Move Those Feet

What's With Djokovic?

2011-04-02T19:14:00.000-07:00

As it stands as I write, Novac Djokovic is 24-0 for the 2011 Pro Tennis Season!

A steady Number 3 in the world for the last few years, he has now past Federer to be Number 2 and most think he is playing the best tennis of anyone right now (though Nadal's 3,2 work-over of Federer in the Miami Semi's might argue that).

Djokovic is a beautiful all court player. His childhood coach strictly taught him using "old-school" tennis values and an all-court game that he has nicely refined into a terrific modern game but with old-school touches.

If you have watched any of his recent matches you will have heard the commentators (with whom I don't always agree) comment on his great defense and the way he just wears down his opponents.

There is nothing worse than having someone in your face all the time. Hitting a quality shot and it just comes back and back and back. In the beginning of a match it isn't too bad, but over time, as one tires, frustration sets in and close behind, unforced errors.

Does this remind you of anyone?

For one, that is exactly the way Rafa plays too, as pointed out in my last post. Roger, "in his day" was the same, but perhaps a bit flashier, but still his ability to stay in a point had the same wearing down affect.

Pretty much this philosophy of play that has taken virtually every player that has been #1 to #1 for as long as I have been in tennis and I would be willing to bet all those before my time as well.

Steadiness wins....This is what we do, if you have been following along.

Your observations, as always are welcome and edifying. Thank you all!!

A Question For You

2011-03-09T23:28:00.000-08:00

Bernard Tomic, the up-and-coming Australian Tennis Professional, made the following comment following the thumping he received from Rafa Nadal in the Australian Open:

"To win one point against him (Rafa) I had to hit 3 shots, any one of which would have won a point against anyone else I have ever played!"

My question is: What should Bernard (and we) learn from this statement?

(Think about this before proceeding)

To me, the interesting thing about this statement is that the solution to this and the lesson for Mr. Tomic is exactly the opposite of what seems obvious.

On the surface it would seem that Mr. Tomic should work on his put-aways, but should he? Is that the lesson? I think not.

We all know that Rafa can play defense and is willing to do so. But, what is also being said here is that, despite all the emphasis on the importance of offense, why couldn't the WORLD NUMBER 1 and perhaps the greatest player of all time, just hit a winner on the 2nd or 3rd ball and save himself a bunch of running and trouble?

The reason Rafa plays such good defense is that he has learned what so many coaches and recreational players haven't or don't want to hear--to hit an offensive shot requires the ability to wait for a relatively rare set of circumstances to present themselves.

To do that requires a willingness to be steady and play defense.

I would hope this wasn't lost on Mr. Tomic and he is on the court right now working on his defense and not out there trying to make his offense better. If he is he is learning from the best. If he isn't then don't count on hearing much of him in the future.

Next question--have you learned that lesson?

How To Help A Coach Help YOU

2011-01-24T17:58:00.000-08:00

Darren Cahill is a great analyst. Rarely does he speculate or give his opinion on what a player should be doing at some point in a match or wondering why they aren't. He just discusses what he sees, often with great insight as to the ebbs and flows of a match.

Prior to becoming an analyst, and perhaps still, Darren has coached several highly ranked players including Andre Agassi towards the end of Andre's career.

Being aware of this previous coaching relationship and understanding gained from the experience of coaching a top player, the other commentator, while they were commenting on a Federer match, asked Darren about the new coaching relationship between Federer and Paul Annacone, who was previously Pete Sampras' coach.

Specifically, Darren was asked how long it takes for a new coach to get to know his player so that the new coach can make thoughtful and appropriate suggestions for game improvement.

During his answer he made a comment that I wanted to pass on, because, if a player can do this, it is incredibly helpful to me to know how to address an area of concern or improvement.

Some context: As coaches watch our player, sometimes the problem errors and the respective corrections for those mistakes are self-evident (ie. an obvious technical flaw for example). However more often, especially as a players' game matures, finding the root cause of a shot or strategic problem is far less apparent. Is the reason for a mistake because of a slight technical misunderstanding, or is there perhaps a mental misunderstanding, fear, etc. that is at the heart of the problem?

