Preparing to go the distance

In my previous entry (“America’s dominance: will history repeat itself?”), I stated that "Until we find a way to develop our youngsters' games on the slower surfaces, particularly the crushed red brick, American juniors will struggle to develop the stroke proficiency, movement, endurance, tactical acumen and heart to compete with those who spend five to six hours a day on the gritty, slippery stuff." I will use this space to elaborate on this point and pitch in my two cents on where and how we should be taking the games of our best juniors if we hope to achieve the kinds of results we've come to expect and demand.

If you've read my entry on the scheduling of the Grand Slams and, subsequently, Tier 1 and Tier 2 tournaments, Davis and Federation Cups, and year-end Masters Cups (“A modest proposal (for the pro game)”), you already know how I feel about the trend away from multiple surfaces and toward a dual standard — crushed red brick and Rebound Ace. I don't like it, and I don't think it's good for the sport. Having said that, I also don't think it made sense 35 years ago to play three of the four Grand Slam championships on grass. It can be argued quite easily that the primary reason for the shift from a preponderance of continental and eastern grips and one-handed backhands to semi-western and western grips and two-fisted backhands is the abandonment of low-bouncing, fast-playing grass and indoor wooden surfaces for slow, high-bouncing clay and outdoor hard courts.

The best scenario, in my view, is to test the players on at least four, if not five or six, different surfaces, including (1) the true-bounce, slow hard courts known as Rebound Ace; (2) the crushed red brick found at Roland Garros and throughout Europe and South America and parts of the Middle East, Asia and Indonesia; (3) the grass courts of Wimbledon and surrounding areas as well as parts of northeast U.S.; (4) the composition courts (also known by the brand name, Har-Tru) common throughout the resort and private club community; (5) the fast cement, macadam and asphalt courts common in the public parks of the U.S.; and (6) the ultra-fast carpeted or rubberized surfaces primarily reserved for indoor play. By doing so, you'll see the best and most versatile athletes emerge as champions and you'll witness a diversification of playing styles we haven't seen in some time.

It is clear that the present direction is toward limiting professional competition primarily to two surfaces — red clay and Rebound Ace. This being the case, and taking into account the successes on both the men's and women's tours of individuals from European, South American and former Soviet Bloc countries, it is clear that success on the tour is dependent on the development of four key competencies: stroke proficiency; footwork and movement; tactical acumen; stamina, endurance and desire or "heart." These four competencies, which I’ll call “elements” after the fundamental Elements of Aristotelian cosmology — earth, air, water and fire — are essential arrows in the quiver of an elite tennis player.

By stroke proficiency I mean simplicity, efficiency, stability, reliability and durability. The ideal strokes, whether we're talking about service motions, groundstrokes, volleys, overheads or the auxilliary shots such as half-volleys and backhand smashes, are those which can be performed effectively under all conditions and stressors, both physical and psychological. This demands the development of strokes that are simple and efficient. Excess motion, or complexity, impedes effectiveness when conditions are windy, the surface fast, or the bounce unpredictable. Strokes that are stable and reliable are those that do not break down under varying conditions and pressures and produce intended results when properly executed. Durability refers to how the mechanics of a stroke are impacted by age and factors outside the player’s control, such as changes in surface or changes in racquet and ball technology. In this way, durability is connected conceptually to simplicity and efficiency. Strokes that are durable are those that hold up over time. Think Andre Agassi. Clearly, a player who has developed strokes that meet all these criteria has a huge leg up on a player whose strokes do not meet one or more of these criteria. When we watch Roger Federer, we are witnessing this principle in practice.

Footwork and movement obviously refers to much more than foot speed. As with stroke proficiency, footwork that is simple and efficient is more effective in getting a player from point A to point B and back again with less wasted energy and in less time than a player whose footwork and movement is complicated and inefficient. In addition, efficient movement enables a player to maintain perfect balance as he maneuvers around the court as well as while executing a stroke, particularly those strokes executed on the run, which so many strokes are in today's professional game. Efficient footwork and movement also are key factors in enabling a player to transition from defense to offense or from offense to defense quickly. Again, Federer’s game provides a case study in efficient footwork and movement.

