd-ranked Irina-Camelia Begu thrust herself into the global spotlight as the latest example of the ugly, potentially injurious on-court outbursts plaguing pro tennis in recent months.
Irked over losing her serve in a pivotal moment, Begu, 31, tossed her racket on the French Open’s red clay, and it ricocheted into the stands and toward a small child, who burst into tears. The chair umpire summoned the supervisor to adjudicate, but Begu was allowed to play on, later cited for unsportsmanlike conduct, despite the fact that her racket “brushed” the child, according to a statement from the tournament director.
Just two days earlier, Andrey Rublev, the French Open’s seventh seed, also got a warning for unsportsmanlike conduct after he smashed a ball in a rage that almost hit a groundsperson.
……
Most pros at the top of the sport, however, come to realize that controlling their anger is ultimately in their interest.
For Rafael Nadal, a five-time recipient of the ATP’s sportsmanship award, behaving on court is something he learned as a child.
“My uncle, my family, never allowed me to break a racket, never allowed me to say bad words or give up a match,” Nadal once explained. “
Probably when I was a kid, they didn’t care much about winning or losing. Of course, all the parents and family, my uncle [who was also his coach] wanted me to win every single match. But probably that was not the most important thing.
The most important thing was the education and the fact that I grow with the values, with the right values.”
For second-ranked Daniil Medvedev, who is still haunted by an epic meltdown he had as a 14-year-old junior, it has been a process.
“At one moment, I understood that it can negatively affect your tennis,” Medvedev said. “But I definitely didn’t understand it [at 14]. It was much later. …
I’m still learning because I have some tantrums, if it’s the right word, sometimes on the court. Usually I’m not happy about it.
The most important is either to know how to react or, better, how not to do them and just stay focused on the match.”
00Robhttps://www.tenniswhisperer.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/cropped-LOGOWhisperer1024-300x300.pngRob2022-05-28 09:12:582022-05-28 09:12:58Tennis has an anger-management problem, and it’s getting worse | Washington Post
24°C
Here’s Why You Play WORSE In Matches | ATP
/in Ask the Pro, Whisperer/by RobTalking Shop with Coach Paul Annacone | ATP
/in Ask the Pro, News/by RobTennis By The Numbers | AskThePro
/in Ask the Pro, News/by RobWhen I was a young aspiring player, I often lost tennis matches by being too adventurous, which is my attempt to avoid admitting I was very impatient. I enjoyed playing the front court as much or more than staying near the baseline, and I never saw a short ball I did not want to attack.
Even by the age of twelve I would try and dominate my opponents with strong shots, or I would even serve and volley. Naturally, a game style with this risk profile produces plenty or errors. (In addition to an occasional spectacular play). After lost matches coaches would always tell me the number of unforced errors I had made. I never knew what to do with this information. (It’s not like it was my intention.)
“You made 41 unforced errors today!” a coach would say.
“What does that even mean,” I would respond rebelliously. “You’re just going for too much.”
I struggled with this feedback. How can I learn from this? In hindsight, I wish the coach would have helped me with situational play. When did the errors occur? How long were the rallies before I missed? When may I give myself permission to attack and when is patience more prudent. Certainly, an unforced error at the score of 40-0 is different from one produced at 30-40, don’t you agree?
Last week I was having a conversation with one of my adult clients about her most recent match. She mentioned that she had made too many unforced errors, and then she added a few more stats that she probably got from watching tennis on television. I told her that I was getting the gist of what she was saying, but I still could not get a good feel for the match as stats do not always paint the entire picture. I said that some stats are completely useless, and others can be counter intuitive.
“What ya talking ‘bout Willis?” (she did not actually say this) I continued by asking my Harvard- educated student the following question:
“After the match, what would yourather have the stat sheet say regarding break points, 2/3 or 4/17?”
She looked at me slightly confused (she suspected it was a set up): “I want to say 2/3, but it’s probably wrong, isn’t it?”
“Yes”, I continued. “Think about it, a 66.67 percent success rate (2/3) is indeed much better than a 23.5 percent (4/17), but in this case it is still better to break your opponent’s serve four times, instead of only two”.
She agreed to it being counter intuitive. I only mentioned that my client was Harvard-educated to show that intelligence was not in question here. I wasn’t teaching Penny, the waitress from the Cheesecake factory (no offense if you are a waitress, or don’t like The Big Bang Theory).
