1. If you are a serious tennis player, or someone who wants to improve your tennis game, you've got to practice. And practice on a consistent basis. But the question is, WHO should you practice with?
2. You can always find someone to play with. If no one's around head down to the public park and hit against the backboard. Rally against the wall. I do this even today, and I've been playing tennis for 35 years (I'm 45). In fact, many of the best players, including the pros, started out this way.
3. The question of WHO you should practice with is a very important one. In fact, I think it's largely overlooked in junior tennis programs today.
4. First and foremost, you need to be playing sets against players you can usually beat. So I'm addressing this to junior players who play tournaments, or anyone who plays competitive tennis. Play sets and play people you can beat--that's the rule!
5. Let me explain. Tennis is an ego game. To improve your game you'll need lots of CONFIDENCE. You'll need to stroke your ego, and trust me this is what WINNING will do for you!
6. With winning consistently, not only will you gain confidence but your game will actually IMPROVE. It is a myth that you improve by losing! Don't believe it for a second! The only thing losing on a regular basis breeds is a deflated ego and expectation of more losses.
7. As your game improves and you knock off better and better players, you'll be motivated to practice more.
8. Winning is a virtuous cycle: WIN, gain Confidence, Improve, Play more. Bottom line: Winning on a consistent basis is mandatory---and addictive! Once you get used to it (winning) you'll never go back to losing...because it just doesn't feel as good!!
9. So let's talk about WHO your victims ought to be. But first, let me give you an example of the type of victim that's out there.. I am playing in a league. I won my first two matches rather easily; my third match emailed me after seeing my results and said, "Well, I guess I'll be your next victim, when do you want to play"? You see, the hat trick was already in the bag!! Before we'd even stepped on the court, he saw my winning streak and figured I was on a roll. He was right, I beat him 6-2, 6-0.
10. Okay, I talked about playing better players. I'll say more about that in a moment but for now you must find "competition" you can whip week in and week out. When you both walk on the court you both know who the likely victor will be: YOU.
11. In fact, find two or three "victims." Play them every week. Make sure it's three different people--not one player 3 times! You should beat this person at least 3 out of every 4 times you play. The scores should look something like: 6-3, 6-4 (1st week); 6-2, 7-5 (2nd week); 6-3, 7-6 (3rd week) and maybe 4-6, 5-7 (you lose) in the 4th week. Tight sets are good. It gets you used to the "pressure" and there's nothing wrong with losing a match occasionally to him...just don't let it happen too often.
12. The point is not that you win every single set, but that you establish the fact that you are the acknowledged "better player." Your regular opponent must know that on most occasions he's going to lose to YOU. And most definitely when the "chips are down" he's going to lose big-time to you. Why? Because again, you are the recognized better player. You beat him regularly in practice and you know how to beat him. The PATTERN of your dominance is well-established.
13. I think you should practice with different age groups, if possible. Also, find opponents with varying styles: for example, find a lefty with a big serve. Also, if you can find someone with a good TWO-HANDED BACKHAND who brings it crosscourt, all the better. This will force you to hit LOTS of backhands and this will improve your game greatly! (There are not that many players with good, let alone really good backhands..Find them and play them!).
14. In addition to the two or three weekly matches, you'll need to find a couple players that are a notch above your regular victims. In fact, these opponents are able to beat you. You may beat them also, but going into the match it's 50/50. However, don't play them every week. Play them every 2 or 3 weeks or even once a month. Afterall, if they're your age you'll probably run into them in tournaments.
15. So how should your matches go with this top quality opponent---the one who usually beats you two out of three sets? First, the sets should be tight. You may lose 6-4, 7-5. Occasionally you pull one out. But for the most he's got your number. Play this guy once a month---not more often.
16. How often should you lose a practice match? I believe that if you're losing 50% of the time that's way too much. Even 33% of the time is too often in my book. You need to be winning at least 75% of your matches (3 out of 4). If that's not the case, find easier targets.
17. Tennis is extremely mental. It's also a "confidence game." The more confident you are the more you'll want to play and the more you'll believe you're going to win. Losing does not breed confidence. And it's debatable whether it'll help your game or not.
18. Also, importantly, if you are playing someone week in and week out who you easily beat (eg 6-1, 6-0) and he's struggling to win games (let alone sets) don't keep playing him. Scratch him off the practice list. That's too easy a match. Bagle him a few times and then politely suggest that he find other "easier" practice mathces.
