Roger - Find a Different Way to Lose... What also we need.

Print the article

This entry was posted on 6/9/2008 10:14 AM and is filed under Pros - Federer,Mental Skills.

I watched our #1 player in the world, Roger Federer, get demolished once again by Nadal at the finals of the French yesterday, and was just amazed that Roger wouldn't at least try to find a different way to lose...

It's almost as if he is so stubbornly proud that if he can't beat Nadal playing Nadal's style on the red clay, then screw it, he's not interested in at least trying a different strategy than just staying back on the baseline and trading goundies back and forth.

He's telling us that he's nothing more than a "one shot wonder"...

I'm not saying that a healthy dose of serve and volley, chip and charge, and playing a different "court position" strategy would make any difference in the outcome, even the score, but at least try it for more than a couple of points now and then.

What's there to lose?  Nothing...  Come on.  1,3, and 0?

I'd rather see Roger lose worse than those scores by at trying to force Nadal out of his comfort zone and making him do something, anything different.

And we're all guilty of this stuff. 

I'm right up there at the top.  I'm all serve and volley (actually, no longer 100% of the time on my 2nd serve these days, but close to it), trying to force my oponent to hit passing shots by me all match long.

But if either I'm not "approaching" (serve, return of serve, approach shots, etc.) well that day or I've got an opponent who is really, really playing well, I can get stupidly stubborn and refuse to even consider staying back on the baseline for a couple of games and at least try to find a different way to lose the match.

And I know, we shouldn't be thinking about actually losing, but the point here is this, let's try to at least show our opponent something, anything different for at least 2 games, ten minutes, whatever, just to see if that is enough to change their comfort level...

Why is this so hard for us to do?

By changing tactics are we admitting to our opponent that we're getting our butts beat and now our opponent feels even better?

I don't know about you, but when I'm soundly going through somebody and they start to do something different whether it's during the point or between points (aha, between points!), I begin to consider how well I'm playing because there is a change going on over on the other side of the net, and that "awareness" can sometimes be enough to change things.

And changing things doesn't have to be where we immediately reverse from losing to winning.

Changing things could simply mean that you're now playing even with your opponent and you're not necessarily dominating the match at that point, but you're even, and you never know, that dominating play from before by your opponent is an extremely fragile balance.

The only way to be able to have any confidence of making a change during a match is to practice it.

That's right.  You've got to dedicate some regular practice time either by drilling or in a practice match where you try something different from what is your normal style.

And in the long run, you'll develop a greater confidence when you play your matches knowing that you've got a Plan B you can bring out if you need it.  Even if it's just for a game or two.  10-15 minutes.  Whatever.

And I'll bet that extra confidence pays off with you performing your Plan A game to a higher level day in and day out...

Brent

Discover how to get a 40% discount on Brent's DVD and Downloadable lessons

 del.icio.us  Stumbleupon  Technorati  Digg 

 

What did you think of this article?




Trackbacks
Trackback specific URL for this entry
  • No trackbacks exist for this entry.
Comments
    Page: 1 of 1
    • 6/9/2008 11:38 AM Arthur Quinby wrote:
      our strategy with tennis is exactly our strategy with life. I don't believe that if you are a inside the box sorta guy you can change your game plan very quickly. We all have our "game" and we all start with that assuming that is our best chance to win! if that is not working, it is very difficult to go to something that you have less confidence in doing!

      Our ego also is part of it, and it continues to tell us that change is not good!

      At 65, and being a 4.0 player I wonder at the shot making ability of super seniors! They will and can hit any slow shot they want and then just smile!

      We all need to get older!

      off to play tennis.

      Q
      Reply to this
      1. 6/10/2008 10:52 AM 1 Brent Abel wrote:
        Beautiful..!

        You're right.  The older we get, the less we give a _ _ _ _ about how we look, etc.