To that end, Darren commented on how easy it was to help Andre, because Andre was great at being able to articulate what was happening "inside himself" during situations that needed work. The exact things that coaches like myself can't necessarily see from our perspective.

This is a skill that would help me help you the most. Whether you come to me with a problem or it is something we spot while practicing or playing, the more you can tell me about what was happening "inside" the better I can make a suggestion relative to solving the root cause of a game problem.

As always, I encourage you to ask me in your lesson or contact me by email anytime to ask for help on something. I don't always know that something is a problem. Of course the more of this inside help you can give me the better......Thank you all so much!!

Nationals Successes!!

2010-10-27T22:10:00.000-07:00

Congratulations are in order for members of our family--Jennifer Hoke and Roger Hegele, both member of teams that qualified for League Nationals.

I am awaiting more details, but for now let me just mention that Jennifer won 2 of 3 matches she played and Roger won 3 of 4 (if I can trust the USTA web site).

Please join me in congratulating them by posting a note in COMMENTS below.

What We Learned From The US Open

2010-09-23T12:13:00.000-07:00

This years US Open was a demonstration of the depth of tennis and something of a changing of the guard.

I like Wozniacki's game. Nadal is proving himself to have the determination to improve more so than any player I have watched in my 50 something years in the game.

The question becomes, is there anything we mortals can learn from the best in our game? What lessons can we take away from the watching of tennis on TV that is possible and realistic to our games?

I would love to see this post become a bulletin board of comments of what each of you learned when you watched.

I will start with a few observations of my own to give you the idea and then open it up for your comments:

1/At the end where were all the big hitters? Other than Venus, long gone. Despite the fact that all players on TV have the capability to hit the ball hard, the cream (as it always has been) were the players that were the most steady and consistent--not to say they didn't have teeth at the appropriate times.

Djockovics' defense was what beat Federer. Wozniacki played steady and dominated until she faced Zavonereva and lost because she wasn't steady. Steadiness has always been the trademark of Nadal and then there was Clijsters who I thought was the best example, maybe ever of how to play the game of tennis v. just a ball basher.

Clijsters against Zevonereva hit steady, solid shots. Corner to corner, but with good margin for error. Then the INSTANT she had a void she filled it! I never in all my years saw anyone do this as well as she did.

In the past she would struggle because of periods, in seemingly every match where she would go somewhere else and hit a string of unforced errors. Not any more. She is now the epitome of tennis excellence.

While she does have put-away-power, it is her willingness to play consistently and play defense, like all the rest of the top guys, that makes her the champ she is!!

2/ The importance of returning serve is getting its due.

3/ Somewhat related to comment 1, the game is divided between those that can only bash the ball, and those that understand how to construct points and play the game, both offense and defense. The later are the ones you found in the later rounds.

4/ Unforced errors are the biggest enemy of them all. Case in Point : Toward the of Roger Novak match the stat came up that Novak had 30 unforced up to that point, Fed, 50. Many of Fed's mishits were clearly out of frustration of Novak returning balls that Fed thought he should have won.

OK, so there is an idea of what I am looking for in comments.

What did you all learn?

The Dangers of Tennis Magazine, etc. Tennis Tips

2010-08-14T23:28:00.000-07:00

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?

What's up with Roger?

2010-07-03T20:45:00.000-07:00

Much air time has been consumed with speculation as to Federer's poor (by his standards) season and most particularly his early Wimbledon exit. Here is my take:

The general consensus of the commentators seem to be focused primarily on two main considerations--

1/ His age (29 I believe) is catching up with him;

2/ His fellow competitors have gotten better.

I would agree, to a certain extent that both these are true, but I think there is more to it.

Besides age, there is the simple pressure, not only on court, but the also the demands off court for the world's #1 at anything, that must be hugely energy sapping.

Federer has the reputation of being one of the most accommodating "celebrities". He gives much time to fans and to interviews and is said to be far more accessible than most others in his position.