For some reason we look at all those break point opportunities and consider it a failure. What can we learn from this? The more opportunities we give ourselves, the better it is. A mindset of neutrality will be helpful here, an unattached approach to the outcome: if the break happens, great. If not, great.
Another stat in this realm is net points won/lost. When you look at a ratio of 4/9, you might judge it as a bad ratio. The player won four points at net, and she lost five points. What if I were to tell you that those four points won were all at break point! Then we might conclude that the nine attempts at net were not enough. If she had attacked the net twelve times for instance, she might not have needed those seventeen breakpoints! Your personal call to courage and to be brave at the right moments is a key strength for a competitor.
In any case, tennis stats are helpful, but have their limitations. Match play will still come down to being patient at the right times, being courageous at the right moments, and staying disciplined all match. Use the stats to dig into those areas more specifically. Answer the questions ‘when’ and ‘why”!
[Our Tennis Whisperer teaches the GHOST LINE strategy to answer the ‘when’ and ‘why’ questions — emphasis added]
Tonny van de Pieterman is a tennis professional at Point Set Indoor Racquet Club in Oceanside, NY. He has previously been named USTA Tennis Professional of the Year for the USTA/Eastern-Long Island Region.
https://longislandtennismagazine.com/tennis-numbers Tennis By The Numbers | Long Island Tennis Magazine
Technique Is NOT The Answer | AskThePro
/in Ask the Pro, Whisperer/by RobOlivier eventually came to understand a vital truth: if technique execution is good during practice but significantly worse during matches you do NOT have a technique problem.
Technique is a fundamental element to tennis success, but becoming fixated on it can cause big drops in match performance!
Source: Jorge Capestany, USPTA
Mental Toughness | ATP
/in Ask the Pro/by RobWhether or not you agree, it’d be tough to argue Serena Williams hasn’t had an impact on women’s tennis and what it means to be an athlete, period. Her 27-year professional career is one of the longest in her sport’s history.
And the mental toughness she’s consistently displayed throughout the decades is certainly noteworthy, says Eric A. Zillmer, PsyD, a licensed clinical psychologist and the Carl R. Pacifico Professor of Neuropsychology and an athletic director emeritus at Drexel University in Philadelphia.
“Some people may be ‘broken’ by a crisis, while others emerge from a stressful experience sometimes even stronger than before,” he says. An abundance of research backs this up.
While mental toughness is talked about often in sports, it translates to everyday life as well. “Mental toughness and resilience can be learned,” Zillmer says. They’re skills and qualities that are accessible to everyone.
Ultimately, it’s about treating yourself well and cultivating a sense of purpose and belonging in the world.
Losing is a key part of competitive tennis. Here are three examples of how to better deal with it….
1. Find Joy in a Highly Competitive Sport — and Show It
It’s no secret that tennis is an especially high-pressure sport. Players compete alone, travel often, and are subject to constant scrutiny by the press and the sport itself.
Williams’s appreciation for all aspects of her sport, not just winning, is key to her success. “Sports by definition is competitive, hard, stressful, and deals with a constantly changing environment,” Zillmer says. Learning to enjoy all the ups, downs, and pressures of the job, at least to some degree, is the very definition of resilience and mental toughness.
2. Find Motivation in Setbacks
Serena Williams wasn’t always great. “When I was little, I was not very good at tennis. I was so sad when I didn’t get all the early opportunities that Venus got, but that helped me. It made me work harder, turning me into a savage fighter.”
She’s fought her way out of many scoreboard holes to win matches (including, famously, the 2012 U.S. Open championship match), and has been dubbed the “queen of comebacks”.
That kind of determination in the face of adversity is part of what defines mental toughness. Rivalry is a great way for people to learn resilience starting at a young age. Learning to cope with failure early on, and even be motivated by it, is another thing that sets certain individuals apart.
3. Lose With Grace
Losing is part of ALL sports. And Williams has lost many tennis matches throughout her career. She does it with grace — even when she lost the (presumed) final match of her career.
“Dealing with winning is easy, but losing is tough,” Zillmer says. If and when a loser does muster up that good sportsmanship, s)he actually has a lot more to gain by doing it graciously than sorely.
“In sports psychology, losing graciously can also help someone maintain belief in themselves, even after (or because of) a setback.” It can help keep your confidence up, which makes you more likely to succeed in the future.