        Still, knowing that you can at least try a Plan B is worth the practice time to develop one.

        www.webtennis.net/Tennis-Lessons.htm

        Brent
        Reply to this
    • 6/9/2008 11:39 AM Lefty Greg in Colorado wrote:
      While it was amazing to see the score on Federer's side of the court, it appeared to me that Nadal just had all the answers no matter what Federer adjusted too.
      What game plan do you change to when you usually solid down the line back hand is sailing wide and you can't hang with your opponent trading strokes in the middle of the court? Federer did move in to volley and he WAS passed on a regular basis by Nadal at least from the points I remember seeing.

      Seems to me that a large portion of Federer's loss was his 'out of character' large number of errors. We have not seen Roger hit that many down the line backhands wide in a long time. How about the number or errors he made trying drop shots? Give credit to Nadal that on clay he can make Roger uncomfortable enough to make mistakes!

      I think a better question might be.. What should Federer or any of us do when we are just flat our missing our OWN shots? What inner strength are you going to reach to when the ball just doesn't go where we want it to? Lots of tennis articles and books have been written about the mental game / fearless tennis..... but lets face it some days our opponent has our number! We do our very best with what we have at the moment and one player walks off the court a winner and the other one the loser. Maybe Federer needed some coaching between change overs!!!!
      Reply to this
      1. 6/10/2008 11:09 AM 1 Brent Abel wrote:
        I agree that Nadal played at an extremely high level that day and was able to overcome everything that Fed tried to throw his way.

        At the same time, and I know we've all seen it, you see a player getting completely dominated UNTIL just a moment before the finish line, and then, it can all turn around in a heartbeat...

        My good friend and world class tennis writer Joel Drucker and I briefly commented to each other on the match and both of us felt that Roger just doesn't want to stray from his smooth stroking style, no matter what. 

        I think Roger would prefer to lose 1,3, and 0 to Nadal on the slow red clay playing his sweet smooth stroking style that is perfect for grass and hardcourts, and yet, I don't think Fed wants to have to get down and dirty with the rest of us and maybe even throw in 20 minutes of funky looking moon balls or something.

        I don't know, and my original post was less about Fed and more about us.

        I just believe we should never ever accept that our opponent is playing so well on that day (come on, none of us are world class players.  We all have some pretty good holes in our games) that we can't at least try something different even if we're down match point.

        Telling yourself that your opponent is simply too good and that it's just not your day is OK after the match, but not during the match.

        To do so is just an excuse...

        www.webtennis.net/Tennis-Lessons.htm

        Brent


        Reply to this
    • 6/9/2008 12:02 PM Victor wrote:
      Brett,
      Like many, I was really surprised by the score. Fed came out, and I thought he was hitting well. He did make a couple of unforced errors in the first game, which I thought did not bode well ( Nadal has been so airtight that any mistake you make is punished -- heck, the guy has been so good these last two weeks that he has made really, really good clay court players look like beginners). In the end, I think when talking about the pros (and I don't mean any disrespect here, I really truly admire any pros that is even top 200, because it is incredibly difficult to get to that level), they are still human, and every human being, no matter how mentally tough has a breaking point. I am not so sure ( at least with regards to clay ) that we did not see the breaking point of Federer yesterday. I think that all of us tennis players can learn two very valuable lessons from this. One which is what you pointed out in this blog entry, the other is that no matter how good your opponent is, not matter how talented they may be, they are human, and they have a breaking point. I think that the better players get, the more mental (all things being equal) this game becomes. This game is scary, scary difficult ( and it is really simple). Wimbledon will be interesting !!
      Reply to this
      1. 6/10/2008 11:25 AM 1 Brent Abel wrote:
        This is a great comment, and the subject is one that my coach Tom Stow used to drum into my head every time I saw him.

        No matter how great a player is, on any given day they can become human, and that is why Mr. Stow convinced me that the best way to force an opponent to become "human" was to apply a never ending relentless amount of court position pressure...

        That won't work as well on red clay, BUT, you never ever know, you have to at least try it to see if you force your opponent to be a human on that day when everything is working for them and nothing appears to be working for you.

        I've played a ton of top guys where it took me well over 2-3 hours, 3 long sets, to get that guy to finally become "human" that day.

        And that human element didn't really show up until the end.  All of the accumulated pressure I applied finally paid off in the end.

        You usually don't always get immediate results and you have to have faith that eventually you will.

