There is an element of the game that seems to have gone the way of the dodo bird. I'm thinking, of course, of the serve-and-volley tactic. It wasn't that long ago when nearly every player on the men's professional circuit, and a fair number on the women's side, practiced this dying art with skill and alacrity. Even players who were not tall with a long reach, or who did not have a huge serve, such as Rod Laver, folowed their serves into the forecourt, where they used their anticipatory skills, agility, and "soft hands" to win points quickly, as if with a parry and a thrust.
It made the game seem more "manly" in many respects. Practitioners of the s&v tactic were risk-takers; they were players who preferred to be in control of their own destiny; who would rather look silly stabbing at thin air than let the point turn into a war of attrition.
This philosophy extended beyond the mere s&v, as players looked for any opportunity to shorten the court, and point. Short ball? Good enough for me, I'm going in! Second serve? You bet I'll be chipping and charging! So what happened to have caused these effective tactics to be placed on the endangered list? In a word (no, better make that four), racquets, strings, technique and surface.
The advances in racquet design and technology have had enormous impact on the game, particularly among the professional ranks. The racquet speed that players generate today demands a racquet that not only can withstand off-center hits, but can deliver a solid, accurate placement on them. In the days of the Dunlop Maxply Fort or the Wilson Pro Staff, off-center hits generally resulted in a weak shot or an error. Racquet-head speed could be your friend and your enemy, on the same day. So most players opted for a swing style and speed that allowed them to maintain a high standard of ball control.
Remember, serving speeds have not risen dramatically, at least not when measuring the game's biggest servers, oveer the past three decades. Roscoe Tanner had a big bomb, as did little Colin Dibley, whose serve was clocked in the 140s. But ground strokes, and particularly returns of serve, have gotten dramatically more powerful. But watch clips of a match featuring today's players side-by-side with a match from the 1960s or 1970s, just as racquet technology was beginning to be explored, and you'd think the latter players were in slow motion.
This means that any foray into the net will not yield as deep a penetration into the forecourt as is desired to make a forceful volley. The opponent's reply will simply arrive too soon to get in optimum volleying position. This is one of the reasons the swinging volley has gained in popularity. Hit from the service line or farther back, it can penetrate through the opponent's defensives more quickly than the traditional "punch" or "catch" volley.
String technology has also left an indelible mark on the game, to the detriment of s&v. It has often been said that the Luxilon and other polyester strings, as well as the so-called "blends, in which a natural gut string is mixed with a synthetic is like playing with the banned "spaghetti racquet." Consequently, players are able to apply spins that result in revolutions per minute that were practically unimaginable 30 years ago. The passing shots now dip below the net more quickly and at a shorter distance from the net, making it less likely that a volleyer will get a ball above the netcord to work with.
Advances in stroke technique have also worked against the s&v. Open-stanced forehands and two-handed backhands essentially allow players to face the net to strike the ball, their hips parallel with the net, as they generate power from their back, or anchor, legs--pushing off the ground the way a baseball pitcher usd the mound rubber. This results in tremendous force being applied to the shots. In addition, it allows players to get a better "look" at the net-rusher and to disguise their passing shot. Furthermore, the open stances allow players to get back toward the center of the court, or to "bisect the angle" more rapidky, as the position of their feet and the distribution of their weight are more optimally suited for changing direction and getting a good "jump" on the ball.
It's no accident that plyometric training has been applied to the tennis stroke much more frequently and effectively since the general acceptance and practice of open-stanced stroke production. Explosiveness is built into the open stance approach, and professional players are maximizing this element in today's game, to the harm of the net rusher, who finds it more difficult to gain good positioning at the net, more difficult to "read" opponent's intentions, and more difficult to get to balls which are now hit with amazing power and accuracy.
Finally, court surface changes, from a macro perspective, have made the s&v tactic less effective than it once had been. In 1969, when Rod Laver achieved the Grand Slam for the second and last time in his career--winning the singles titles at each of the four major events, or Slams--three of the four Slams were vied for on grass courts. Today, two of those--the Australian Open and U.S. Open, have switched to hard courts. Despite the lack of solid evidence that the pro tour has abandoned all but hard courts, there is no question that the game's most prized titles have an effect beyond the lure of fame and fortune, and ranking points.
[NOTE: I'm off to catch some Zs. I will return to finish this tomorrow.]