Extract: Christine Byrne September 8, 2022
How Ajla Tomljanovic Faced Down Serena Williams and 24,000 Others
/in Ask the Pro, News/by RobWhen Ajla Tomljanovic was a little girl, she asked her father about a prized photograph of him holding a big trophy on his head. Ratko Tomljanovic was a great professional handball player, winning two European Championships for Zagreb, the capital of Croatia, and was the captain of the Croatian national team; before that, he was a member of the Yugoslavian team.
His daughter wanted to know where that shiny trophy was, because she had never seen it in their home. Ratko Tomljanovic explained that it had been a team award, and that he did not get to keep it. Unimpressed, Ajla told him that she would not play handball.
“I want the trophy just for myself,” she said.
So Ajla Tomljanovic chose tennis, and she is still striving for that big trophy, for a professional championship. She has shown the talent for it, though her nerves have betrayed her at times — what she calls “the bad Ajla.”
But on Friday night, Tomljanovic, who is ranked 46th, demonstrated to herself and the world that she had the mettle and the shotmaking ability to win a trophy of her own. If she wins four more matches in the coming week, it will be one of the most coveted in sports.
That night, Tomljanovic beat the six-time U.S. Open champion Serena Williams, 7-5, 6-7 (4), 6-1, in front of a raucous, partisan crowd in Arthur Ashe Stadium in New York to advance to the fourth round of the U.S. Open for the first time.
“I feel like I belong here now,” she said.
That was not necessarily what she was thinking in the moments before she took the court.
Tomljanovic was nervous, and for good reason. Williams was her idol, and Tomljanovic had never played her before. She had never played in Ashe. In fact, she had never even practiced on that court. She had asked tournament organizers if they could find a time for her to hit some balls in the largest tennis stadium in the world at least once, but nothing was available.
Then there was the matter of her playing the role of villain, of facing down nearly 24,000 fans, virtually all of them screaming for Williams to win, and millions more watching on television. It would make anyone a tad nervous.
Tomljanovic confided the anxiety to her father, who was happy that his daughter admitted to the nerves. Better than hiding them, he thought. Ratko Tomljanovic also knew about playing in hostile environments, especially in Europe, where handball is intensely popular and the stakes are high. He tried to calm Ajla by evoking the almost comical role of the hard-bitten veteran of scrappy handball matches — the kind of yarn he had spun to her and his other daughter, Hana, many times before.
“Don’t tell me you are afraid of the crowd,” he told Ajla. “I played in some terrible places with 5,000 people booing and spitting, and one time the crowd came on the floor and there was a big fight. Don’t tell me it’s hard because some guy in the 35th row is yelling at you.”
It was not exactly Mickey yelling at Rocky. It was a speech designed to lighten the mood, and it worked. Ajla laughed. “She doesn’t care about what I did, at all,” Ratko said, chuckling.
But then he brought out another motivational tool. He mentioned one of his favorite movies, “For Love of the Game,” in which a pitcher for the Detroit Tigers, played by Kevin Costner, reflects on his life and career in the midst of a perfect game.
“But she didn’t know the movie, so I had to explain it to her,” he said. “I told her, ‘You have to be Kevin Costner today.’”
In the film, he told her, the pitcher focuses explicitly on the catcher’s glove and ignores everything else in the stadium. Ajla understood, and she followed the advice with her own unique resolve.
She blocked out all the noise, the roars for Williams, the indecorous cheers when Tomljanovic missed a serve, all the celebrities in the stands, the video tributes to Williams and her own childhood adulation for Williams, a 23-time Grand Slam champion standing across the net and playing as well as she had in years. But Tomljanovic was better.
“From the first moment I walked on court, I didn’t really look around much,” she said. “I was completely in my own little bubble.”
Read more –>
Badge Tie Breaker Strategy | ATP
/in Ask the Pro/by RobThis week’s question comes from our club captain: Denis. “With finals approaching do you have a philosophy for tiebreakers?”
Ah… tie breakers. Regrettably most people hate playing tiebreakers! Why?
For some reason, as the pressure mounts towards the end of the set, many feel they have to overplay. Even though it was their current play that got them to the tie breaker!
Now is NOT the time for those trick shots, topspin lobs or the screaming sideline winner that just misses! CONSERVATISM is the name of the game. So what’s our preferred strategy?