        We all saw Fed try to come into net a few times, and he got burned most of those times, but the point I'm making is that you have to continue to apply that pressure no mayyer what happens.

        Again, find a different way to lose.  If that means coming into the net 100 times and getting passed 100 times, then fine, at least you tried something different.

        I've always felt that my opponents, even the top guys, only have a specific number of quality passing shots in their "bag" on any given day.  Maybe on one day they have a few more than on other days, but my point is you have to force them to empty that bag as soon as possible.

        If I get passed a few times, I never panic and say this strategy isn't working, I actually get a little more comfortable and think my opponent is getting to the bottom of that passing shot bag.

        It only takes one.  And I've been there many times in matches where at 4 all or 5 all in the 3rd, I'm still coming into net behind their 2nd serve, and even though they've handled that situation throughout the match, finally at break point at 5 all you come in again and it's shank city.

        Their passing shot becomes human and doesn't come close to the court.

        You hold serve, shake hands, and feel pretty darn good about "keeping the faith"...

        www.webtennis.net/Tennis-Lessons.htm

        Brent




        Reply to this
    • 6/9/2008 12:49 PM james jackson wrote:
      Brent: Great idea about trying to change things mid-game. I need the suggestion for my weekly match. Thanks; Jim Jackson/Porter Ranch,Ca.
      Reply to this
      1. 6/10/2008 11:46 AM 1 Brent Abel wrote:
        Start with something simple...

        What one aspect (waekness) of your opponent's game does he/she not want you to expose?

        Figure out one thing you could do to expose that weakness.

        Then go out and practice it for a month, expect you can do it about 25% of the time in a match after that month of practice, and from there on out, you'll increase that percentage...

        Once you've got it up to 50%, then figure out another weakness, and repeat.

        After a year, you'll be on the pro tour, and I'll be taking 30% of your tour winnings as your highly paid coach!

        www.webtennis.net/Tennis-Lessons.htm

        Brent
        Reply to this
    • 6/9/2008 12:56 PM Norman Frey wrote:
      It appeard to me that Roger did not have the flexibility he needs.

      He wasn't bending his knees at times and looked somewhat stiff.

      I think if he isn't doing it he should try some Yoga or Tai Chi and simply play more on clay so he gets used to the bounce.

      It also looked like the ball wasn't bouncing normally on the clay and throwing him off so I don't know whether the clay was wetter than normal but Nadal seemed to adjust to it pretty well but you have to look at how few unforced errors he made.

      Keep up the great analysis.

      Norman
      Reply to this
      1. 6/10/2008 11:51 AM 1 Brent Abel wrote:
        Hi Norman and you make an excellent point about flexibility.

        It may be a simple physical response that Yoga might help, but I think it was more mental.

        I just felt that Fed got mentally outworked by Nadal.  At some point probably late in that first set, Rafa just knew that Roger wasn't going to do a thing to change anything, and Nada's confidence just soared after that.

        Mental health in tennis directly responds to how well you play.

        www.webtennis.net/Tennis-Lessons.htm

        Brent


        Reply to this
    • 6/9/2008 1:50 PM Wally wrote:
      Hey Brent, hello from Nipissing, Ontario!! I hear you loud and clear regarding Federer. He wasn't playing well at all. Aside from your point about trying something different, I think Federer also refused to compensate for his off day by simplifying his strokes. As you have said in the past, most club players rely on more consistent, less radical swing paths/speeds. He should have considered reverting to "mortal" methods instead of trying to match Nadal's success. I'm not sure how this would stack up in a professional bout but you're right - 1,3&0 ?! what did he have to lose? At any rate, I see this kind of thing all the time at my club - and I keep telling them to visit your website - GET REAL ADVICE!! Have you ever read Peter Burwash's book, "Tennis for Life" ? It contains all the philosophies on how to view tennis as a game of "emergencies"...a good read.
      Thanks Brent, talk to you later.
      Reply to this
      1. 6/10/2008 11:41 AM 1 Brent Abel wrote:
        Always good to hear from you Wally...

        Now, here's a guy folks who "gets" what tennis should be to all of us.

