Analyzing Your Opponent

Tennis has been compared to life, war, boxing, martial arts and a number of other human endeavors. Heck, I've even compared it to ballet through a minefield with a tennis racket in hand (yes, I have an active imagination). But the analogy that works best is probably war. Sure, nobody dies or gets injured but all the elements are there: weapons, strategy, tactics, elements, planning and preparation (both physical and mental). However, it's the planning aspect that really correlates the two activities. In order to devise a proper strategy (as well as tactics to implement the strategy) you must have a complete understanding of your opponent: stroke by stroke; attribute by attribute; characteristic by characteristic. Before doing battle, you must know your opponent better than he knows himself.

Often times, the only feedback is that the opponent is a righty and has a big forehand. That's a start. In the grand scheme of things, however, it's like saying that he's "half-white and good at square-dancing". It scratches the surface but doesn't quite get into the substance of the matter. Before preparing for a tough match - preferably the night before - try to approach the match as a general would approach a battle. Start by asking some questions about the opponent so that you have a better understanding of what's to come. Remember, this is only an exercise; you will not be right immediately or all the time. In many ways, breaking down your opponent is like appraising the value of a house: there are a number of factors to consider but in the end it's more art than science. However, by continuing to continuing to engage in this process you will become more proficient at it. At some point, you will face a 6'3" lefty from Perth, Australia (with a two-handed backhand) and you will identify him more by strategy than by name. Again, the underlying theory is that a BAD PLAN IS BETTER THAN NO PLAN AT ALL. A bad plan can be changed (particularly if you have back-up plans). If you have no plan, then it's harder to get one going on the fly (especially if you're down 2-3 breaks). So here are some questions to help you along the way. These are NOT the only questions and you have to formulate your own to assist you through this process.

1. Is the opponent a righty or a lefty? We've covered this before, but this a good starting point as it will assist you in visualizing his serves and weapons as well as your own serves and weapons.

2. Does he have a two-handed backhand or one? This can have various consequences based on your own attributes but it may assist you in figuring out whether to hit the ball high (usually against a one-hander) or low; make him pass you on the run (easier for one-handers than two-handers); where you serve (generally, one-handers hold a backhand grip on the returns); etc.

3. Is your opponent tall or short? Tall people like high balls and, generally, move better up and back than side to side. Short people usually like lower balls and are better moving side to side than up and back. If you hit a high ball, will it elicit a short response (around the service line) that you can thump? 

4. Is he fast or slow? That is, how good does he cover medium distances around the court (e.g. baseline to net)? Slow people are like walls - they hate to move and love pace directed to them. If you make the opponent move will he (a) miss, (b) get tired and/or (c) hit short? If so, you can figure out a game-plan. 

5. Is he quick? Unlike #4, above, this deals with how well the opponent adjusts to the ball and covers small distances. Someone can be fast but not quick. If they're not quick, wrong-footing them or hard body-shots sometimes work as they will not be able to change direction as well or adjust to your shots.

5. Is he strong or weak? That is, can he generate his own pace or does he feed off someone else's pace? Make a weak player generate his own pace. A strong player should be forced to generate pace from the most awkward positions (high/low/jam/slice).

6. What type of player is he? Serve and volleyer; baseliner; pusher; touch-player; all-around? What does he like to do; what does he not like to do? Who coaches him and do you know the coach? This may be a more advanced concept but there are certain "schools of tennis" throughout the world. Some produce big forehands; others have more of a serve and volley approach; some produced fighters; etc. If you know the "school" you will be in a better position to develop a counter-strategy. Furthermore, "indoor" players sometimes hit the ball flat and "without dimensions" (i.e. deep). Indoors is not as conducive to angles (maybe because the air is thinner) and, usually, favors bigger-flatter hitters (who, incidentally, are not accustomed to long rallies or sharp angles). If he's a high-altitude player, there's a chance that he might not hit the ball as hard when playing at sea level (since, at high altitudes, the ball tends to fly). However, high altitude players normally have incredible serves and strong lungs so it's important to be prepared for big serves and long points.

7. Who are the players that have beaten him? You want to defeat this opponent, correct?! Well, often times you're going to step outside of your own comfort zone and emulate another player. It doesn't have to be Roger or Rafa; it can be Johnny from down the street. What did he do to win.