First a little background. At our Badge level whether Grade 1 or Grade 10, most points are LOST. Read that again, yep most players beat themselves. Therefore, your basic strategy is to ‘give’ your opponent a chance to miss. You’ll find that, as the pressure builds after 3 or more shots, your opponent will try to finish the point and probably make an error.
So the basic strategy is strong and steady wins tie breakers. Get your first serve in, get your return of serve in play and hit your shots to ‘big targets’ typically down the centre of the court and midcourt to stay in the point. You’re trying to get your opponents to hit the ball to your partner at the net, who has a much greater chance of winning the point for your team.
And to improve that ‘first serve in’ percentage, take a little more time to prepare to serve (i.e. don’t rush) since this is the only time you have control of the point. Nothing happens until YOU serve — use the time to calm down with a little slow breathing. And perhaps, a little more spin to help your control if that’s within your capabilities, otherwise just aim for the middle of the service box. You want a 80% success rate.
When you’re receiving, err on the side of a higher net clearance and aim for the centre of the court to get into the point. A lob return can be a great return in a tie breaker. Even so, lob high — give ’em a chance to miss.
Recognize, there is no need to overplay and do more, rather just try to do more of what you’re been doing a little better. Trust yourself, your game, and do your best. Just keep playing. You might surprise yourself. I guarantee you’ll surprise your opposition!
And lastly, the most important point is always the next one. It’s never over until you shake hands.
Go Manly Lawn!
Rob
NCAA champion Ben Shelton
/in Ask the Pro, Goss, News/by RobATLANTA — The phrase “future of American men’s tennis” mostly inspires groans these days, as 74 Grand Slams have come and gone since Andy Roddick lifted the U.S. Open trophy in 2003.
Invariably, the burden of that drought falls on the American youngsters who quickly rise up the rankings, start making an impact on the ATP Tour and then run into the Grand Slam wall that Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal and Novak Djokovic have erected over the last two decades.
So let’s not saddle Ben Shelton, just 19, with that kind of albatross. But we can say this: The rising University of Florida junior, who won the NCAA singles title in May, is very, very good. And he’s on the precipice of a career-defining summer that may well put him on a very different trajectory from the one that seemed laid out for him just a few weeks ago.
Shelton, whose father Bryan is a former top-100 player and now is the head coach at Florida, played his first ATP-level match Tuesday, at the Atlanta Open. He won it in pretty straightforward fashion, beating veteran pro Ramkumar Ramanathan 6-2, 7-5 and letting out a big scream as he put away an overhead on match point.
“It’s really special,” said Shelton, who was just a few blocks from the courts of his childhood at Georgia Tech, where his father coached until 2012.
But with each tournament he’s played, the bigger story is that Shelton himself might be special, and his performance could very well force some decisions about his future much faster than anticipated.
As of now, Shelton is slated to return to Florida in the fall. But after performing well in several Challenger-level events and impressively winning his first round here, he’s on a fast track to the top 200 in the world rankings. Brad Gilbert, the longtime pro player, coach and ESPN analyst, wrote on Twitter that Shelton will be “top 50 for sure.” And the U.S. Open already has granted him a wildcard into the main draw, which would be a guaranteed $75,000 in first-round prize money — if he turns pro.
“That’ll definitely be a talk later in the summer with my parents and my team and we’ll make a decision based on where my development is and what’s going to be best for me not just on the court but off the court as well,” Shelton said. “There’s no real results or rankings that are going to sway my decision in a big way.”
There’s plenty, of course, that could bring Shelton back to college. It’s a comfortable place for him, he wants to complete his finance degree and it’s certainly a big deal to play for his father on one of the most successful teams in the country.
But as he goes through the process this summer, it certainly seems possible Shelton and those around him will conclude that he’s just too good to go back to school.
“I’m just a college guy out here having fun,” he said. “I don’t put too much stress on my matches. I’m focused and want to do the best I can, but it’s not do-or-die for me out here.”
Shelton will get a better sense of where he stands on Thursday when he faces No. 25-ranked John Isner, who has won the Atlanta event six times. After going 11-4 against pros ranked mostly in the 150-300 range, this will be Shelton’s first opportunity to see how he stacks up against a top-100 player.
But regardless of how it goes against Isner — and certainly it’s a major step up in class for someone who hasn’t turned pro yet — it’s Shelton’s explosive game at 6-foot-3 that is drawing as much attention as the results.