        Loves learning anything about the game, but in the end, doesn't take himself or the outcome of the match too seriously, win or lose.

        I love it.  Great comment Wally...

        Brent

        www.webtennis.net/Tennis-Lessons.htm
        Reply to this
    • 6/9/2008 3:13 PM steven cornell wrote:
      Hi Brent; Always enjoy your weekly newsletter and especially your match analysis. My thoughts are the same as yours. In addition, I would like to see on court coaching and as a TV viewer to be able to hear what the coaches are saying. I think it would be add a lot of interest in the game if we the viewers were able to hear what, for example Higueras was thinking Federer should be doing. Regards, Steve
      Reply to this
      1. 6/10/2008 11:57 AM 1 Brent Abel wrote:
        Hi Steven and good to hear from you...

        It would certainly be worth a try with TV to be able to overhear on-court coaching.

        I wonder how on-court coaching and the associated tips might translate to our own games.

        Can we actually play just like the pros relatively speaking?

        I don't think so. 

        I believe the pros and the rest of us are two such distinct groups that what they do may not necessarily transfer over to us.

        And yet, what we may discover is that their coaching focuses more on fundamentals and basics than we imagine.

        It'd be interesting...

        Brent

        www.webtennis.net/Tennis-Lessons.htm




        Reply to this
    • 6/9/2008 5:48 PM Rick Freeland wrote:
      I'm a Federer fan, but that was painful to watch.

      Maybe Roger could have stayed back and hit looping balls up the middle, try to deny Rafa any angles - and if that didn't work, hire Tonya Harding to smack Rafa's knee on the change over.
      Reply to this
      1. 6/10/2008 12:00 PM 1 Brent Abel wrote:
        Tonya Harding.  Funny...!

        In a prior response to a comment I said pretty much the same thing, at least Roger could get down a dirty for awhile, don't think you have to be the perfect stroking machine every time, and throw in some high moon balls for 10 minutes and just see what comes out of it.

        Brent

        www.webtennis.net/Tennis-Lessons.htm
        Reply to this
    • 6/9/2008 6:41 PM kay wrote:
      Roger did try to change strategy. From hitting from the baseline exchanging groundies, he started to come to net much more often. Unfortunately, he did not do as well at net and missed a lot of volleys. Also, he started to advance earlier at one point in the match. Nothing worked, unfortunately, but I did see him try. Nadal only had like 7 unforced errors in the match--too perfect.
      Reply to this
      1. 6/10/2008 12:02 PM 1 Brent Abel wrote:
        If you're going to lose 1,3, and 0 with a few forays into the net now and then, heck, I'd rather see him lose worse by at least coming into net all of the time.

        Anything different, but don't stay with the same stuff that has produced a 1-9 record on clay against this guy.

        www.webtennis.net/Tennis-Lessons.htm

        Brent
        Reply to this
    • 6/9/2008 6:42 PM roger wrote:
      Dear Brett,

      I agree completely. I stopped watching the match midway through the 2nd set I was so disappointed in Federer's game plan, or lack thereof. It was a similar story in the semis at the Australian Open this year, where Federer was cleaned up by Djokovic. Federer tried to beat him at his own game, instead of playing all court tennis, and refused to alter his tactics (apart from one brief period in the second set when he won three games in a row). Some months earlier I had watched a fascinating match between Djokovic and Fabrice Santoro, which the latter won easily. He gave Djokovic nothing all day, just kept hitting soft underspun forehands, slow low balls and wonderfully disguised dropshots and lobs, occasionally appearing at the net to put away a sharply angled and soft volley. Djokovic, who like Nadal feeds on the other player's power and can chase down everything driven into the corners, was nonplussed, became frustrated, and started to make simple uncharacteristic errors. It was a classic tennis lesson, which i am sorry Federer either did not watch or did not profit from.

      The thing that frustrates me most is that Federer has both a wonderful serve and a very good volley. How well i recall John Newcombe saying in commentary a year or so ago "All I plead with Federer is that he comes to net behind his serve one time in 20". Newk understood all-court tennis and the art of mixing things up, especially when you are behind.

