The Dangers of Tennis Magazine, etc. Tennis Tips

Tennis Magazine "Tips"

Some of you have be subjected to my opinion of the dangers and incorrectness of the tennis tips found in tennis magazines, Tennis Channel and from the Commentators on TV matches.

Before I start, I must state that I dont' mean to be disparaging or disrespectful to other coaches. To be fair, when they are asked to give tips (as I have been) they are given limited words and space. Therefore they must be brief and get right to the point.

Naturally I accept that if I disagree with them, they are automatically disagreeing with me.

As for the commentators on TV, we must remember that these people are former top level players. Brad Gilbert, Darren Cahill (who, in my opinion is the best of the analyists) and Patrick MacEnroe do coach, but keep in mind they coach world class players and the Davis Cup Captaining, not recreational players, so I think it is fair to conclude that they haven't much "real person" experience. As I say often; "Their thoughts may very well be true and necessary for the Federer's of the world, but probably not true for us.

The issues that I have with these tips are:

• No context to these tips generally;
• The tips tend to be aimed at singles players. Doubles play requires substantially different technical and tactical skills and execution;
• The tips are far too generalized. There is usually little or no consideration of player level, playing style, the players' skill set (strengths and weaknesses) and the assumption that everyone is capable of playing the same game--just to mention the main ones; and,
• Not enough words and/or space to fully describe their suggestions.

As an example I will use Brad Gilbert's "How to Play the Score" article in the May 2010 TENNIS Magazine. In the article I found:

• Contractions;
• Quite a bit of thinking required to make use of the tips;
• The range of ideas and the skill required for them to work requires a HIGHLY skilled with a broad range of shots--at least a 4.5+ level of play;
• These are ideas for singles play.

On each topic I have a lot more to say than what I will write. I will write just my surface observations. The idea is to get you all to look at these things with a critical mind, not just take them because they come from a famous dude. Should any of you be so inclined, I will love to discuss/debate the pro's and con's with you! Not to mention I would enjoy learning your "takes" and opinions.

As we start, the format I have used is to quote the suggestion exactly as it was written in the article, followed by my thoughts or take on the thought.

Specifics:

1/ FIRST POINT of the MATCH:

"IF (my emphasis) you're a decent server, let one fly to start the match and see if you can steal a cheap point. People tend to be nervous and stiff when a match starts, and a good opening serve will catch many opponents off guard.

If you're receiving, try like heck in that first game to keep the ball in play. Return the serve down the middle and deep if you can so your opponent has to create an angle. In the rallies, try for depth, not low-percentage winners. Most important move your feet. If you have to exaggerate your movement by bouncing or taking a few extra steps between points, do it. You'll loosen up more quickly and get into a rhythm before your opponents does."

My Thoughts:

The second paragraph in his tip, regarding the returner, focuses on the "building of the game", something I believe in highly and can agree with both for singles or doubles.

The contradiction I see here is -- So why the drastic difference in his suggested approaches if you are serving as compared to when you are receiving ?!? He states people tend to be nervous and still when a match starts.

True.

So, if you are serving (the most technically challenging of all shots), why would going for something (a) be a good idea at all? ; and (b) if it is a good idea for the server, then why isn't it a good idea for a returner to go for one if they have the chance?

Further:

• A cheap point at the beginning of a match can, in a very detrimental way, lead to believing the only way we can win points is through cheap points later in a match when they are FAR more difficult to come by;
• If everyone is so stiff and nervous, then why wouldn't getting a good steady and solid serve in the court work just as well?;
• I find that far more often nerves at the beginning are calmed if we get into a long rally and begin to trust we can stay with the opponent. Hit an ace just proves to us that the way to win points is to keep hitting aces. This will lead to more nerves not less;
• The "Pro's" about which Gilbert is referring are 20-30 years old and have been given ample to time to warm up already supple arms. With our 40 + arms and 5 practice serves injury is likely at some point.

Next, 30-0, 40-0 vs. 0-30, 0-40 (you are the server, but the same mentality applies if you are the returner in the similar situation). I will make specific comments about the individual suggestions and then point out the contradictions.

2/ 30-0, 40-0

"When the score is solidly in your favor, take some chances. I (Gilbert, not me) say go for an ace (or a winner off the return). If you miss you first, I say go for a second serve ace. Or belt a forehand (if that is your strength). If you hit aggressive shots in these situations, you'll gain confidence and be less likely to push at other times in the match. "

Me now--- This idea is insane, especially the sentence underlined, but commonly used (by players that lose games after a 40-0 lead). Your opponent is ready to move on and be done with this nightmare of a game or is quite prepared to dig in his heels and fight to the end. What I suggest is: Why change what got you to this point to begin with? If it was hitting aces, then fine, but if it was being steady, or rushing the next, or whatever else, keep doing what you did to get you to 40-0, take your game and move on.