To have done this for as long as he has been in his position surely has taken its toll, adding to the natural slowing down with age.

On the court, Federer's past success and his play pattern needs to be changed.

I remember once watching a match where they had James Blakes brother and coach, mic'd up for his comments on his brothers performance during a match he was having with Federer. This was fairly early in Rogers' run.

At about mid-way in the second set after James lost the first set, you could see that James had really lost belief in himself that he had a chance. He had thrown in the towel and was just going through the motions--Roger winning point after point to the end.

As if on-cue, his brother said:

"everyone who plays this guy (Roger) reaches a point where they realize they can't win. James has just reached that point."

This was true of most of Roger's opponents.

I watched many people do the same thing against him.

I think that goes along with players getting better.

Roger raised the bar and others took on the challenge and got better because of him. Now, they are better, but they also never stop thinking they can win, but Roger plays as if they will still throw in the the towel at some point and they aren't any more.

In the past, Federer also felt that he could "flip a switch" at some point in a match and just take over. That also was true and he still is able to flip the switch, but to my eyes he has gotten a bit too comfortable with that past reality and is coming out far too often too flat.

That combined with the improved competition and you have more losses.

Federer, at his best, is still the best player in the world. But he has to come out with more conviction. By that I don't mean that he has to start out going for winners, but he must come out with energy right from the beginning and build on that.

Then, when he gets on top of his opponent, he must NOT expect them to stop competing. He must keep the pressure on and FINISH the match.

Lessons in here for all of us.

What do you think? Add a comment.

Both Brad Gilbert and Patrick MacEnroe don't believe Federer will ever be #1 again. Add your vote to the poll below. This would be interesting see what you all think.

An Interesting Wimbledon

2010-05-29T19:36:00.000-07:00

It has been a while since I posted a comment, but the interesting happenings at Wimbledon make the perfect opportunity.

As usual I will attempt to comment on things that can teach us all how to be better players.

Forgetting the 70-68 match, which is a lifetime of discussion, the thing that has struck me about this years Men's matches is the closeness of the matches in the early rounds.

So many 4 and 5 set matches between top seeds and low ranked or even qualifier level players.

Federers match against Falla is a good case in point and two wonderful lessons for us "mortals" to learn:

1/ Most tennis matches are close, even if the score doesn't indicate that. It is really rare, unless there is an obvious disparity in levels, for matches to be blow-outs. This holds true at every level from around 3.5 up to the top.

The difference between winning and losing is razor thin differences.

This has been my observation since I started playing tennis and has held true until today.

What does this mean?

First, we must hold our focus. Allowing one little distraction costing us as little as one point can make the difference.

Second, unfailingly do the things that are under our control. This is something I talk about regularly.

For example, our opponents skill level may be so great that I can't return his shots, but that doesn't (and shouldn't) mean that I can have my racquet up and ready, or run after every ball even if it is to just get it back over the net. Or, as I mentioned previously, to stay in the match (stay focused).

Maybe these small little things that are under our control won't win every match, but you'll be surprised at how many they will win, especially if it is close.

This is execution at crunch time. Something winners do.

2/ Staying with "their game":

If you watched Federer in both of his close first two rounds, you would have noticed that Federer didn't vary from his style of play.

I am sure 1000's of 3.5 "tactical experts" around the world were yelling at their TV's for Federer to change his game, as they would.

Federer knew better. This is his game, he has to stick with it. Slowly he wore down the "nothing to lose" opponent until his opponent lost some of the zip on their shots and thus Federer started having ever better and better looks at the ball.

Learn from the greatest of all time.

Federer v. Roddick Wimbledon Finals

2009-07-06T19:58:00.000-07:00

For those who had the priveledge to see any or all of this match, we saw what is certainly one of the top 3 matches of all time, at least. I personally think it was better than last years Nadal v. Federer, but that is a matter of opinion.

One could go on and on about this, but I thought that I might comment on the lessons we mere mortal tennis players might learn from the match.

The core of the lessons are found in the last games of the 5th set, from about 11-11 or so.