      Cheers,

      Roger Underwood
      Reply to this
      1. 6/10/2008 12:14 PM 1 Brent Abel wrote:
        Hi Roger and excellent comments.

        I remember reading a quote from Fed right after he won his 2nd Wimbledon.

        The question was about why he didn't serve and volley more, especially on grass.

        And Fed's answer was simply because he didn't feel that he had to serve and volley to beat these guys.

        Almost an in-your-face slight to the guys.

        That was what, over 3 years ago?

        And dare I say I think his serve has gotten worse.

        His serve has gotten worse?  Hey, he's got as sweet a service motion as Pete did, but it no longer carries him forward into the court as it may have a few years ago.

        This guy is playing like a baseliner, pure and simple, he's no serve and volley guy right now in his career.

        I also think that he's put himself in a corner by not at least serving and volleying in matches where he's in total control to at least maintain the confidence that he could serve and volley when he felt a change might be needed such as last Sunday's French final.

        I think he should get back to what his physical gifts are in tennis.  Serve. forward movement, volley, overhead, chip and charge behind a 2nd serve, etc.

        He may have to lose some matches for a year while he gets his mojo back, but I'm not convinced he can still dominate from the baseline, even on grass...

        Brent

        www.webtennis.net/Tennis-Lessons.htm


        Reply to this
    • 6/9/2008 6:43 PM Jason wrote:
      One of the reason why Nadal is so good on clay is because of his forehand. Being lefty, Nadal's best shot is the crosscourt forehand which goes to the right-handers backhand. He hits with a big amount of topspin on the forehand side. Also, on clay the ball bounces high make it more deadly. This tactic make players to hit short balls so Nadal can attack it.
      Reply to this
      1. 6/10/2008 12:19 PM 1 Brent Abel wrote:
        You're right about Nadal's forehand.

        And I think the guy can apply so much spin that he prefers his forehands to land relatively short in his opponents' court so the ball can jump and get some height.

        Fed would probably want Nadal's forehands to land deeper around the baseline where he might have a better chance to taking the ball on the rise and having a contact point that's a lot lower than where Fed has to take it now.

        Just don't think however that you or any of us can generate that kind of spin.

        Rafa is clearly one of a kind, and trying to copy him will only lead to my tennis elbow treatment product.

        www.webtennis.net/Tennis-Lessons.htm

        Brent
        Reply to this
    • 6/10/2008 7:01 AM Steve Cohen wrote:
      Good advice. I agree in principal with the change tactics approach, especially as it applies to the average player and doubles, which offers different formations.

      In this case, as you imply, easier said then done. If look at the matches up to the final, I actually think Federer was better prepared than before. Maybe Higueras helped. As far as the final, I don't think it's so much about getting to the net as it is Federer closing the grip slightly on both sides to handle Nadal's groundies that are bouncing at his head. He may not need it against his other seven? opponents. He needs that and a whole lot more against Nadal. What do you think?
      Reply to this
      1. 6/10/2008 12:44 PM 1 Brent Abel wrote:
        Tiriac had a quote the other day about the incredible amount of spin that Nadal generates.

        He compared it to the "spagetti stringing" that came onto the tour back in the 70s which quickly got outlawed.

        Normal guys like you and me could produce this outrageous spin and made the game an even playing field if a journeyman guy like Mike Fishbach played with the spagetti stringing against someone like Nastase playing with a regular string job.

        Tiriac's quote basically said that Nadal can do this on his own.  He's a freak of nature.  Sure, the rackets and synthetic strings of today help him, but he simply gets a lot more spin than the other guys.

        (By the way, don't try this at home...)

        I think Nadal purposely allows his groundstrokes with a never before seen amount of spin, especially his forehand, to land relatively short so his opponents can't take the ball on the rise and get a much lower contact point.

        His forehands land at a place where you can't move forward and pick it up off the bounce and the ball still ends up at a place that is up above Roger's strike zone when it gets to the baseline.

        It's nuts. 

        So for Fed to allow that to happen is suicidal.

        The only chance he's got is to force Rafa to flatten out those groundies by making him pass.

        And we all know Rafa is going to pass a lot, but at some point, you have to keep up enough pressure to make this guy feel human.