8. What are his weapons and when does he like to use them? How does he use them? It's not enough to say that he has a big forehand. You have to know FROM where and TO where so that you can either stay away from it or know where to go if he manages to get a shot where he wants it. So, for example, in the first diagram below, which "X" represents his "kill shot(s)" and which question mark represents his preferred target(s)? In the second picture, from which height does he like to hit the ball: 2 feet off the ground (white line); 4 feet (purple); 5+ feet (red)? Not every player can hit the best shot from all positions so it's important to break it down three-dimensionally so that you can figure out exactly the spot to keep it away from.

9. Where does he like to serve under pressure? How good is his out wide serve? Kick-serve? Does he get nervous when you "crowd the T"? Does he have specific serving patterns (e.g., does he always starts the game with either flat "down the T" or a slice out wide)? If you chip and charge, does he start to get shaky on his passing shots?

10. How is is head? Is he a fighter? Is he smart? Does his concentration lapse? Is he better when he's in the lead than when he's behind? Can you "get in his dish" if you show some "game" (i.e. feistiness) or would it better if you were an iceberg? Is he patient or does he try to rush off the court?

11. Does she have obvious weaknesses and how does he defend them? Someone with a glaring backhand weakness will often plant herself in the backhand corner. Hitting MORE shots to the backhand won't get her out of that spot. You have to break some eggs and hit some shots to the forehand AND THEN pick on the backhand (like a dried booger).

12. If the opponent is an attacking player, is he just as good when he's BROUGHT in (e.g. through a drop shot or short, low-lying slice)? Some players will love to attack but only like to come in on their own terms. If you take the initiative and bring them in once in a while, they will be coming in unprepared. Sometimes, it's best to also try "taking the net away from them" by beating them to the net. For example, if you're first in, your opponent will be forced to play a defensive role - something she might not be accustomed of doing.

13. How is her overhead and backhand volley? These are two shots with which most young players struggle. It takes a great deal of pressure off you if you know that your opponent can't hit overheads to save his life or "duffs" the backhand volley short. If that's the case, when your opponent makes it to the net, belt the passing shot for the backhand and bolt in.

14. How does your opponent handle losing the first set? Does she usually "bag it" or is she a fighter. If so, maybe it's important to be fired up early and steal the first set away from her (obviously, "steal" DOESN'T mean cheat). Figure out the best way to "fire on all pistons" from the get-go. Don't rely on winning the second and third set. Scratch, fight and crawl for the first one.

15. How are the opponent's returns? Does she run around the backhand a lot? Maybe preparing for a slice serve to "keep her honest" would be a good play. Also, someone who routinely punishes the second serve return should not see many second serves to begin with (i.e., MAKE YOUR FIRST SERVE). Does he have specific targets that he likes to hit with the return? If so, cover them. Kids are NOT THAT SMART. They will, generally, do things over and over (even until they lose) without realizing that they're getting burned. All you have to do is figure out their patterns. Remember, if any of your opponents were actually good they'd BE ON T.V.

16. Does he have endurance (is he fit or fat)? Is he a fighter; could you "take him down" if you were 1-on-1 in a cage match with him? How many matches did he play the day before? Is he far away from home and homesick (i.e., looking for a "way to the airport")?

Etc.

As you progress through the sport, you will, hopefully, identify further issues and trouble spots. By being a "thinking player" you will often find yourself beating players who are far superior on paper. It all boils down to figuring out your opponents' likes/dislikes and tailoring around it. Will these strategies work for everyone? Of course, although many "pure hitters" will continue to do things without realizing whether they are doing the right thing or the wrong thing. Many will stumble onto the correct strategy over and over (until wily opponents figure out the best way to take them out of their game).

As a player, it is important to be confident but to FORGET ABOUT CONFIDENCE when you're faced with a tough match. Coldly analyze the facts and figure out how you would beat the opponent on your WORST day. Or, alternatively, figure out how to beat your opponent if you believe that, between the two of you, he is the best ball-striker. Don't assume that the chips will fall in your favor this time (or every time). Perhaps it helps to assume that things will NOT go your way. NOW HOW DO YOU WIN?! When you know that you can (and will) win on your worst day - THAT's true confidence (the rest is cockiness that masks uncertainty).