Prior to that it was such high level tennis as for us only to marvel. I would comment that Roddick has clearly worked on his fitness (something we all could do) and how he was more careful to compose himself after errors or Federer brilliance better than I had ever seen him do before.

I was especially impressed when Roddick lead 4-1 in the 2nd set tie-breaker and Federer hit those incredible shots and takes the tie-break. This must have been a blow to Andy and frankly I thought Federer would cruise from there.

Andy recomposed like I have never seen him before and kept the match competitive right to the end. Before I think that would have cracked poor Andy and Federer would have won in 4 routine sets after that.

Now to 11-11.

Up to that point both had been serving at an incredibly effective rate. Neither had really pressed the other on the other's serve. Roddick had made perhaps a bit more of a dent in Federer's serve than Federer had in Roddick's, but really neither had really been pushed all that much.

So, what changed? What gave Federer the win?

As I was watching I feared that one of them would hit a rare double fault and that would shake them; a sad thing in a match of such spledor.

But I was wrong.

Next I thought that Federer would, at some point, catch a couple of Roddick's bullet serves square and steal a game. But wrong again.

What ended up happening was that Roddick's first serve percentage dipped slightly. That was the first little crack. Suddenly Fed was getting some 15-30's on Andy's serve and, if memory serves had a couple of deuces in the games just prior to the penultimate game.

In comparision, Federer's 1st serve percentage stayed high. He would win his game quickly, while Andy suddenly found himself a game down and fighting harder to hold serve, simply because Roger was getting some good looks at 2nd serves all of a sudden.

So there is lesson number one: One must maintain or acheive a high first serve percentage in close matches especially at crunch-time.

Lesson number two came in the form of the importance of winners v. unforced errors.

I also suspected that if Federer was going to win, he would have to pull off some of those "only Federer could make that shot!!" shots. Wrong for the third time.

That match was decided and finally match point decided on Roddick unforced errors. If you saw match point you will remember Roddick framing a routine forehand 6-8 feet (or better) long. He had made at least one other unforced error in match game (and I think 2 unforced) and had a couple of others in the preceding games that lead to the increasing pressure on him.

Finally, the most interesting statistic was that of the value of power v. accuracy.

Here is Roddick. Steady 130+mph serves=24 aces. Federer down in the 120's=50 aces.

Federer's serve, while only average power-wise was developed to be pin point accurate.

Yet again accuracy prevails over power.

So there we have it. The lessons we mortals can learn and utilize from a great
match;

-High percentages of first serves are crucial, especially at crunch-time;

-Matches are won and lost on unforced errors;

-Accuracy and consistency usually prevail over power.

Were the reasons for Federer's win above unusual? No. This formula is exactly the same that I have seen prevail in the thousands of matches I have watched in my life in tennis.

Learn these lessons and continue to build your games with these philosophies and you will be role-modelling the greatest of all time.

Everyone would love to hear "takes" on the match. PLEASE post them!!

Who Is The Greatest Men's Player Of All Time

2009-06-24T23:21:00.000-07:00

Now that Roger has won the French the debate over who is the greatest player of all time is back on.

Below I will state the case for the 3 players most often discussed in this on-going debate.

Rod Laver-Won fewer Grand Slams than the other 2 contenders. There was a reason for this; during his time the players were all amateurs. At the height of his skill, he and other players broke away from the tour for 7 years, to start what was to become the ATP. During this time he was ineligible for the Grand Slam events. He was ineligible for 28 events!! He was dominant enough to have surely won more than Sampras'/Federer's 14. My guess would be 18-20.

He won the French twice. The coolest thing was that he won the 4 majors in the same calendar year 2 times...But get this: He wins the first 4 and then is ineligible for the 7 years. Then the game became a Pro game, totally because of the sacrifice of these players that split away. He then wins the 4 again, making it essentially 8 majors in a row!

The catch on this was, that at that time, 3 of the 4 majors were on grass--Wimbledon, Australian and US Open (at Forest Hills), so it wasn't nearly the same test of a well-rounded game.