        Fed's the only guy with the tools to do so.

        Why he ever stopped serving and volleying years ago is to me just goofy.

        We saw him "try" to mix in some serve and volleys and approach shots, but his confidence to keep up a never ending attack in the face of getting passed now and then is not there.

        Brent

        www.webtennis.net/Tennis-Lessons.htm
        Reply to this
        1. 6/10/2008 2:22 PM Rick wrote:
          You're right about Rafa's spin bothering Roger. But overall Nadal just played better. He seemed fitter. I can't remember how many times I thought "he'll never reach that shot and then he was THERE, set up, under balance, even!

          And Roger wasn't making shots. He'd stay in rallys, get a ball he might be able to do something with, then miss the money shot. He hit shots long, he dumped them in the net. The times he tried to shorten points, he seemed to rush and miss again. And as someone else pointed out earlier, he wasn't getting down on vollys, and he also seemed a little when he did elect to come in.

          But this would seem to reinforce what you've been saying, Brent - when nothing is working, when your main game is off, when your opponent is superhuman that day, you've got nothing to lose by changing game plans in mid-stream.

          Go down swinging!

          Rick
          Reply to this
          1. 6/10/2008 4:32 PM 1 Brent Abel wrote:
            I really think stubborn pride gets in the way, not only for Fed, but also for us.

            Trying something different mid-match is telling the whole world that you're getting your butt beat badly that day and lots of us (me included many times before) just don't want to face reality.

            It's so easy to come up with excuses.

            And yet, to me, the real champs "find a way", obviously not always, but more often than those world class players and the rest of us who don't try to do something different.

            I saw this little tidbit over at St. Mary's College here in Moraga this afternoon...

            "In their minds, winners see where they want to go, while losers see what they fear."

            And to me, seeing fear translates into excuse making.

            Again as I've said throughout this entire discussion, I would have rather seen Fed go down 0,0, and 0 trying something else. 

            You never know, that attempt at trying something else might not pay off during that specific match, but it just might somewhere down the road.

            What we attempt to do on the tennis court doesn't always pay off or show us the way immediately.

            It may take another few games, another set, even some more matches before the "trying something different" pays off for us.

            My biggest disappointment with Fed's performance was not that he didn't try to mix it up a bit by throwing in some serve and volley now and then because he did try that strategy, but it was that he didn't keep it going point after point after point after point and see what Nadal might do with an unrelenting attack.

            I gotta believe he might have done better score wise if he'd thrown caution to the wind with a never ending stream of attacking the net, maybe not actually won that match, but it just might have given him a new insight into how he might play Nadal the next time their on the clay.

            And the same goes for us.  Don't measure how you're doing by each individual point, game, set, or even match.

            If you're smart about this stuff, I'm willing to bet you'll learn more about your game when you feel free to lose a match.

            Call me crazy, and you wouldn't be the first to do so, but if you try to expand your horizons with your game, especially during a match that is not going your way, and even if you lose that match, I think you'll start to enjoy competition much more, and any fear you might have or excuse making will be a thing of the past.

            Brent
            www.webtennis.net/Tennis-Lessons.htm





            Reply to this
    • 6/10/2008 7:21 AM Frosty wrote:
      Hi Brent,
      I thought Roger would have mixed it up. I think maybe he should have watched a few key serve and volley points of McEnroe in his day. Mixing it up would maybe have taken Nadal by surprise, but what he did was just getting Nadal into a real groove. Maybe a few pointers from forgotten Stefan Edberg would have been good also.

      Frosty.
      Reply to this
      1. 6/10/2008 12:28 PM 1 Brent Abel wrote:
        Don't forget that Rafa is probably the best clay court player to have ever lived.

        Trying to trade groundies with this guy is insanity.

        Fed may just have too much stubborn "pretty boy" pride to allow him to consider that fact.

        If getting thumped 1,3, and 0 isn't a wake up call, then nothing will be.

        I'd love to see Fed do the unthinkable for a year. 

        Practice on and live and breathe red clay for a year.  Nothing else.  Figure out a plan that has nothing to do with trying to be better than Rafa at what Rafa does.