With a big lefty serve that averaged 126 mph against Ramanathan and the ability to get a massive kick on his first and second serve, Shelton already has a legitimate weapon that can win him matches. But he also appears to be very solid off both of his groundstrokes and is very comfortable coming into the net to finish points behind both his power and slice. Shelton won 15 of 22 points when he came in for a volley or overhead.
“I love to get to net, be able to use some of my hand skills, athletic skills and going up to get the ball (to put away overheads) is one of my favorite things to do,” Shelton said. “I could have done a better job today incorporating my serve and volley and getting to net quicker in points but I think that’s a big part of my game and a big part of my development.”
Only the hardest of hardcore tennis fans would have been watching Shelton on a Tuesday afternoon in Atlanta, but it was easy to see why he’s been a dominant college player, going 37-5 in singles last season. It was also a huge advertisement for other tournaments this summer and fall to offer him a wildcard entry, as Atlanta did. Every tournament wants to boast that it helped launch a great career.
It’s far too early to project that Tuesday’s match was the debut of the next great American champion, but at the very least Shelton appears poised for an interesting and successful pro career. Shelton may have some things pulling him back to college for another year, but if he keeps playing like he has the last several weeks, it will be difficult to turn down the opportunities he’s creating for himself right now.
Follow USA TODAY Sports columnist Dan Wolken
A Good String Job Can Manage Your Limitations
/in Ask the Pro/by RobIn our previous column on rackets, we make reference to the key advantages of a good restring in managing your limitations!
The tournament pros are absolutely fanatical about their choice of strings and the associated string tension — which they change to suit both surface and playing conditions — and often during a match. I still carry two rackets in my bag each with a slightly different tension to accommodate the changing playing conditions at Manly Lawn.
Conversely, our average tennis player puts what I euphemistically call “two dollars worth of nylon” in a $200+ high performance frame — and expects to play consistently well and without injury, especially tennis elbow.
Most club players who play two or more times a week are well advised to get a GOOD STRING JOB every 8 to 10 weeks depending on the season. Aggressive players who blast the ball with big western forehands need to update every 3 to 4 weeks or so. Yep, strings go loose and dead — and performance suffers!
Trust me when I say, your game will improve at least a POINT A GAME with a good restring! You might even be encouraged to take a few lessons to help better manage the rest of your limitations.
So what constitutes a GOOD STRING JOB?
First a little science education since modern strings come in different materials and thicknesses, each designed to suit different playing styles. In the table below, you’ll notice the differences in the main and cross strings and the dependence on whether you want control, power, comfort (did I mention managing tennis elbow?).
Thickness is pretty screwy since 18 gauge string is thinner than 16 gauge, go figure!
You can see from the graph above that the typical $2 nylon (16G) has high durability (to ensure rackets have a good shelf life) and low spin potential ( aka “feel/control”)! How did that new Wilson play with the $2 nylon strings?
Even at my tender age, I still use a hybrid combination of 18G multifilament Gamma Live Wire on the mains and Babolat Blast (Nadal’s string) on the crosses. Yep as I’ve aged and reverted to social player status, I’ve gone for more control and less power by reversing the mains and the crosses per the table. The 18G Live Wire is more lively (plays like gut) and gives me much more feel. The Blast allows me to give the ball a nudge and more topspin when I need to.
And now the string tension. Most players string the crosses the same as the mains and expect the tension to be even itself out throughout the racket during stringing. Well that’s the logic anyway. The GOAL was always to get an even string tension in the racket to increase the ‘sweet spot’. Yep, for most of my playing life I relied on that logic too. Of course my ball watching was so much better than, and I played with gut, so miss hits were infrequent. And yep it’s SOoooooo Wrong!
Several years ago I ran into a older, chain smoking racket stringer in California who set me straight — and he didn’t hold back! Turns out that what most people miss is the impact of FRICTION on the Crosses when you’re feeding the string under and over through the Mains. Whatever tension you string the Mains at, you ADD 5lb to the Crosses to counter the friction. Here’s my current stringing pattern to illustrate this key point:
So Obi Wan how should I translate this to my game? Well most rackets come with a suggested stringing guide for tension. Start with the mid range for the racket for the Mains and then string the Crosses 5lb more. Then adjust up and down as required until you’re comfortable with the tension. Aside, typically you can use a lower tension that the one you used previously; helps your feel and control.