Sunday, March 08, 2009
Thursday, January 08, 2009
Clarifying the Game's Essence
It is time for some clarifying thinking. I use the term clarifying in its broad and alchemic senses, as in "to make clear or easier to understand; to clear of confusion or uncertainty [clarify the mind]; to make clear by removing impurities or solid matter, as by heating gently [clarify butter]" (from thefreedictionary.com).
Jose Higueras, former world-top-ten player and coach of Jim Courier, Michael Chang, Todd Martin and others, has correctly asserted in an essay titled, "Learning to Play," that "the most important thing is to know your game and practice in order to learn how to play it." He posits that most American junior players spend far too much time drilling and hitting balls fed from a basket by a pro or a partner, and devote too little time to playing practice matches, which he asserts is the only non-competition format where a player can learn and develop the shot patterns that result in good decision-making and effective point construction.
"Knowing one's game" is having a very clear understanding of your own capabilities or strengths, as well as your deficiencies or weaknesses. It is knowing what you can reliably do under pressure, and what not to do. Essentially, it is knowing what you bring to the court that enables you to win.
Stroke mechanics, also commonly referred to as stroke production, are of course an essential element of a tennis player's early development—the formative years, if you will. But as Higueras implies, strokes do not a player make. There are far more important factors in the development of a strong tennis game than strokes, although they are the essential building blocks. Placement, depth, disguise, court positioning, movement and, of course, strategy and tactics, play much larger roles. That said, if one cannot execute a forehand reliably and with enough pace, spin and accuracy to be able to use it to move opponents around and force errors or open up the court for attacks, then stroke production becomes a liability which must be addressed. However, take two players with similar skills, stroke-wise, and the player with better movement, court positioning, placement, strategy and tactics will win 90% of the time, if not more.
I recall how people were so impressed, even awed, by the way Bjorn Borg stroked the ball. The same was true of the general public's reaction to Jimmy Connors. And John McEnroe. And Chris Evert, Martine Navratilova and Steffi Graf. These were all great players, the best in the world for great lengths of time, and Hall of Famers each. Yet they all struck the ball in quite unique ways. This is a fact that we must never lose sight of. There are as many ways to strike a tennis ball successfully and effectively as there are ways to prepare an egg for breakfast.
Over the years I've come to the conclusion that there are only a handful of unshakeable truths or principles upon which to hang one's headband. That there are many "correct" ways to perform a tennis stroke is one of them. However, we are seeing today a normalization of this process, almost a perfecting of the art form, if you will. There are fewer and fewer wildly divergent methods employed on the professional tours today. There are no more Francoise Durrs, and I suspect the Fabrice Santoros will soon follow. This fact does not concern me, though, as I still contend that there are infinite slight variations in stroke production that not only make a player unique and inform his or her style, but that also lend something essential to that player's game.
The other clarifying truths are:
1. The pendulum swings.
By this I mean that while we might currently be seeing a dearth of pure serve-and-volley players among the professional ranks (Radek Stepanek, Max Mirnyi, Taylor Dent and Robert Kendrick are about all who remain on the men's tour), this does not mean the art form is going to become extinct. Again, I think back to Bjorn Borg, who was so dominant from the baseline and his passing shots so feared, that he nearly single-handedly vanquished the serve-and-volley tactic. But then along came John McEnroe, whose lightning quick reflexes, relentless forward movement, deft touch at net and can-opener slice lefty serve re-established the style as legitimate and effective. Styles of play come and go, and come back again.
2. Never hit a shot that your opponent likes.
This is the simplest recipe for success on the court short of sheer overwhelming domination, and is a paraphrasing of the sage advice of the great Bill Tilden. By this I mean, and I believe Tilden meant, that while we might not be able to dissemble our opponent's awesome forehand, we can utilize spins, pace, direction and placement to our advantage so that he cannot use that awesome forehand of his to its fullest effect. Any great shot can essentially be defused, particularly if we do not allow our opponent to employ it in the way he or she desires or is accustomed to. This is often referred to as "taking an opponent out of his rhythm," but of course it is much more than that.