Q&A: Stroking Felt With Robert Lindstedt

Welcome to our second edition of Stroking Felt With... Today we have the pleasure of speaking with Swedish Davis Cupper Robert Lindstedt. I had the pleasure of meeting Robert (draped in a Swedish flag coming out of the airport terminal) when he joined our Fresno State team in the spring of 1997. Thereafter, we transferred and played for Pepperdine. He left school early in order to pursue his pro career and looks like things have been working out quite well for him. My first impression of Rob was that he had a big, all-around game (even though, for some reason, he preferred to be regarded as a "grinder"...haha). He had a huge down-the-T serve that's only gotten bigger as he's gotten older, a nasty slice and kick-serve which he used as change-ups as well as a frekishly hard/flat down the line backhand (which seemed to spin outwards like a sind-winding missile). He also moved pretty darned well for his size (particularly when crazy Romanians jumped out of his closet in the middle of the night..long story..haha). Lastly, he was funny as heck and everyone seemed to have a good time when he was around. 

Quick Bio: 1998 NCAA Doubles runner-up (along with Kelly Gullett); back-to-back All-American honors; 2-times Wimbledon doubles runner-up (with Horia Tecau of Romania); won ATP Tour doubles titles in Mumbai; Tokyo; Washington, D.C.; Auckland; Zagreb; Casblanca, Hertogenbosch, Bastad, New Haven; runner-up in doubles in Ho Chi Minh; Las Vegas, Stuttgart; Dubai; Estoril; Bastad; Marseille; London; Brisbane; Hertogenbosch; Washington, D.C.' Beijing. He is an active member of the Swedish Davis Cup Team as well as its ARAG World Team Cup squad (which defeated Russia for the title in 2008). Career High (to date) ATP ranking: doubles - 13; singles - 309. Website (user discreition advised): http://answermyquestionjerk.se

1. At what age did you start playing tennis?

A: 4 years old.

2. When did you start taking tennis seriously?

A: When I left college and realized that it was my job now; no time for mucking about.

3. How did your workouts change once you decided that you wanted to be a tennis player?

A: Early I was just doing as I was told and no more. Later in my career I realized what I should do is what was working for me. I am working harder than ever now, but smarter and listening to my body much more. Core workouts have taken over all my training. All exercises I do have something to do with core.

4. If you've had to guess, how many hours on the court do you think you've spent between picking up the racket and turning pro (i.e. before 20 yrs old)?

A: Impossible guess really. I practiced 3 times a week until my teens I would say, then twice everyday when I went to high school. (Not impossible to guess it seems after all...) {Editor's Note: again, no magic. Just lots of on-court work as well as off-court preparation}

5. Who influenced you most as an athlete?

A: My brother [Niclas] played, so I wanted to play also. Otherwise all the Swedes. Edberg, Wilander, Järryd, Björkman, Enqvist, Johansson. All of them, I like to watch and see what I could do {Editor's Note: no mention of ABBA? On a serious note, it seems that the Swedish system is very close-knit. It helps to be positively influenced by your peers}

6. If you had the chance to go back in time and talk to yourself as a 15year old, what tennis-advice would you give yourself?

A: Work harder. Much harder. And don't worry about heavy lifting. Core workouts!! Pilates!!! {Editor's Note: [slapping gut] gotta look into that pilates thingy}

7. What was your favorite drill or thing to work on growing up?

A: I liked to work on all court game. Not just one drill. I tried to get good at everything.

8. If, on the scale of 1-100, top 50 ATP player is 100 (in terms of skill/toughness), how would you rate college tennis?

A: College players compared to pros? If a top 50 player is 100, overall I would say an average D-1 college player is around 15-20. It is not even close, Ini....not even close. Some top players could go up to 40-50 maybe...maybe. Some college players could beat a top 50 guy in one match. But you don't have to be tough for one match. There is a huge difference there. Then again, I left college 13 years ago and have been told that college is not as good as it used to be...

9. You obviously chose to attend CA schools for gorgeous beaches and hot girls. What else did you enjoy about your college tennis experience? 