        Nadal cannot be beat on this stuff and he's going to protect his job forever.

        You play with the bull, you get the horns.

        Fed could take his strengths and incorporate them into a game plan that would not force him to play better than Rafa does at his own game.

        Fed's won 12 majors.  Big deal.  How much fun would it be to take a year and prepare for Roland Garros 2009?

        It would generate a ton of interest.

        Brent

        www.webtennis.net/Tennis-Lessons.htm
        Reply to this
    • 6/11/2008 10:54 PM Jaydeep wrote:
      Brent I fully agree with you regarding the coaching nadal roddick style of play. 99% of these kids are never going to make it on pro tour and end up not enjoying the game when they are 20+. It is no fun to play doubles with these kids as all they know is to sock the ball. It is either your point or my point. From 20+ most tennis is at the club level and this is where you enjoy the game. This is the game which can be played even at 80 if you enjoy and your partners enjoy the game. The teaching pros have to realize this fact. I would also blame the ITF and similar regulating bodies for this mess. Their coach evaluation system - Level 1 2 3 etc. essentially focused too much on technical aspects- biomechanics stroke dynamics etc rather than teaching majority of students who are going to be club level players. No doubt these aspects are extremely important for professional game but the emphasis should be on teaching how to play clean tennis.
      I learned my tennis from Welby Van Horn who was a master coach. His way of teaching can be replicated n number of times and 80% of times the students will enjoy playing tennis.I find your teaching videos have striking similarity to Welby and I wish all coaches should see these excellent videos. I am not a tennis coach, I am a doctor. However I love the game and like to contribute whenever I can.
      Regarding Rodger I feel he has lost the focus in the last 6-8 months. I feel the mononucleosis has also had a definite impact. It takes almost up to 1 year to recover from it. At this level of professional game everything counts. Rodger is 50% of what he was 1 year ago. He still manages to sweep almost every body except Nadal and Djokovick. That is incredible. He did try to do change things a bit in this French open but unfortunately Nadal was at his best mentally and physically. I wish some one can get the thoughts on this blog to Rodger.
      Jaydeep
      Reply to this
      1. 6/12/2008 10:37 AM 1 Brent Abel wrote:
        Hi Jaydeep.  This is a great post and I really appreciate your comments.

        I could not agree more with you and will let your comments stand on their own.

        Thanks...

        Brent


        Reply to this
    • 6/16/2008 5:19 AM Stanis wrote:
      Hi Brent,

      I agree with you on your comments about that match. It was very frustrating to watch. Only in the first few games of the second set did Federer try a few different options which helped him win a few points, but when he lost a few points going to the net it looked like he just gave up and settled in for losing.

      Thanks for a fantastic website and blog. I have specifically enjoyed your Classic Tennis Player series. I am currently recovering from a rhomboid injury ("snapping scapula") where I got bursitis because of fractured ribs at the back where my scapula glides over the scar tissue, etc. I am seeing a physio and returned to serving today for the first time following your serve lesson. I am enjoying a more fluid motion and look forward to improving my serve and avoiding this type of injury in the future. Thanks again for the helpful lessons.

      Stanis
      Reply to this
      1. 6/25/2008 9:03 PM 1 Brent Abel wrote:
        Hi Stanis and thanks so much for your kind words.  I appreciate it and glad to hear you're enjoying the website and lessons.

        The "Perfect Classic Tennis Player" lesson DVD was really fun for me to produce.

        It gave me a couple of weeks of going over the footage from the "The Kings of the Court" DVD and really helped me get back to the true fundamentals of stroke production.

        Looking forward Stanis to getting you back to 100% and helping you with your serve.

        Brent

        www.webtennis.net/Tennis-Serve.htm

        www.webtennis.net/tennis-classic-strokes.htm (Perfect Classic tennis Player)

        www.webtennis.net/kings-of-the-court.htm ("Kings of the Court" DVD)


        Reply to this

    Page: 1 of 1
    Leave a comment

    Submitted comments will be subject to moderation before being displayed.

     Enter the above security code (required)

     Name

     Email (will not be published)

     Website

    Your comment is 0 characters limited to 3000 characters.