Just ask Tommie for ‘Rob’s restring’ if you want to try this type of restring at the Manly Tennis Centre. You’ll find an immediate benefit of a bigger sweet spot — and most of your misshits will go over now as your control is significantly improved.
As for the choice of string, well that depends on your game. I’ve given you the guidelines in the table above which you can probably figure out yourself. Even so, probably better to go talk to Scottie when you want some pro advice about what strings may suit your individual playing style. Or ask me.
To repeat you’ve got to manage your limitations — and using better technology (whether frame and/or strings) is a great way to do this. Cunning and guile will only get you so far! Invest in the technology!
Make a regular investment in a GOOD STRING JOB using the latest materials technology; it’s absolutely worth it for your psyche alone!
Sincerely,
Tennis Whisperer
DO WE LIKE KYRGIOS? IT’S COMPLICATED | SMH
/in Ask the Pro, Goss, News/by RobWimbledon still has a couple of days to go, which is helpful because 48 hours gives us time to have another 48 opinions on Nick Kyrgios, to add to the thousands we’ve had on Kyrgios over the past eight years. This is Australia in 2022: Girt By Nick.
Kyrgios is now a human hottake generator, in that the endless hot takes on him now generate their own hot takes about the earlier hot takes, and on and on until we die. You’re reading one right now, so please watch for any sudden change in your vital signs.
To sum up our rollercoaster journey with the tennis terror from Canberra, let’s go to the social media-speak Nick himself loves so much: It’s Complicated. WTAF. FFS. And so on.
Because let’s be honest: it’s as easy to write the column ‘‘ Ten Reasons To Love Nick Kyrgios’ ’ as it is to write the column ‘‘ Ten Reasons To Hate Nick Kyrgios’’ .
You can sensibly and sarcastically wonder out loud what it is the Kyrgios fans love about him. Is it the verbal abuse? The violent treatment of racquets and balls? The spitting? The tanking? The narcissism? Equally, you can ask the Kyrgios haters what it is they hate. Is it the breathtaking talent? The shotmaking audacity? The charming impudence of his approach to the game’s stuffed shirts? His refreshing honesty that winning isn’t everything? What’s not to love? And what’s not to hate?
Kyrgios contains multitudes, and it is entirely possible that by Monday he will also contain a Wimbledon title, a triumph that will challenge us to reconsider him once again. Rarely have Australian sports fans been presented with a dilemma quite like the one we face this weekend.
As a lifelong tennis nut, my own journey with Kyrgios has been long and complicated. I remember the time he first made me sit up with a start in the middle of the night, saving nine match points on his way to the Wimbledon quarter-finals in 2014. Everything seemed possible then. I loved the guy, and I’ve spent a lot of money supporting him, flying to Darwin to watch him in the Davis Cup, and finding myself sitting next to Ken Rosewall at Rod Laver Arena the night Kyrgios played Nadal at the Australian Open in 2020.
Rosewall (who seemed bemused by Kyrgios more than anything else) never won Wimbledon, but he was a living reminder of a time when Australians always did. From 1922 to 1972, Australian players hoisted the men’s trophy 18 times. In the 50 years since, we’ve managed it just twice, Pat Cash in 1987 and Lleyton Hewitt in 2002.
We desperately want another man to win the greatest title, but Kyrgios – with as much raw talent as any Australian player has ever had – complicates the hope. And some of that is actually quite simple for some of the reactions: it’s racism. But racism does not explain all or even most of the contentious relationship.
I fell off the Kyrgios bandwagon last year, and after eight years of ferocious loyalty I’m finding it very hard to get back on it – even with a Wimbledon title in sight. The eternal promise had given way to eternal complaining. The bad behaviour too often crosses the line. The self-aggrandisement – the boasting about his crowd sizes and his self-proclaimed stature as the saviour of modern tennis – almost echoes Trump in its narcissism.
And so here we are, wondering what comes next.
Perhaps we can look to the past to summon some optimism. Hark back to John McEnroe, who was literally persona non grata at Wimbledon (they refused him the honorary club membership given to all champions) until his genius and his grit turned him into a beloved elder of the sport.