Laver was far ahead of his time. A big all court game in the era of only serve and volleyers. He had a big topspin forehand and BACKHAND, when only a few of his peers had even a moderate topspin forehand. No one except Laver hit a topspin backhand in his era.

That is his case.

Pete Sampras-The two main points in Sampras' favor are his 14 Grand Slam wins and the fact, that for his career he had a 65% winning percentage against other Top Ten players, far higher than Laver. Federer's career is not yet done, but his is higher so far.

Sampras is also said to have had the toughest competition overall than the other 2, including Agassi and Courier, both multiple Grand Slam winner's as well.

On the down side, Sampras never won the French, or even came close for that matter. I know he never reached a Final, and it is my recollection that he never even reached a Semi's.

Technical strength's: Big serve, especially when down or at crunch time. Big forehand, slice and topspin backhand and a good volley. Deceptively good court coverage.

Roger Federer-The case for Federer is much more known to all of you. A dominant 4 years, the most dominant 4 years of any player ever.

Now he has the career slam and unbelievable consistency in getting to at least the semi's of a lot of Slam events in a row.

He is now tied with Sampras in career slam wins and will pass him this year, probably at Wimbledon in a week.

The 2 most common knocks against Federer are the fact that he has so many losses to to Rafa Nadal and the general consensus is that he isn't facing quite the quality of overall opponents as either Sampras or Laver.

Technical Strength's: Nice all court game. Lots of weapons. A good, but not over powering serve, but strong under pressure. Probably the best mover of all time. All court player. Equally good at baseline or net, a rare combination.

So, there are the cases. Do a little web searching on your own and find out more. It will increase your enjoyment of the game.

PLEASE vote below for your choice. I am hoping for 80% of you voting or better.

Mixed Sectionals

2009-06-11T14:10:00.000-07:00

The week-end of the 21st will be the USTA's mixed Sectionals. We have many of our family participating.

-Kyle Weldon 8.0

-Deb Sawyer 8.0

-Karen Sullivan 8.0

-Jim Heiskell 8.0

-Tommy Brozozowski 7.0

I think that is everyone. If I have forgotten someone please let me know so that they can be acknowledged.

PLEASE post a congratulatory comment below.

Federer's Win

2009-06-07T20:54:00.000-07:00

Below I have a poll to get opinions as to whether or not Federer's French Open win is "tarnished" because Rafa and some of the other top seeds didn't make it through.

Please vote in the poll, and please also make a comment by clicking comments below. It should spark a lively debate.

When you post your comment, click "subscribe" and all follow-up comments will be emailed to you and you can then counter or support the comments made.

Next post I will express my opinion. I didn't want to influence anyone.....

Going To Nationals!!!!

2009-06-03T19:33:00.001-07:00

Maui's 4.0 Women are going to represent the Section of Hawaii in the USTA Senior Nationals, to be held later this summer!!

Members of the team which are part of are family are Terry Kent, Cindy Tervola and Janet Arnds. Also on the team, but not able to attend Sectionals or Nationals, but important contributors to the Team qualifying are Deb Sawyer and Jo Haskin.

Above you will find their Sectionals Match Results.

When they are Nationals they have promised they will update me daily and I will create a web-page where we can follow them and offer encouragement through comments.

Please offer your congratulations in Comments below!!

Senior Sectionals

2009-05-21T01:19:00.000-07:00

The weekend of May 23, 24, 25, Memorial Day weekend is the USTA Senior Sectionals.

Collectively we all should be proud of the players of our family who are participating:

Tommy Brozozowski
Jeff Smith
Jo Haskin
Terry Kent
Deb Sawyer
Janet Arnds
Cindy Tervola
Cathy Paxton-Haines
JoAnne Quintoes

I think I have remembered all. (If I have forgotten someone, please let me know so that I can acknowledge them.

What we all should be proud of is that this list is virtually all of the players of our family that played in the USTA Seniors League this season.

Please post a comment wishing them well....

Royal Lahaina Doubles Results

2009-05-08T21:48:00.000-07:00

Several of our family participated in the recent Royal Lahiana Doubles Tournament.