19. Finally, don't play anyone who "whoops" on you---where YOU are the one struggling to win games! Be realistic, know your limits and know that only winning breeds confidence and joy.
20. I utterly reject the notion that the game of tennis is "not about winning." On the contrary it's all about winning because only in winning does one gain confidence, enjoy playing and actually improve. Losing all the time is a bummer. Let's be honest.
21. So go out and find two or three you can beat consistently. Find one or maybe two additional players who can push you to the limit and even beat you. Afterall, if you won EVERY time you stepped on the court the element of suspense would be lost, now don't you think?
22. Next time I will talk about HOW you should practice if you want to improve your tennis game. This is an important topic because I believe many players, even advanced players, take the totally wrong approach to practice sessions.
23. I welcome any and all of your comments---from pros as well ordinary folk!
Friday, February 26, 2010
Monday, July 9, 2007
2007 Wimbledon Men's Final
The final tally: Federer def Nadal 7-6, 4-6, 7-6, 2-6, 6-2. To win his 5th straight Wimbledon title. This ties Borg's record of 5 straight. Wimbledon 2008 should certainly provide some high drama, given what's potentially at stake concerning the record books.
In June 2008, not only will Federer be seeking his 6th consecutive Wimbledon singles title, breaking Borg's 5 in a row---an incredible feat in itself---but he'll quite possibly be either tying or breaking Pete Sampras' all-time Grand Slam record of 14.
Consider this. With yesterday's victory, Federer now has 11 Slams under his belt. The U.S. Open in September could give him 12; the Australian (in Jan 2008) could give him 13. I don't think he'll win the French (ever). But assuming he can take 2 of the next 3 slams, the door will be open at Wimbledon '08 for Federer to catch Pistol Pete Sampras at 14. Can you imagine the hype? If this indeed plays out, Wimbledon will definitely be the ticket next year. And if he does tie Sampras then Federer will be going for the all-time record of 15 at the U.S. Open in 2008.
Now for some quick commentary and analysis of yesterday's final. It was an interesting well-played match by both players. And it's first time Federer has had to go 5 sets to take the title. Truly, a point here or there, and I think Nadal could've emerged victorious.
For instance, the third set tie-breaker was absolutely CRITICAL. If Nadal wins the third set breaker I think the odds were good he would've worn Federer down (physically and mentally). Also, consider this. In the third set breaker, Nadal was down 6-3 (or was it 6-4?) and he came back to 6-all. He had the momentum. The crowd was really getting into the match and Rafa was pumped. At this point, Federer was flustered, and seemed a bit panicked. Afterall, he'd just let 3 set points slip away!
Interestingly, Federer didn't stay flustered or suffer a meltdown. He didn't give into his emotions and the "c'mon Rafas" of the fans. He kept cool and used the changeover at 6-all to inhale deeply and pull himself together. Remarkably from this point on Nadal put up little resistance and Federer closed him out in the third.
It is my contention that it was Federer's ability to hang on to this tie-breaker in the third set, and the way he did, that won him the match. In this critical set he out-dueled the manly Mallorcan, breaking him down mentally at the end of the breaker. Now, instead of needing two straight sets to take the title---a tough assignment against a surging Nadal---he only needed to win 1 out of the next 2 sets.
Another mental note, for what it's worth. In winning both the first and third sets in close tie-breakers Federer really underscores his toughness under pressure. In effect it allows him to suggest to Nadal, "Today I'm beating you Rafa when the chips are down... I'm winning the close sets so the closer the score the more it favors me today." In other words, in the back of Rafa's mind he's thinking, I've got to win EASILY. If it's close (5-all, or tiebreaker) Roger has the advantage.."
Now I'm not suggesting that Nadal ever actually allowed these negative thoughts to be muttered under his breath, or hang for even one instant in his conscious thought. No way! But given that tennis is such a mental chess game I can't help but wonder if he were doubting his ability to win a close match. At all levels of tennis, one tends to "avoid" situations (eg game scores in a set) which haven't been favorable. So in effect, what Federer is suggesting by taking two tiebreakers, is "Rafa, I'm winning the close sets today. The tighter the set score is the more the odds are in my favor." Notice the next two sets weren't particularly close: 6-2, 2-6.