Tactical acumen refers to a player's ability to match the most effective tactics to the strategy he has chosen to employ against a particular opponent under certain conditions. Of course, the more tactical options at a player’s disposal, the more effective he will be at employing a particular strategy or in altering his strategy should it prove ineffective. In this way, tactical acumen is closely tied to stroke proficiency and movement, as a player who has mastered many strokes and moves efficiently around the court is a player who can utilize multiple tactics in pursuit of one objective. For example, a player who has mastered the inside-out topspin forehand as well as the low, penetrating slice forehand, and whose efficient movement enables him to quickly improve his court position when the opportunity arises, is able to utilize the tactic of seizing the net with a deep shot that pins his opponent to the ad court corner. And he can do it in one of two ways—with the inside-out topspin forehand or with the low, penetrating slice forehand. So, we can see that tactics drive strategy in as much as strategy drives tactics.

Stamina and endurance refer simply to a player’s physical strength and durability. All the tactical know-how and stroke proficiency in the world cannot overcome a serious physical deficiency like a lack of stamina. But give a great shotmaker superb stamina and endurance, and you’ve got something special. Then add in a healthy dose of “heart” — that intangible yet quite palpable ability to dig deep and then deeper into one’s reserves of strength and will and craftiness to architect a victory against seemingly insurmountable odds. Heart, the fire within, is the final element that must be developed and which will sustain a player when all else is teetering on the verge of collapse. It is what we saw time and again from Pete Sampras, who, in addition to possessing some of the greatest shots in the history of the game, had the capacity to reach down into his gut and come up with something brilliant at just the right moment. On a few memorable occasions, Pete’s guts were literally displayed for all the world to see. And instead of shrinking in embarrassment, he gathered the courage to match his pride and pushed himself to limits few ever reach.

It is my contention that if the high-performance coaches and trainers in America today truly want to develop the next wave of great young players who will be fit to compete and win on the pro tour, they must reduce their efforts to developing the four elements detailed above. And the best way to do this is to create an environment in which players must rely on these elements in order to succeed against their peers. And since court surface is perhaps the single most defining factor in selecting successful game style and tactics, those who are charged with developing America’s next class of players must look to the slow, gritty, slippery crushed red brick as the primary surface on which to develop the fundamental elements of an elite player’s game.

The slow, crushed brick demands stroke proficiency; efficient footwork and movement; tactical acumen; stamina, endurance and heart. A player with the smallest inefficiency or mechanical hiccup in his stroke cannot survive the test of clay, where points are often decided in no less than 20 to 30 strokes. Because high-percentage play is rewarded and risk-taking is not, in order to win a point on red clay a player must use all of his tactical options to push his opponent hopelessly out of position before attacking with impunity or going for the winner. For this reason, the dirt demands the most of a player in terms of stamina and endurance. And as a match wears on and players are tested to their limits, the player with the most heart and desire to win will more often than not prevail in the end.

It’s no accident that nearly 30 years ago, when the turf of the West Side Tennis Club in Forest Hills, New York, was replaced by composition and soon after the U.S. Open was moved to the hard courts of Flushing Meadows, the world was also witnessing the rise of nations like Sweden, Argentina and Spain on the pro tour. The Swedes had created a national training center in Stockholm, and used Bjorn Borg’s meteoric success to develop a generation of players who could compete for Grand Slams and Davis Cups. Argentina and Spain were not far behind, and today are well represented in the top ranks on tour. These players all trained on the crushed brick, and developed the strokes, movement, tactical acumen, stamina and heart needed to compete on the slow, slippery, high-bounce surface.

After having achieved success with Jimmy Arias and Andrea Jaeger in the 70s, the Bolletieri Academy became the de facto elite training center in the U.S., developing young talent from all over America and around the world. With the success of Andre Agassi and Monica Seles in the 1980s and 90s, and the impact their style of play has had on the game, Bolletieri can lay claim to having helped architect America’s resurgence after the ATP careers of Jimmy Connors and John McEnroe had come to an end. Now, as the USTA pushes for a national training center of its own, a place where the best juniors can come to get the best training and compete against the best of their peers — a sort of super-Bolletieri academy — it would behoove the architects to review the plans that have propelled the Swedish, Spanish and, most recently, Russian federation players to elite status.