3. The serve and return of serve are the two most important shots in the game.
This should be obvious, because they are always the first shots struck and most often (especially among top players) determine who has the advantage during any given point. However, if you look down any bank of courts at most any tennis club or training academy while the elite junior programs are in session, you will be amazed to find that the serves and returns are practiced far less than practically any other shots, save the half-volleys, drop shots and lobs. You would surely come away convinced that the ground strokes are the most critical shots to master. In one of the game's strangest paradoxes, in many ways you would also be correct. And this is because the ground strokes are the basis of all point construction, once the ball is in play. In fact, the ground stroke is also the basis of the return of serve, although many players employ an abbreviated version of their groundstroke and some even use an elongated volley stroke.
Nevertheless, the players at the top of the game who possess the best serves and the best returns have the consistently better results.
4. A player is only as good as his or her second serve.
This is an old adage that really is true, especially the higher up the skills ladder one climbs. If you are playing an opponent with very good ground strokes and a very good return of serve (these often go hand in hand; see above), and you do not have an effective second serve, you will be in serious trouble every time you fault on your first serve. This consequently puts enormous pressure on you to get a high percentage of first serves in, which may lead you over the course of a match and particularly on crucial points to "play it safe" on your first serve, thereby affording your opponent a great opportunity to attack your first serve. Conversely, the player who possesses a very solid second serve, particularly one which he can hit with a variety of spins, paces and placements, has a huge advantage because his second serve is not as easily attacked, which subsequently alows him to be more aggressive, or take greater risks, with his first serve.
5. When serving, one should think like a pitcher.
Because there are two chances to get the serve in play on each and every point, there is a tendency by many players to "go for broke" on their first service delivery. They know that they have a "second chance" to get a serve in play, so they take a calculated risk in hopes of earning an "easy" point with an ace or unreturnable serve. This is akin to a baseball pitcher throwing his most powerful pitch—his rising 90 mph fastball down the pipe—on his first one or two pitches in hopes of blowing the ball by the batter. This strategy may work, particularly against lesser batters/players. But it can also backfire, particularly over the course of a game or match. Sooner or later, the batter/returner is going to figure out the server's game plan, recognize the pattern, and ready himself for that first "telegraphed" serve or pitch. And he is going to clock it for a home run or a big return up the line for a winner. Varying the pace, spin, and location of one's pitches (and serves) is a far better strategy in the long run. You keep the batter/returner guessing, and by not trying to hit your biggest serve all the time, you improve the percentage of first serves that are in play. And remember, the more first serves you put in play, the better your chances are in receiving a weak return and the fewer second serves you must put in play.
But to truly think like a pitcher is also to work to "get up in the count." This means "getting ahead" of the batter/returner. In baseball, essentially three things can happen—the batter can hit the ball into fair territory and race successfully to a base (called a "hit"), strike out, or take a base on balls (called a "walk"). The probability that a batter will achieve either a "walk" or a hit increases with every pitch thrown for a ball. Therefore, if the pitcher is continually getting "behind in the count"—meaning throwing more balls than strikes—he is increasing the odds that the batter will take a base.
The smartest pitchers work hard to always stay ahead in the count, thereby reducing the odds that the batter will get on base and subsequently expanding the variety of pitches that he can throw. A pitcher who gets ahead by a count of 0-2 (meaning no balls and two strikes) has many more options than one who gets behind by a count of 2-2 or 3-2. The pitcher with an 0-2 count might even intentionally throw a ball slightly outside the strike zone to tempt the batter to take a swing at a "bad" pitch. The batter is now reduced to guessing what will come at him next. On the other hand, with a favorable count of 3-2, the batter can fairly expect to see a pitch down the middle of the strike zone (what's sometimes called a "fat" pitch), because pitchers do not like to give batters free passes to first base. Personally, I think some adjustment in our collective thinking is long overdue on this last bit of wisdom, but that's a topic for another time.
In tennis the same principle holds true. If the server is able to maintain a high percentage of variable first serves in play, then the returner cannot know what to expect. He must guess, which reduces his ability to take a big crack at the return and gain the advantage in the point right off the bat (funny how that phrase fits). The more often a pitcher can keep the returner guessing about the placement, pace and spin of his serve (and the first serve is best for introducing this variety), the more successful he will be at inducing errors from the returner and/or gaining an advantage right out of the blocks (to use a phrase from track and field). The more often a server allows the returner to see second serves, the more likely he is to see retruns go whizzing by. So, servers should always strive to stay "ahead" in the count, putting more first serves in play, with greater variety, than second serves.