So Federer escapes with the third set to go up up 2 sets to 1. But the high of taking the third quickly fades as Rafa storms back to an easy 6-2 in the third.
Now this is where it gets interesting. On the changeover, just before the fifth set, Rafa calls for the trainer. His knee is apparently bothering him. He has it wrapped. On the first point of the set, Federer hits several balls back to test Nadal's agility. I think he even hit a short slice to see how well he moved forward. Well, guess what? Nadal's knee was fine! No gimp, no limp, Nadal is as fast as ever! For a lot of lesser players, the wrap could've played tricks with their mind. Is he injured? Do I change my game plan? Just thinking over the various options, and being toyed with, is enough to distract even the best players. I don't know if Rafa was feigning injury, but if he was it certainly didn't work. Federer basically discounted the "injury" after testing him in the first point of the 5th. If anything, seeing the bandaged Rafa only fueled the fire in his belly and convinced him the finish line was at hand. For the great Federer, seeing a gimpy opponent on the other side of the court is like a wolf quickening his pace towards the wooly straggler. But again, I didn't see any problem with Nadal's knee or his movement. Federer beat Nadal at his best, that's the conclusion. All in all I give Nadal a lot of credit though---on grass he hasn't proven to be Federer's equal, but each year he's inching closer I won't be be surprised if he eventually wins Wimbledon. Just like Agassi did after several failed attemps..
I'd like to hear your comments about this match...
Also, I'm interested in hearing your views on the television commentary. Do you like John McEnroe as a commentator? Who do you feel would make good tennis commentators? Do u like the Hawkeye system?
Also, another possible topic for discussion: Andy Roddick and Jimmy Connors. WHAT is going on with Roddick and Connors??!! I mean, Jimbo has been working with Roddick for what, a year now? Where are the results? Sadly, Roddick suffered a meltdown at this year's Wimbledon against the Frenchman Gasquet. It was a complete choke and I think even Rodick would agree it was a very un-Wimbledon-like effort. Can we blame Jimbo for poor coaching?
But seriously what I wonder is, how is Connors actually helping Roddick's game? What part of his game has improved? (If anything I'd say his serve during the last year has gotten back to its old self, but I don't Jimbo can take credit for that!). I just don't see any "improvement" in Roddick's game since Connnors apparently took over from Roddicks' brother.
Another topic for discussion: Federer used to work with Tony Roche. Does he have ANYONE giving him feedback?? I don't think he needs a full-time coach. (who can argue with his results?). But I feel every player needs feedback. Otherwise he's an island unto himself and only sees what he "thinks" he sees. If you had an hour with Federer, and he asked you to help him improve, what would you tell him? And yes, every player can improve....even the great Roger Federer. :)
Charlie
In June 2008, not only will Federer be seeking his 6th consecutive Wimbledon singles title, breaking Borg's 5 in a row---an incredible feat in itself---but he'll quite possibly be either tying or breaking Pete Sampras' all-time Grand Slam record of 14.
Consider this. With yesterday's victory, Federer now has 11 Slams under his belt. The U.S. Open in September could give him 12; the Australian (in Jan 2008) could give him 13. I don't think he'll win the French (ever). But assuming he can take 2 of the next 3 slams, the door will be open at Wimbledon '08 for Federer to catch Pistol Pete Sampras at 14. Can you imagine the hype? If this indeed plays out, Wimbledon will definitely be the ticket next year. And if he does tie Sampras then Federer will be going for the all-time record of 15 at the U.S. Open in 2008.
Now for some quick commentary and analysis of yesterday's final. It was an interesting well-played match by both players. And it's first time Federer has had to go 5 sets to take the title. Truly, a point here or there, and I think Nadal could've emerged victorious.
For instance, the third set tie-breaker was absolutely CRITICAL. If Nadal wins the third set breaker I think the odds were good he would've worn Federer down (physically and mentally). Also, consider this. In the third set breaker, Nadal was down 6-3 (or was it 6-4?) and he came back to 6-all. He had the momentum. The crowd was really getting into the match and Rafa was pumped. At this point, Federer was flustered, and seemed a bit panicked. Afterall, he'd just let 3 set points slip away!