To sum up, the road to American success on the pro tour must not be smoothly paved, but made of crushed red brick. The next wave of junior players to be developed in America’s high-performance training center(s) must be prepared to go the distance in order to compete with their European, South American and Russian counterparts.

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.

America's dominance: will history repeat itself?

Will Americans ever dominate the tennis world again? Or, more to the point, is it even possible for one nation to dominate the game anymore?

It must be said that the situation looks less than rosy on the women's side. The Williams sisters, too often sidelined with injuries of late, can't seem to commit. And Lindsay Davenport, likewise plagued by recurring injuries to her wrist, back and thigh, is clearly due to retire soon. There's a Frenchwoman perched atop the rankings for the first time since Suzanne Lenglen dominated the ladies game; a bevy of Russian and eastern European bombshells, led by the leggy Maria Sharapova, are hungry to assume the mantle; and the friendly Belgian rivals, Kim Clijsters and Justin Henin-Hardenne, are capable of stepping up when it counts most—in the Slams.

On the men's side, it would seem to be all Federer and Nadal. Or is it? Two U.S. players are among the eight-man delegation heading to Shanghai for the year-end Masters Cup. Andy Roddick, ranked #5 in the world, and James Blake, ranked #8, enter the tournament with a full head of steam, having played superb hardcourt tennis over the past two months. Both men are very dangerous when the bounce is true and the footing sure. Outside the top-10 are a handful of American players, including Robby Ginepri, Taylor Dent, Mardy Fish, and the young up-and-coming Sam Querrey. While the current crop is nothing like the class led by Pete Sampras, Andre Agassi and Jim Courier, with Michael Chang, Todd Martin and Malivai Washington representing in fine fashion, Americans today possess the top-ranked and history-making duo of Bob and Mike Bryan. The last time the U.S. produced a doubles team as dominant as the twin towers was in the 1970s and 80s when John McEnroe teamed with Peter Fleming for some 70-plus titles and several Slams.

Roddick, with his bunker-busting serve and huge inside-out forehand, is a threat every time he steps on the court, as is Blake, whose athleticism and forehand rank among the very best. And the Bryan brothers are simply unstoppable when rested and hungry. In short, despite not boasting the top singles player, the U.S. men's squadron looks pretty lethal to this observer.

Having said that, and having paid my respects to the current class, once we look beyond our veteran tour players there may be some cause for alarm. Except for the steady progress shown by Sam Querrey, the U.S. doesn't have much to pin our hopes on among the underclassmen. Donald Young, highly touted since he was a 14-year-old Orange Bowl champion, has had little success adapting to the big guns on the professional tour so far. This may change, but not unless he makes some fundamental changes in his game.

What has gone wrong between the Sampras-Agassi class and the Roddick-Blake class? Aside from natural talent, the main difference has been that the crop of players coming out of the training centers in Europe, South America and the former Soviet Bloc nations have simply gotten better and better as we've continued to pin our hopes on a select one or two stars from the junior or college ranks. Roddick was the world's top-ranked junior player, so expectations for him were naturally quite high. Federer was also a world #1 junior, as was Baghdatis and Gasquet. But what of Nadal? Davydenko? Ljubicic? Or Nalbandian, Robredo and others? (Check out this list of ITF year-end world champions from 1978 to 2005.)

What has gone wrong, and what continues to go wrong, is that we continue to let our juniors develop their skills and compete regularly on the hard courts that dot the American landscape. While some privileged few practice on composition courts at country clubs, the vast majority of their playing time is on hard courts — a painted asphalt-rubber mix, to be exact. Until we find a way to develop our youngsters' games on the slower surfaces, particularly the crushed red brick, American juniors will struggle to develop the stroke proficiency, movement, endurance, tactical acumen and heart to compete with those who spend five to six hours a day on the gritty, slippery stuff. And those who somehow manage to do so will be the exception rather than the rule.

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.

The foreign invasion: is it a bad thing?