All of our family who played reached the finals.

Dave Nelson (Thursday Men's Clinic) and his partner won the 3.5 Division, beating the #2 seeds in the semi's (6-1,6-2) and the #1 seeds in the finals (6-7 (5-7), 6-4, 6-3).

In the Women's 4.0 Division, Cindy Tervola (Saturday Women's 8am-10am Clinic) Squeaked past Debra Sawyer and her partner in the Finals.

We all should be proud of the progress we have all made. Rarely is there a tournament or League Champion in which our players participate that we are not a factor, reaching the finals, winning or as a member of the winning League Team.

From my perspective it is amazing to watch such dedicated efforts and I am proud to be your coach!!

Congratulations to all!!

Feed Back on Private Web Pages

2009-03-31T01:11:00.000-07:00

I have received many favorable comments about the private web pages. Thank you to all.

There have also been some interesting uses that I wouldn't have considered. I have added these ideas to those who requested, but will happily do so if anyone else would like me to add them.

Several people have asked me to open up their sites to family members and friends, so that these people on the mainland or as far away as Europe, can keep up with their tennis doings.

A creative idea for one of these people was to give me the link to their results in USTA League Matches, so that they have a record of their results and their family can also see how they are doing. This is a cool idea I thought.

Several players are very active in adding to and commenting on the coaching reviews.

Through these attachments they say they are able to consolidate what they learned.

From my side, I have gained valuable insight as to what is connecting with those that attach these comments to the coaching reviews I write up weekly after their coaching.

If anyone would like to learn how to add these comments, or would like me to add these ideas to their site just let me know, and it will be done!!

On one clinic site I am experimenting with the idea of a "drill request" form. In this players would ask me to include drills in their class for shots/situations that they would like some extra work. If you would like me to add this to your clinics' site, just let me know and, again, it will be done.

Private Web Pages

2009-03-14T01:25:00.000-07:00

I have almost finished all of the Private and Clinic Web pages.

You may have seen me, from time to time, bringing that black notebook out on court with me. That was the place that I made "shorthand" notes of the topics and suggestions we discussed during your coaching. The shorthand were just prompts that I would use to remind myself of what we discussed, so that I could continue the next week(s) in a logical progression.

As I got our main web page, Move Those Feet, up and running, it struck me that I could set up Web pages for each of the Private Coaching players and each of the clinic's.

I wanted them to be private (just open to the player(s) and me). It took me a while to find the way to make that possible by limiting who can get to the site by email address.

To get to your site, go to our main site, http;//movethosefeet.blogspot.com (bookmark that page). Next, simply scroll down to your individual picture, if you take Private Coaching and/or to the picture of you clinic. Click on the picture and, "magical presto", you will taken to your site.

Make sure you are using your same computer, the one to which I send you email and thus has the same email address to which I send notifications to you. That is the only way to get to the site. You will be denied access if you use another person computer as the email address will be different.

On the page you will find your updated stringing information, so that you know the last stringing date and when you need to restring again, along with a Wish List of things I would like to you add, work on or even take out of your game, along with possible practice and play ideas, as appropriate.

The main point of the page, the updated instruction summary, will be found in the same area as this posting. In it I will summarize what we worked on, update most every week. I will notify you, when I update, by email.

For Private Coaching Student's, think of the postings as your own reminder notebook. To each posting you can attach complementary thoughts you had about the practice. For example in one posting recently someone liked a suggestion I made (ta-da), but came up with their own terminology/phrase to remind themself.

They attached that phrase to the Posting and told me that they refer to the posting before they go to play to refresh the concept. Cool!

This is exactly the idea.

Their posting was a big help to me too, as I learned a bit better how that player processes information, making me better able to help them.

PLEASE do this a lot!

For clinic's, same thing. Add your unique take on the information we dicussed in class. That way all can benefit from each other's perspectives and takes on the topics discussed/practiced.