Interestingly, Federer didn't stay flustered or suffer a meltdown. He didn't give into his emotions and the "c'mon Rafas" of the fans. He kept cool and used the changeover at 6-all to inhale deeply and pull himself together. Remarkably from this point on Nadal put up little resistance and Federer closed him out in the third.
It is my contention that it was Federer's ability to hang on to this tie-breaker in the third set, and the way he did, that won him the match. In this critical set he out-dueled the manly Mallorcan, breaking him down mentally at the end of the breaker. Now, instead of needing two straight sets to take the title---a tough assignment against a surging Nadal---he only needed to win 1 out of the next 2 sets.
Another mental note, for what it's worth. In winning both the first and third sets in close tie-breakers Federer really underscores his toughness under pressure. In effect it allows him to suggest to Nadal, "Today I'm beating you Rafa when the chips are down... I'm winning the close sets so the closer the score the more it favors me today." In other words, in the back of Rafa's mind he's thinking, I've got to win EASILY. If it's close (5-all, or tiebreaker) Roger has the advantage.."
Now I'm not suggesting that Nadal ever actually allowed these negative thoughts to be muttered under his breath, or hang for even one instant in his conscious thought. No way! But given that tennis is such a mental chess game I can't help but wonder if he were doubting his ability to win a close match. At all levels of tennis, one tends to "avoid" situations (eg game scores in a set) which haven't been favorable. So in effect, what Federer is suggesting by taking two tiebreakers, is "Rafa, I'm winning the close sets today. The tighter the set score is the more the odds are in my favor." Notice the next two sets weren't particularly close: 6-2, 2-6.
So Federer escapes with the third set to go up up 2 sets to 1. But the high of taking the third quickly fades as Rafa storms back to an easy 6-2 in the third.
Now this is where it gets interesting. On the changeover, just before the fifth set, Rafa calls for the trainer. His knee is apparently bothering him. He has it wrapped. On the first point of the set, Federer hits several balls back to test Nadal's agility. I think he even hit a short slice to see how well he moved forward. Well, guess what? Nadal's knee was fine! No gimp, no limp, Nadal is as fast as ever! For a lot of lesser players, the wrap could've played tricks with their mind. Is he injured? Do I change my game plan? Just thinking over the various options, and being toyed with, is enough to distract even the best players. I don't know if Rafa was feigning injury, but if he was it certainly didn't work. Federer basically discounted the "injury" after testing him in the first point of the 5th. If anything, seeing the bandaged Rafa only fueled the fire in his belly and convinced him the finish line was at hand. For the great Federer, seeing a gimpy opponent on the other side of the court is like a wolf quickening his pace towards the wooly straggler. But again, I didn't see any problem with Nadal's knee or his movement. Federer beat Nadal at his best, that's the conclusion. All in all I give Nadal a lot of credit though---on grass he hasn't proven to be Federer's equal, but each year he's inching closer I won't be be surprised if he eventually wins Wimbledon. Just like Agassi did after several failed attemps..
I'd like to hear your comments about this match...
Also, I'm interested in hearing your views on the television commentary. Do you like John McEnroe as a commentator? Who do you feel would make good tennis commentators? Do u like the Hawkeye system?
Also, another possible topic for discussion: Andy Roddick and Jimmy Connors. WHAT is going on with Roddick and Connors??!! I mean, Jimbo has been working with Roddick for what, a year now? Where are the results? Sadly, Roddick suffered a meltdown at this year's Wimbledon against the Frenchman Gasquet. It was a complete choke and I think even Rodick would agree it was a very un-Wimbledon-like effort. Can we blame Jimbo for poor coaching?
But seriously what I wonder is, how is Connors actually helping Roddick's game? What part of his game has improved? (If anything I'd say his serve during the last year has gotten back to its old self, but I don't Jimbo can take credit for that!). I just don't see any "improvement" in Roddick's game since Connnors apparently took over from Roddicks' brother.
Another topic for discussion: Federer used to work with Tony Roche. Does he have ANYONE giving him feedback?? I don't think he needs a full-time coach. (who can argue with his results?). But I feel every player needs feedback. Otherwise he's an island unto himself and only sees what he "thinks" he sees. If you had an hour with Federer, and he asked you to help him improve, what would you tell him? And yes, every player can improve....even the great Roger Federer. :)
Out for now tennis fans.
Charlie
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)