Ditto with Andre Agassi. He even boycotted Wimbledon for years because of the all-white dress code. Then he turned up, wearing white tracksuit pants like a spirit returned from the 1920s, and won the whole show. Agassi 2.0 was born right there on the hallowed London lawns, past demons cast aside.
Could history repeat? Will we come to love Kyrgios like we did those tennis toddlers of the past? We’re about to find out if Nick can wake up to the fact that the grass really is greener on the other side.
Neil McMahon is a freelance writer.
Coaching Comes Out of the Shadows
/in Ask the Pro, News/by RobOne of the last barriers separating tennis from other sports came tumbling down on Tuesday, when the ATP and even the USTA opted to allow coaching during matches on a trial basis for the rest of 2022. The trial starts immediately after Wimbledon, and when the US Open unspools in late August, it will mark the first time that any type of coaching is permitted at a Grand Slam tournament.
We know what tennis lost in this transaction: The distinction of being the one major sport in which the athlete, even in the heat of competition, must be a self-reliant problem-solver. But what did the sport gain?
One answer to that question is easy: replenished integrity.
As the popularity of tennis swelled over the years, the increasingly high stakes and a pressurized environment has led to a widespread and flagrant disregard of the rule against coaching in real time. Thus, tennis has been lurching from one coaching controversy to another—from the machinations of Ion Tiriac to the ghastly ruckus that may have cost Serena Williams her landmark 24th Grand Slam at the 2018 US Open to the recent, incessant dueling between chair umpires and the Tsitsipas family.
ESPN and Tennis Channel analyst Pam Shriver spoke for a great swath of her colleagues when she told me, “It’s time for this. Seeing how they were having a hard time enforcing the no-coaching rule, why not?”
Stefanos Tsitsipas will be able to freely communicate with his father-coach after Wimbledon. © Getty Images
Proponents of the change cite an additional potential benefit: enhanced interest among fans and television viewers. They see the rule change as a win-win, yet if history is any indication, that bonus is far from guaranteed. But there is tremendous pressure on tennis officials to make the game more marketable to a larger and less expert audience. Elite coach Brad Stine told me, “I tend to lean toward tradition in our sport. But I think this is a nice non-invasive way to produce a better overall product.”
There are prominent dissenters, though. Tennis Channel analyst Jim Courier, a former world No. 1, wrote in a text message: “I consider myself a progressive but do not support this initiative. How many tennis fans have been saying for years how much more they enjoy WTA tour matches (where coaching has long been allowed) compared to the Slams where coaching is not allowed? It is not essential to the game and is one of the things that differentiates tennis…[you] figure it out yourself.”
Courier’s skepticism is warranted. The ATP held a trial run of on-court coaching in official matches in 1999, allowing one coaching visit per set. ESPN analyst Brad Gilbert guided Andre Agassi to three titles before the ATP abandoned that experiment. But he is now adamant about eliminating the rampant cheating and convinced of the entertainment value of visible coaching.
“I was massively in favor of it (on-court coaching) in 1999, and 23 years later I still am,” Gilbert said. “There are pieces in the plan that I don’t like, but I’ll live with them just to have it. It adds a lot of plot and creativity to a match.”
One of the most powerful arguments against allowing coaching is the advantage it gives to players, like the major stars, who can afford to hire top coaching talent. “Hiring a coach used to be prohibitively expensive,” Shriver said, “But now pretty much everybody has one.”
The new ATP rules address the two most prevalent forms of illicit coaching: the use of hand signals, and furtively delivered verbal advice. Under the plan, ATP mentors will be obliged to occupy seats close to the court at opposite ends, where they will be free to use unlimited hand signals as well as communicate verbally when their proteges are on the same side of the court. But verbal communication that disrupts the flow of play or “hinders” an opponent is forbidden. Chats will have to be confined to “a few words and/or short phrases (no conversations are permitted).”
I’ll leave it to better minds than mine to determine exactly when a few words becomes a conversation. Curiously, coaches will not be allowed to chat with players when they leave the court, which looks like yet another strategy to combat the growing plague of bathroom and injury-treatment breaks. Even more curiously, endorsing on-court coaching of any kind was apparently a bridge too far for the ATP. Could it be that ATP honchos lacked enthusiasm for the WTA’s bold foray into on-court coaching?
Starting in 2009, WTA events allowed a limited number of coaching visits with players during changeovers (complete with audio for TV viewers). The approach became business-as-usual until Covid put the kibosh on it. However, it was about as interested as conversation at the 30-minute oil change. You can certainly watch it happen, but is it really that compelling?