Finally, I don't have an exclusive on what should be on the pages. Right now they are just up and running, so they are a bit basic. Now that they are up and running, I will begin adding photo's. But there are, I'm sure, lots of additions that could be added that I haven't thought of.

For example, Pavel Zeman, a new member of our family, sent me a YouTube link of a video showing the manufacturing process of Wilson Tennis Balls. It is great! Thank you Pavel!

The link to the video can be found toward the bottom of the main Web site.

This was great and exactly what I am looking for. I am sure there are lots of other ideas too, so please let me know.

I love you people and I really am going to enjoy updating these sites for you. I hope you enjoy them as much as enjoy doing them for you!!

Thank you all so much!! Craig

Is This a Changing of the Guard?

2009-02-14T16:47:00.000-08:00

Congratulations to Rafa Nadal.

I couldn't imagine that he would be able to win the Aus Open after the 5 hour marathon he had with Verdasco combined with how well Federer was playing.

You can't help but be in awe of Nadal's resiliency. Federer gave him any number of body blows and knock out punches that would have had anyone else surrendering to his brilliance.

Not Nadal. He seems to have no memory. Not even of the last point. He just keeps coming and coming and coming.

Another good lesson for us.

Below you will find another poll.

Do you think that this was the coronation of the new King of Tennis in Rafa, or do you think Federer can overcome and regain his #1 ranking?

Nadal and His Future

2009-01-24T22:11:00.000-08:00

Some of you may recall my commenting on my opinion that I would be surprised if Nadal was still playing in a couple of years. Or at least would have to cut down his schedule dramatically or be out injured regularly.

The reasons I sited were two:

1/ He is brutal on his legs with all the running and stopping and changing directions his game style requires . He is already been out a couple of times with injuries to his knees and as I recall some of his early exits he commented on sore knees, not to mention that he tapes his knee's now for every match.

To help this I thought he would need to learn to volley more to shorten points and have his strokes penetrate through the court more, rather than the heavy topspin of a clay courter.

To his credit is working on this.

2/ The bigger problem was the way he so awkwardly finishes his forehand. If any of us did that more than maybe once our twice we would be out with a shoulder problem forever. He was in fact suffering shoulder issues too.

I am happy to say, he has clearly worked on the longer less abusive finish on his forehand to the extent that even the analysts have noticed. Most are just saying that it is so his ball will penetrate through the court more to make him a better hard and grass court player, which it will. But, one or two commented that the longer finish should lessen the stress on the shoulder as well. Which I agree as well.

This takes a lot of courage to change a stroke to that extent when your old stroke got you to #1 in the world, but that is how great players think.

It was not as simple as just adding length to the finish. The main reason for his old, awkward finish was that he had a contact point that was quite far back in the hitting zone. Steffi Graf also had a similar contact point that was somewhat back in the hitting zone. Her finish was often in a similar location. So what I am saying is that, for Rafa to get the different follow through position, it was just to finish a bit further across his body. No. It required dramatic a timing change. That is not easy, so hats off to him!

I am a Federer fan, but I admire Rafa too. I would like to see Federer win all the time, but the juxtaposition of their styles is perhaps the most opposite of any two rivals in the history of tennis. Perhaps the only similarly opposite match up that I can think of would be Laver v. Rosewall. Sampras v. Agassi though similar, wasn't quite so exteme to my eye.

In any case, it is a compelling match-up, and we can all hope for many more epic battles between them before one or both are done.

What do you all think?

On-Court Coaching--Favor or Oppose

2008-12-21T19:27:00.000-08:00

My recent poll question asks for your opinion regarding on-court coaching during tournament matches.

It is an interesting idea and would almost certainly provide fans a better quality matches. However, I have to come down on the OPPOSE side of the issue.

Tennis is virtually the only sport where coaching isn't allowed and I think that requires something special in the tennis player that isn't "asked" of any other athlete---self-sufficiency.

While there may be lots of instances where a quick talk with a coach could get a "wobbly" player back into his game quickly, some of the most inspiring and legendary matches are the ones when a player, all alone out there, over-comes (all by themselves) a bad start, a red-hot opponent and/or bad calls, to dig themselves out of a seemingly insurmountable lead by an opponent.