A: [I enjoyed the] friends that I got out of it.

10. Your highest singles ranking was 309 and doubles 13. You played Davis Cup for Sweden. What were your top 3 wins and what lessons would you take away from those matches?

A: Beating Jonas Björkman was huge for me. He was sort of my mentor in doubles when I was coming up. Gives you confidence to beat players you never thought you could beat and makes you realize that anything is possible. 

Winning my first Davis Cup match. Huge relief and great feeling knowing that I could play good when it mattered most!

The third one is not a win, but a loss. Our first loss in the Wimbledon finals. I learned a lot there. That big matches are not so much about tennis, but attitude and preparation. We were not ready to play that match. But from now on, we will be.

Rob, we thank you for your time and wish you the best of luck and health in the upcoming season. We look forward to seeing you at the BNP and all Grand Slam finals. 

Court Geometry: Run-around Forehands

Few things irk me more (strike that; a LOT of things irk me) than players who do not understand the geometry of the court or the consequences of their actions on court. Some of the bad decisions stem from either no coaching, bad coaching or coaching that is focused solely on stroke production that does not take into account tactics. Take for example, the run-around-forehand (i.e., where the player runs around the backhand to pound the forehand). Normally, this is a very popular shot because of the range that is offered by the forehand in opening up the court through power and spin. Furthermore, developing players often feel more secure with their forehands than their backhands having practiced the former in a 4:1 ration. However, there are times when the run-around-forehand is simply not the best idea: (1) ad-side kick serve [Figure 1]; and (2) running around a slice backhand [Figure 2].  Let's take figure #1. In this instance, the server kicked you out wide on the ad-side. If you run around the backhand, you may very well find yourself off the court (running around a deuce-side kick-serve places you in the MIDDLE of the court - prime location). Unless your return is a winner (or close to it), it's, as the Croats say, zbogom drago for you ("good-bye dear"). If you hit the ball down the line (blue line), your opponent is likely to barbecue you with the forehand cross-court. That's a lot of real estate to cover. You're really not in the best position if you run around backhand and hit it cross court because the opponent can either flatten a ball down the line with the backhand or, should you be relatively fast, wrong-foot you with a cross court. 

The same concept applies in the second scenario. A lot of players elect to run around a slice bakckhand from their opponent (red line). The slice, however, tends to not just skid and stay low (forcing you to move faster and stay lower) but if it's struck from the "outside" of the ball, it will curve more-and-more and force you to move further off-center than yo may have initially anticipated. Again, a weak shot by you will result in a barbecue (or more court to cover). The more you move, the more energy you will utilize and the greater the likelihood that you will make poor decisions towards the end of the match. So if you're a sneaky player, try to implement the following play once in a while and see if you can take an opponent off-guard: (1) hit the first shot cross-court with your forehand (blue line); (2) assuming that the opponent does "the usual" and hits to your backhand, slide a slice backhand into the middle of the court (or slightly off-the-middle) (yellow line); (3) the opponent will likely scramble to get there and hit another shot to your backhand in order to "stabilize" his condition. If he does that, slide another slice cross-court - slightly more to your opponent's left than the previous shot (red line). Chances are, he will try to hit an inside-out forehand. Regardless of what s/he does, now you have managed to sneakily open up the court. Time for the opponent to put on her track shoes and cover some real estate. 

Will these strategies work every time? Of course not. Is it always a bad idea to run around a kick-serve or slice? Of course not. However, before you take action, make sure that you are making an informed decision. Know what you're getting yourself into in advance. If you're willing to cover the ground, have off-the-charts stamina and feel that your run-around-forehand is far superior to the opponent's response, then do what you feel is right. However, if you're routinely getting steamed and dry-cleaned by an opponent who's got the angles on you, figure out what's going on and stop the bleeding. 

One Bounce To The Fence

The great coach Harry Hopman was a firm believer in telling you where he wanted the ball to land and how it should travel there. (Harry was also a firm believer in putting 50 boys at the top of the building and the first one down was your "man"). He strayed away from technique whenever possible because he understood there were many different ways to hit the ball. Throughout tennis history, players have consistently demonstrated slight variations in their technique, but what always remains true is where the ball lands and how it travels there for the type of shot you are trying to execute.