Nobody has been clamoring for the resumption of on-court coaching. Fans—television viewers, mostly—became privy mostly to anodyne pep talks delivered to stony-faced, zoned-out players during changeovers. Apart from familiar pleas to stick the first serve or to be patient in rallies, the visits rarely produced useful strategic, tactical or personal insights. Part of the problem: No coach was honest—or dumb—enough to share nuggets of precious intel while everyone had their ear to the keyhole.
“Obviously, there will be some open talk about strategy and stuff,” ESPN analyst Jimmy Arias, the Director of the IMG Tennis Academy, predicted. “But a lot of coaching is—I don’t want to say baby-sitting—but it’s about helping a player in different ways, making everything as easy as possible to help him go out on the court relaxed.”
Coaching in real-time can be a perilous business. Arias said that the best game plan can go “out the window” if the player—who is ultimately the employer and boss of the coach—won’t or can’t execute it. An opponent also has a lot of say in the efficacy of any given strategy or tactic.
“Coaches will be 100 percent under a microscope,” said Arias, who is willing to accept the trade-off between self-reliance and greater entertainment value. “It could get very interesting. We know that some players like to take their emotions out on their coaches. I’m not sure how the coach is going to react when he says, ‘I think you should do this. . .’ And on the microphone his guy goes, ‘You’re just an idiot, go get my lunch.’”
Craig Boynton, the coach of world No. 10 Hubert Hurkacz, is more sanguine. He believes that the intense scouting and preparation that now takes place before matches leaves little room for surprises. One of his favorite quotes about coaching is, “You don’t need to teach the greats, you just need to remind them.”
Boynton, whose protege Hurcaz is shy, diligent, and self-controlled, added: “I’m looking forward to this. If I can help Hubie (Hurcaz) in any way, that’s great. It’s a positive if you can (legitimately) encourage a player, give him a little clearer direction. If you have a few different plans or ideas and he’s on the fence you can now give him a nudge in the direction you want.”
However the experiment turns out, ATP coaches will now find themselves in an unfamiliar place: the spotlight.
https://www.tennis.com/news/articles/off-court-coaching-comes-out-of-the-shadows-tennis-loses-a-distinction-but-gains
Tennis has an anger-management problem, and it’s getting worse | Washington Post
/in Ask the Pro, Goss/by RobPARIS — On an obscure court at Roland Garros, in a women’s singles match that drew scant attention, 63rd-ranked Irina-Camelia Begu thrust herself into the global spotlight as the latest example of the ugly, potentially injurious on-court outbursts plaguing pro tennis in recent months.
Irked over losing her serve in a pivotal moment, Begu, 31, tossed her racket on the French Open’s red clay, and it ricocheted into the stands and toward a small child, who burst into tears. The chair umpire summoned the supervisor to adjudicate, but Begu was allowed to play on, later cited for unsportsmanlike conduct, despite the fact that her racket “brushed” the child, according to a statement from the tournament director.
Just two days earlier, Andrey Rublev, the French Open’s seventh seed, also got a warning for unsportsmanlike conduct after he smashed a ball in a rage that almost hit a groundsperson.
……
Most pros at the top of the sport, however, come to realize that controlling their anger is ultimately in their interest.
For Rafael Nadal, a five-time recipient of the ATP’s sportsmanship award, behaving on court is something he learned as a child.
“My uncle, my family, never allowed me to break a racket, never allowed me to say bad words or give up a match,” Nadal once explained. “
Probably when I was a kid, they didn’t care much about winning or losing. Of course, all the parents and family, my uncle [who was also his coach] wanted me to win every single match. But probably that was not the most important thing.
The most important thing was the education and the fact that I grow with the values, with the right values.”
For second-ranked Daniil Medvedev, who is still haunted by an epic meltdown he had as a 14-year-old junior, it has been a process.
“At one moment, I understood that it can negatively affect your tennis,” Medvedev said. “But I definitely didn’t understand it [at 14]. It was much later. …
I’m still learning because I have some tantrums, if it’s the right word, sometimes on the court. Usually I’m not happy about it.
The most important is either to know how to react or, better, how not to do them and just stay focused on the match.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2022/05/26/tennis-angry-outbursts-french-open/