6. Most matches are lost, not won.
What this means, really, is that more often than not a match is won by the player who produces the fewest errors, not by the player who produces the most winners (unreturnable shots). While executing the unreturnable shot gets everybody's juices flowing, even the onlookers, a point won is still just a single point won, no matter how that point was won. After beginning his professional career as a flashy player who produced an abundance of winners (and as many errors), Andre Agassi employed this principle to his great advantage in his later years on tour. He would move players left and then right and then back again, running them into the ground the way a boxer might use a series of body punches to tire and weaken his opponent, taking away his ability to punch back with real force. After running down Agassi's shots, first 40-plus feet one way and then 40-plus feet the other, and again and again, few players could muster the energy to strike back with power and accuracy. He had reduced their ability to hit the winner by simply keeping balls well in play by using excellent court positioning to exploit the geometry of the court to maximum advantage. He often looked to be standing in the middle of the court while his opponents ran like rabbits. It must have been exhausting, and humiliating, to play Agassi when he was in full command of his faculties and shots.
Reducing errors always pays off in the end, and by not trying to win by hitting winners only, you also take a lot of pressure off of your shoulders so that you can relax and play your game.
7. Adopt a game style that suits your temperament and personality.
If you are a go-getter, Type A, hyper-energetic, assertive or aggressive kind of person, you might fare better choosing to be an attacking player, one who is willing to take a few more risks than his opponent and frequently initiate the attack in the service of forcing your opponent to come up with something special under pressure. If you are a creative type who likes variety and experimentation, you might fare best by choosing a game style that allows you to use all the shots in your arsenal and explore all avenues or employ all parts of the court to win a point. Conversely, if you are a shy person, or less assertive, or prefer to react to things instead of seize the bull by the horns, perhaps a counter-punching style would suit you best, wherein you respond to your opponent's attacks, much like parrying a thrust in fencing. Counter-punchers usually rely on precision placements, particulary passing shots, and a deep well of stamina, consistency, and mental focus to beat their opponents one hard-fought point at a time.
Letting yourself grow into a playing style that feels comfortable wil afford the best chance for long-term success. But parents, remember that your 4'6" 8-year-old may merely grow to a 5'9" 20-year-old, so don't try to establish these correlations too early in the development process.
AUTHOR'S NOTE: This material is copyrighted and may not be reprinted or reproduced without the express written or verbal consent of the author. Thank you for your cooperation.
Jose Higueras, former world-top-ten player and coach of Jim Courier, Michael Chang, Todd Martin and others, has correctly asserted in an essay titled, "Learning to Play," that "the most important thing is to know your game and practice in order to learn how to play it." He posits that most American junior players spend far too much time drilling and hitting balls fed from a basket by a pro or a partner, and devote too little time to playing practice matches, which he asserts is the only non-competition format where a player can learn and develop the shot patterns that result in good decision-making and effective point construction.
"Knowing one's game" is having a very clear understanding of your own capabilities or strengths, as well as your deficiencies or weaknesses. It is knowing what you can reliably do under pressure, and what not to do. Essentially, it is knowing what you bring to the court that enables you to win.
Stroke mechanics, also commonly referred to as stroke production, are of course an essential element of a tennis player's early development—the formative years, if you will. But as Higueras implies, strokes do not a player make. There are far more important factors in the development of a strong tennis game than strokes, although they are the essential building blocks. Placement, depth, disguise, court positioning, movement and, of course, strategy and tactics, play much larger roles. That said, if one cannot execute a forehand reliably and with enough pace, spin and accuracy to be able to use it to move opponents around and force errors or open up the court for attacks, then stroke production becomes a liability which must be addressed. However, take two players with similar skills, stroke-wise, and the player with better movement, court positioning, placement, strategy and tactics will win 90% of the time, if not more.
I recall how people were so impressed, even awed, by the way Bjorn Borg stroked the ball. The same was true of the general public's reaction to Jimmy Connors. And John McEnroe. And Chris Evert, Martine Navratilova and Steffi Graf. These were all great players, the best in the world for great lengths of time, and Hall of Famers each. Yet they all struck the ball in quite unique ways. This is a fact that we must never lose sight of. There are as many ways to strike a tennis ball successfully and effectively as there are ways to prepare an egg for breakfast.