If Andre Agassi asked you to practice tomorrow, would you be able to give him a solid practice? Any top level junior, college player, or minor league professional would give him a great practice. In the warmup, Andre shouldn't be moving too far too the right or left, or front or back. A common issue that arises with aspiring players is the lack of control. Often times, the ball you hit will bounce twice before it reaches the opposing baseline. If Andre were hitting with you, he would have to move into no-man's land and scoop this ball at his ankles.

A good habit to get into is to be aware of this issue and try to get the ball in one bounce to your practice partner (If you are hitting the ball short on purpose, that's another story). One way to develop a deeper, heavier rally ball is to try to get the ball in one bounce to the fence. It takes more height and/or power to have the ball travel in one bounce to the fence.

Another simple equation to consider:

HEIGHT (over the net) + SPIN = DEPTH

There is nothing more frustrating to a good player than having to run into no-man's land to scoop balls from his ankles in the warmup. A ball should never bounce twice before the baseline in the warmup. In addition, there is nothing more frustrating than working on your volleys from the baseline. Although good players should be able to handle ankle scrapers in no-man's land, on the run forehands, and volleys at shoulder height from the baseline- but this isn't an "ideal" practice for a world class player in warmup, let alone anyone at the local club.

Go practice your control, Harry Hopman style, and get the ball to the fence after one bounce.

The Great American Swindle

Since CAtennis.com got started we've had both positive and negative reviews. Several of our site frequenters have inquired whether some of our tips/suggestions (or "articles") carry a deliberate (or, perhaps, innocent) anti-teaching-pro tinge. Our answer is, as it has always been, "absolutely not". After all, we are, or have been, involved in the junior development business ourselves and, as a result, we would be hypocrites to attack ourselves or our methods. Nevertheless, what separates us from a number of our peers is that we constantly remind our students that the time on-court with us is simply NOT ENOUGH. We encourage the students to take ownership of their development and charge of their destinies. We remind them to utilize our knowledge and expertise as a guide/map, not a tour bus. "We're along for YOUR journey; not the other way around." Do the hard hammering and chiseling yourself; come to us when you require our assistance with the fine sandpapering. We do not presume to have all the answers (and are loathe to rely on the "authority" implied by our modest results). The primary purpose of CAtennis.com is to elicit a discussion of "what it takes" from people who have gone through the process. 

With the foregoing in mind, however, let's take a sledgehammer to that other great American tennis institution: the live-in tennis "academy" (I put this term in quotation because I doubt that subjects such as the history or physics of tennis are heavily studied, discussed and debated at such places). Enter "tennis academy" and "United States" into your basic search engine and you are likely to get over 1.5million hits. They all have enterprising sounding names and some are even associated with reputable former tennis players or teaching professionals. The cost of attending one of these live-in academies is usually pretty steep; most of the time, upwards of $25,000/year. At the more prestigious academies, the per-student tuition can run as much as $50,000/year - $68,000/year.  This cost usually covers housing, meals and entertainment, as well as coaching and training. At some academies, the tuition also includes education (although a lot of times this costs extra and, in several cases, it's provided through an online program), tournament entry fees as well as transportation and housing to/from the site. Most academies charge extra for racket restringing and almost none provide the basic equipment (save for balls): shoes, strings, RACKETS, grips, etc. Generally, parents - with BEST INTENTIONS IN MIND - send their children to some of these glorified day-care centers with the expectations that, upon spending $200,000+ over 4 or more years, the player will receive a full college scholarship and, perhaps, be good enough to try "the tour" for a couple of years. 

Now, you don't have to be a genius to realize that for LESS than $200,000 (cost of attending your average, high-end academy for 4-5+ years), the child could easily attend a reputable institution of higher learning AND have sufficient money left over to live in Paris and/or London or travel the globe for 1.5years after graduation. But this is not the reason why the academy system is a swindle; it's a con because, like many hucksters before them, they use limited examples (anecdotes) to market the perceived effectiveness of their program(s). Without naming names, you will often hear stories how so-and-so sent his young son to some far-off place in Florida where he trained all day and became top-10 in the world. However, what these examples dicount is the percentage of people "who make it" versus the sheer number of players who do not. For every academy player who cracks the top-100/200 there are THOUSANDS of kids from the very same program who do not. Similarly, for every player who gets a "full ride" somewhere, HUNDREDS of his academy-mates do not. Would you consider a law school to be reputable if only 1 out of 1000 graduates pass the bar exam?! What if you had to go in for major surgery and 999 of your doctor's patients have died on the operating table but he's had major success with 1 patient?! Would you let him operate on you?! 