In my opinion therefore, adding coaching would cost tennis its most inspiring characteristic.

What do you think?

Shot Spot

2008-11-22T13:20:00.000-08:00

We have all enjoyed the shot spot technology. Watching the arcing ball head towards a line, often to be the size of a single strand of ball fuzz in or out. I love the live crowd reaction also, especially when they, in unison, add that "ahhhhhh" sound effect as the ball gets nearer and nearer to the line.

The technology it must take one can only speculate.

This system hasn't been without its critics however. There are a couple of situations also where shot spot rules seem to make it risky for a player to challenge, because in so doing if he/she is wrong they loose a point that they otherwise might have returned.

There is the famous shot in the recent Federer v. Nadal Wimbledon finals where, at an absolutely crucial moment, Federer has the courage to pull the trigger on a incredible forehand that Nadal, in range to hit it, stopped and raised his hand to call for a challenge. The ball was in, but it was deemed that Nadal could have gotten the shot and thus the point was replayed. Nadal won the replayed point and ultimately the match.

In a match that was so close, this had to frustrate Federer, if even a little and could very well have been the reason he lost.

What do you all think of shot spot? What are your ideas/suggestions for improving the rules?

I would love to see the day when the technology is so fast as to just have it call every ball instantly, thus relieving the poor volunteer lines people from the embarrassment.

Federer Wins!

2008-09-11T17:37:00.000-07:00

So, the time of anarchy is over. Order has returned to the tennis world. Federer wins the U.S. Open.

This was the Federer we have all come to expect...incredible shot making, decisive and the footwork that sets him apart.

This was the first time in some time that he has seemed like the Federer of the last 4 years. I have thought all along that he must surely still be suffering some affects from the mono. This match he didn't.

If you saw the match, what is your opinion of his performance, and how long do you think he will be able to maintain this excellence?

Players Qualify for Nationals!

2008-08-18T23:55:00.000-07:00

Two of our players and friends, Deb Sawyer and Karen Sullivan, are integral members of the Maui Women's 4.0 Team that has just won the Hawaii Sectionals and is going to Nationals in late September.

Please join me in congratulating them and giving them our full support by posting a comment in this blog.

GOOD LUCK LADIES. We are all proud of you!

US Open

2008-08-10T13:15:00.000-07:00

Next question: Who will win the US Open? Men and Women.

With the Olympics just prior to the US Open and top players expressing interest in winning a Gold medal, this could leave the field wide open for someone besides Federer, Nadal or Djokovic. I think a lot will depend on how far into the Olympics the top three progress.

Roddick could see his opening. Andy Murray recently had a good tournament win or perhaps another Tsonga effort.

Nadal is fragile on the hard courts, last year suffering knee problems. Federer, I think is still less that 100% from his mono in Australia. So of the top three, I think Djokovic is the favorite and then maybe Roddick.

For the women, it is interesting. Henin s retirement threw things into turmoil.

Ana Ivanovic isn't quite ready to be number 1, nor is Jelena Jankovic. Either of the Williams sisters could be dominant, but one has to question their commitment and fitness.

Is Dinara Safina ready? I dont think so. There are a few others on the periphery, but still, I think it will get down to whether one of the Williams' is fit. If not, I would have to go with Ivanovic, reluctantly.

What do you all think?

Most Important Player Characteristic

2008-07-30T23:30:00.000-07:00

Of the three main player characteristics--Technique, tactical skill and mental composure, which do you think is the most important characteristic a player must possess and why?

If you think it is a combination, please specify the three in the order of importance...(ie 50% Mental, 25% Technique and 25% tactical).

Federer v. Nadal

2008-07-28T20:59:00.000-07:00

Let's try our first blog posting with your comments about the Federer v. Nadal Wimbledon Final.

It was one of the 3 or 4 best matches of all time. Equal to the great Laver v. Rosewall, MacEnroe v. Borg/Lendl and more recently, Sampras v. Agassi. What are your thoughts?