Over the years I've come to the conclusion that there are only a handful of unshakeable truths or principles upon which to hang one's headband. That there are many "correct" ways to perform a tennis stroke is one of them. However, we are seeing today a normalization of this process, almost a perfecting of the art form, if you will. There are fewer and fewer wildly divergent methods employed on the professional tours today. There are no more Francoise Durrs, and I suspect the Fabrice Santoros will soon follow. This fact does not concern me, though, as I still contend that there are infinite slight variations in stroke production that not only make a player unique and inform his or her style, but that also lend something essential to that player's game.
The other clarifying truths are:
1. The pendulum swings.
By this I mean that while we might currently be seeing a dearth of pure serve-and-volley players among the professional ranks (Radek Stepanek, Max Mirnyi, Taylor Dent and Robert Kendrick are about all who remain on the men's tour), this does not mean the art form is going to become extinct. Again, I think back to Bjorn Borg, who was so dominant from the baseline and his passing shots so feared, that he nearly single-handedly vanquished the serve-and-volley tactic. But then along came John McEnroe, whose lightning quick reflexes, relentless forward movement, deft touch at net and can-opener slice lefty serve re-established the style as legitimate and effective. Styles of play come and go, and come back again.
2. Never hit a shot that your opponent likes.
This is the simplest recipe for success on the court short of sheer overwhelming domination, and is a paraphrasing of the sage advice of the great Bill Tilden. By this I mean, and I believe Tilden meant, that while we might not be able to dissemble our opponent's awesome forehand, we can utilize spins, pace, direction and placement to our advantage so that he cannot use that awesome forehand of his to its fullest effect. Any great shot can essentially be defused, particularly if we do not allow our opponent to employ it in the way he or she desires or is accustomed to. This is often referred to as "taking an opponent out of his rhythm," but of course it is much more than that.
3. The serve and return of serve are the two most important shots in the game.
This should be obvious, because they are always the first shots struck and most often (especially among top players) determine who has the advantage during any given point. However, if you look down any bank of courts at most any tennis club or training academy while the elite junior programs are in session, you will be amazed to find that the serves and returns are practiced far less than practically any other shots, save the half-volleys, drop shots and lobs. You would surely come away convinced that the ground strokes are the most critical shots to master. In one of the game's strangest paradoxes, in many ways you would also be correct. And this is because the ground strokes are the basis of all point construction, once the ball is in play. In fact, the ground stroke is also the basis of the return of serve, although many players employ an abbreviated version of their groundstroke and some even use an elongated volley stroke.
Nevertheless, the players at the top of the game who possess the best serves and the best returns have the consistently better results.
4. A player is only as good as his or her second serve.
This is an old adage that really is true, especially the higher up the skills ladder one climbs. If you are playing an opponent with very good ground strokes and a very good return of serve (these often go hand in hand; see above), and you do not have an effective second serve, you will be in serious trouble every time you fault on your first serve. This consequently puts enormous pressure on you to get a high percentage of first serves in, which may lead you over the course of a match and particularly on crucial points to "play it safe" on your first serve, thereby affording your opponent a great opportunity to attack your first serve. Conversely, the player who possesses a very solid second serve, particularly one which he can hit with a variety of spins, paces and placements, has a huge advantage because his second serve is not as easily attacked, which subsequently alows him to be more aggressive, or take greater risks, with his first serve.
5. When serving, one should think like a pitcher.
Because there are two chances to get the serve in play on each and every point, there is a tendency by many players to "go for broke" on their first service delivery. They know that they have a "second chance" to get a serve in play, so they take a calculated risk in hopes of earning an "easy" point with an ace or unreturnable serve. This is akin to a baseball pitcher throwing his most powerful pitch—his rising 90 mph fastball down the pipe—on his first one or two pitches in hopes of blowing the ball by the batter. This strategy may work, particularly against lesser batters/players. But it can also backfire, particularly over the course of a game or match. Sooner or later, the batter/returner is going to figure out the server's game plan, recognize the pattern, and ready himself for that first "telegraphed" serve or pitch. And he is going to clock it for a home run or a big return up the line for a winner. Varying the pace, spin, and location of one's pitches (and serves) is a far better strategy in the long run. You keep the batter/returner guessing, and by not trying to hit your biggest serve all the time, you improve the percentage of first serves that are in play. And remember, the more first serves you put in play, the better your chances are in receiving a weak return and the fewer second serves you must put in play.