As for the underlined sentence I would point out that going for an ace or a winner might be true, but ONLY if your shot is successful. And if it doesn't?

He uses the words "If you hit". What he means is "if you MAKE". Going for a winner at recreational level, unless you get an absolute sitter, works maybe 1 time out of 5 against the odds and an even level opponent(ironically in his next suggestion just below he himself describes these shots as 1 in 10).

If you will get more confident if you make it, then it stands to reason you will get less confident if you don't. I would ask: "Success or failure. Which is the more likely out-come of this strategy?"

3/ 0-30, 0-40 (or 30-0, 40-0 if you are receiving)

"You're down but not out. Now's the time to play the percentages. Take a little off your first serve and make sure you get it in, or if you have a good kick serve, add even more spin to give yourself extra margin for error. Play conservatively unless you get something right in your strike-zone. Whatever you do, don't panic. If your opponent stretches you out wide, don't go for what I call a "1 in 10 shot" into the corner. Going for broke might win you a point or two, but it won't work out well in the long run."

My take---This is generally good advice for any time or point in a match. So I wonder why he only recommends it if one is in these dire circumstances. If it works reasonably well when we are down so far and our opponent is relaxed and confident, then why shouldn't we employ this idea all the time?--which is my position, if that wasn't clear by now.

The sentence that I underlined here in #3, if I understand it at all correctly, is in exact contraction to his advice in the previously underlined sentence in #2 when we have a lead and in fact he himself makes the best case against his own advice in that employing this is a "1 in 10 shot".

4/ 15-40 (40-15 if you are receiving)

"Now you're in trouble. at 15-40 your opponent has a great opportunity. Sometimes saying this can help: "I have no right to win this game, so let's loosen up and see what happens. Another thing you need to know about 15-40: As far as I'm concerned you're only one point from deuce, not two. If you win the next point, your opponent will start to sweat. The best thing you can do at 15-40 is force the other guy to do something he doesn't like to do. If he has a bad volley, lure him into the net. If he hates overheads, throw up the highest lob he has ever seen. If his backhand is weak attack it and rush the net even if you're not a good volleyer. He's going to put a lot of pressure on himself to win this break point, your best hope is to give him a chance to flub it. etc."

Me now---I don't even know where to start on this one?!? What I would start with is that his argument that "you're only one point from deuce..." is true, but in saying it he exposing the absolute insanity and again is in exact contraction to what and why he suggested what he did in #3-- when you are at 30-0, 40-0, 40-15 (see above) when he says essentially, "go for something, you have plenty of cushion were here he says there is no cushion at all.

I agree with the idea of keep on fighting as I do with the other comments he makes about the psycological pressure your opponent will feel if he loses the next point. This is why, as I said above, when we have a big lead in a game, we need to keep doing what we were doing, take our game and move on.

The underlined sentence is the one that is so dangerous. First, if you are good enough to be able to do all those things so seemingly effortless now, why aren't you employing them all the time? To do all these things requires two things: a huge number of shots in a players repetoire, and to be in at least a neutral situation. It is hard to hit a short ball to lure him into the net when you are running like a madman to retrieve a shot or to attack when you are pushed back on your heels.

5/ 30-30 or 30-15 or 15-30

To summarize and paraphrase the final three suggestions as well as an overview of all his suggestions, essentially Brad talks about attacking weaknesses and going for shots when we have leads, but when we ABSOLUTELY MUST win a point, he says be "steady and consistent" and take few if any risks.

This is a huge contradiction. As I said earlier, if we should employ a tactic that is our best chance to win a point when we absolutely must win a point, then why shouldn't we use that philosophy on every point?

To me there is no insignificant point, no point we can afford to lose. His argument for what one must do when they absolutely need to win a point is my belief on how every point should be played--with consistency.

To me a player must know what his game is and keep playing his game. If his game was good enough to get him to 40-0 it is good enough to win the game. If his "A" game is putting him a hole 0-30 etc. regularly, how is switching to what, for most, is a non-existent "B" game going to help?

We each have a skill set but I believe that within that skill set one should base their game on steadiness and consistency as best as their individual skills and mental toughness will allow.

There is my take as briefly as is possible for me to state it.

There is much more that could be added to my thoughts. The main point of this is to make sure you all take these ideas a think about them, as you should with every suggestion, mine included. Their shouldn't be an inconsistencies or contradictions; the ideas should match up with the game you play (singles or doubles) as well as your skill set.

Before implementing any tip from a magazine, TV commentator or personal coach, make sure it fits your game and skill set.

I welcome any responses, whether they would be written or with me on court!

Brad, if you read this, I would be happy to give you all the time and space you need to correct anything I have misunderstood or don't understand.

What say you all?