Thus, when evaluating whether to spend good, hard-earned money on an academy you not only have to perform a cost-benefit analysis (i.e. would money be better spent on an Ivy League education?) but also look at the percentage of players who make it v. those who do not. Then, you have to ask whether those players who broke through would have made it regardless; maybe they just worked harder, were more passionate about tennis and had the qualities necessary to succeed. Some players may be very good - best in their countries or sections - but not have the resources in their home-town to develop further. These good players receive scholarships at the prestigious academies - so the process doesn't really cost them anything - that are funded by players who might not have what it takes (and never will). In other words, they serve the academy's marketing scheme to attract the paying suckers. In addition, these good players usually get to spend a lot more time with the "top" academy pros (and, if lucky, serve as sparing partners for the touring players) thereby improving at a faster rater than their colleagues. 

Conversely, the rest of the students (i.e., the average or bad players) spend 4-5 hours on the court with a "pro" who's getting paid $15-$20/hour. Wait! You thought that the academy pros are highly compensated individuals?! Did you think that the on-court ball-feeders are getting paid a king's ransom for their work?! Well that's just naive. The academy is a BUSINESS and someone's gotta be making money from this endeavor (as usual, it's the owners, not the workers). So how involved is that instructor going to be in your child's development if he receives a fraction of a cost of a lesson AND has 5-6 students to look after. Of course, some of these pros might not be qualified to teach at the local country club to begin with, but that's a separate issue altogether. Per-student, this instructor/babysitter is getting less than minimum wage. There are, of course, some who use this opportunity to learn about the teaching business, develop a clientelle and, perhaps, find one or two students with whom they can travel. However, at some point, burn-out is going to set in and the likelihood that the "pros" will continue to provide high-quality instruction will diminish.

Now let's look at the flip-side. For $30,000, your child could: (a) live at home, play the tournaments that she wants to play and not be subjected to the negative influence of the live-in peers (yes, drugs and alcohol abuse are often factors at live-in academies and you can't always count on some immature monitor - who many times is not much older than the pupils - to look after everyone's conduct); (b) at $60/hour, your child can take 300 private lessons per year (or 600 semi-private). Heck, your local pro can cut you a deal (a lesson package) and maybe work with your kid for 400 hours/year. That's 2 hours a day of individual attention (not counting days off or tournaments). We're not flip-flopping on the "lessons" concept; just pointing out that if you're sending the child away for instruction, then you can very easily secure instruction close to home. If the private lessons don't work for you, maybe you should consider hiring a gardner to mow the tennis balls around the court while lil' Johnny is grinding on the ball machine. That's $15/hour well-spent; (c) take lessons from someone who is actually getting paid a decent hourly wage ($50/hr v. $15/hr) thereby, more or less, guaranteeing quality advice and interest in the player's development; (d) have a relatively "normal" upbringing and not be removed from her friends; (e) have less stress and higher quality education; and (f) have the opportunity to work on her own development and not rely on someone else to force-feed her information. 

Again, the live-in academy system works for some and those "some" happen to be very good players who have put in the work early and have a proven commitment to the sport. Like first-born children in the middle ages, they get the benefit of the best training and attention and are groomed to become champions at the expense of the rest of the students - his "sponsors". These sponsor-players serve as the foundation of the academy pyramid scheme and are only there to fulfill their parents Walter Mitty fantasies. Of course, some parents will continue to be razzle-dazzled by the anecdotes of success. Rather than doing some critical thinking and planning, they will prefer to continue writing checks and pass along the development responsibility to someone else. After all, signing a check is way easier than being actually involved. The best advice that we could give you would be to contact the former players (and their parents) and see how the academy worked for them and whether they got everything that they wanted out of their investment and experience.