But to truly think like a pitcher is also to work to "get up in the count." This means "getting ahead" of the batter/returner. In baseball, essentially three things can happen—the batter can hit the ball into fair territory and race successfully to a base (called a "hit"), strike out, or take a base on balls (called a "walk"). The probability that a batter will achieve either a "walk" or a hit increases with every pitch thrown for a ball. Therefore, if the pitcher is continually getting "behind in the count"—meaning throwing more balls than strikes—he is increasing the odds that the batter will take a base.
The smartest pitchers work hard to always stay ahead in the count, thereby reducing the odds that the batter will get on base and subsequently expanding the variety of pitches that he can throw. A pitcher who gets ahead by a count of 0-2 (meaning no balls and two strikes) has many more options than one who gets behind by a count of 2-2 or 3-2. The pitcher with an 0-2 count might even intentionally throw a ball slightly outside the strike zone to tempt the batter to take a swing at a "bad" pitch. The batter is now reduced to guessing what will come at him next. On the other hand, with a favorable count of 3-2, the batter can fairly expect to see a pitch down the middle of the strike zone (what's sometimes called a "fat" pitch), because pitchers do not like to give batters free passes to first base. Personally, I think some adjustment in our collective thinking is long overdue on this last bit of wisdom, but that's a topic for another time.
In tennis the same principle holds true. If the server is able to maintain a high percentage of variable first serves in play, then the returner cannot know what to expect. He must guess, which reduces his ability to take a big crack at the return and gain the advantage in the point right off the bat (funny how that phrase fits). The more often a pitcher can keep the returner guessing about the placement, pace and spin of his serve (and the first serve is best for introducing this variety), the more successful he will be at inducing errors from the returner and/or gaining an advantage right out of the blocks (to use a phrase from track and field). The more often a server allows the returner to see second serves, the more likely he is to see retruns go whizzing by. So, servers should always strive to stay "ahead" in the count, putting more first serves in play, with greater variety, than second serves.
6. Most matches are lost, not won.
What this means, really, is that more often than not a match is won by the player who produces the fewest errors, not by the player who produces the most winners (unreturnable shots). While executing the unreturnable shot gets everybody's juices flowing, even the onlookers, a point won is still just a single point won, no matter how that point was won. After beginning his professional career as a flashy player who produced an abundance of winners (and as many errors), Andre Agassi employed this principle to his great advantage in his later years on tour. He would move players left and then right and then back again, running them into the ground the way a boxer might use a series of body punches to tire and weaken his opponent, taking away his ability to punch back with real force. After running down Agassi's shots, first 40-plus feet one way and then 40-plus feet the other, and again and again, few players could muster the energy to strike back with power and accuracy. He had reduced their ability to hit the winner by simply keeping balls well in play by using excellent court positioning to exploit the geometry of the court to maximum advantage. He often looked to be standing in the middle of the court while his opponents ran like rabbits. It must have been exhausting, and humiliating, to play Agassi when he was in full command of his faculties and shots.
Reducing errors always pays off in the end, and by not trying to win by hitting winners only, you also take a lot of pressure off of your shoulders so that you can relax and play your game.
7. Adopt a game style that suits your temperament and personality.
If you are a go-getter, Type A, hyper-energetic, assertive or aggressive kind of person, you might fare better choosing to be an attacking player, one who is willing to take a few more risks than his opponent and frequently initiate the attack in the service of forcing your opponent to come up with something special under pressure. If you are a creative type who likes variety and experimentation, you might fare best by choosing a game style that allows you to use all the shots in your arsenal and explore all avenues or employ all parts of the court to win a point. Conversely, if you are a shy person, or less assertive, or prefer to react to things instead of seize the bull by the horns, perhaps a counter-punching style would suit you best, wherein you respond to your opponent's attacks, much like parrying a thrust in fencing. Counter-punchers usually rely on precision placements, particulary passing shots, and a deep well of stamina, consistency, and mental focus to beat their opponents one hard-fought point at a time.
Letting yourself grow into a playing style that feels comfortable wil afford the best chance for long-term success. But parents, remember that your 4'6" 8-year-old may merely grow to a 5'9" 20-year-old, so don't try to establish these correlations too early in the development process.
AUTHOR'S NOTE: This material is copyrighted and may not be reprinted or reproduced without the express written or verbal consent of the author. Thank you for your cooperation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