The last time an American-born player won the NCAA Division I men's singles title was in 2000, when Alex Kim of Stanford was hoisted on his teammates shoulders. The last six men's champions were all foreign-born (see this listing of NCAA Division I past champions). On the women's side, nearly half of the 64 players in the 2006 NCAA Division I draw were foreigners. This, according to a recent article in TENNIS Magazine by Christopher Chung titled, "The College Question" (November/December 2006 issue, not yet available online as of this writing).

What's more, many of these players are non-traditional students, meaning they are matriculating well after their 18th birthday. And some have played on a professional circuit, such as the highly competitive ITF circuit, USTA Futures and Challenger circuits, or multi-tiered club circuit in Europe. The latter, by the way, has traditionally been a proving and weeding-out ground for American college players and former college players who get a chance to try their hand against international competition.

But now, the foreign competition is coming to America's training ground, most on full athletic scholarships. The question is: is this a bad thing? Or, to put it another way, are foreign student-athletes impeding the career aspirations of American-born players? And if the answer is yes, should anything be done to curtail the practice of recruiting physically and mentally more mature and seasoned talent from abroad to the U.S. collegiate ranks?

For many concerned about the perceived dirth of American-born and trained talent entering the pro ranks with good prospects, the answer is a resounding "Yes!" For my part, I'm not so quick to judge this a bad thing, although I think some restrictions should be applied. My reasons stem from personal experience and from my sense that as the college playing field becomes more "internationalized," it will in actuality prove to be a better barometer of a young (and not so young) player's future success on the ATP and WTA tours.

It should be pointed out that the last five great male champions to rise through the ranks of American junior tennis to take their place among history's elite have all either foregone their secondary education or made a brief cameo appearance. Jimmy Connors, John McEnroe, Jim Courier, Pete Sampras and Andre Agassi are Hall of Fame players who, in sum total, spent two years in college. Connors won the NCAAs in 1971 as a freshman at UCLA and McEnroe in 1978, while a freshman at Stanford. Both then wisely rode their successes straight to the pro tour. Sampras and Agassi never even attended high school, opting instead to train at tennis academies or with personal coaches and receive their diplomas through correspondence courses. Andy Roddick has followed a simliar path and seems headed for the hallowed Hall. Bob and Mike Bryan both played tennis at Stanford, capturing the doubles crown in 1998 as freshmen. Bob also won the singles title that year, by the way. But they, too, went their merry way after their highly successful freshmen years. So, most of the uber-successful U.S. men's singles players have seen little return on their investment in a college tennis career.

It's ironic that so many bemoan the fact that highly recruited high school basketball players are jumping ship for the fame and fortune of an NBA career earlier and earlier, when tennis has been witnessing this for decades, albeit on a much much smaller scale. That trend may be changing, however.

With the influx of foreign talent to the college scene comes increased competition for the top flights on the six-man rosters. That ratcheted-up competition undoubtedly makes the collegiate experience more valuable for players who aspire to the professional tours. Provided the American kids can make the team in the first place, of course. And therein lies the rub. At what point are we unwittingly enabling the National Collegiate Athletic Association to become the INTERnational Collegiate Athletic Association? Is the trickle-in effect overwhelming us? Or are we simply seeing the net result of a certain few programs who are perennially guilty of "abusing" a system that has few checks and balances?

I can clearly say that the practice has become widespread, and not limited to the Baylors and Pepperdines. In fact, I saw it happening at the small-college level as early as 1981, when I was competing for a Division I school made up entirely of American-born players. One of our local rivals, a national team-title contender in the NAIAs year after year, was made up entirely of foreign-born players, plus one or two token Americans who played "exhibition" matches outside the six flights that counted for team points. And a couple of local traditionally black colleges in the area (Raleigh-Durham-Greensboro, North Carolina) are also heavily weighted with foreign talent. In part, this is a natural consequence of programs that have successfully recruited one or two young foreign players from a particular region, greasing the skids for others from that country or training area to follow.

Personally, I believe my college tennis experience was enriched by the presence of foreign opponents. I thought so even then, when most of my teammates were mumbling under their breaths about how they had no chance against "the Swedish team." I had the good fortune to go toe-to-toe against Australian, Indian, South African, South American and Swedish players — players whom I'd never have had the chance to test my skills against were it not for the recruiting practices of a few coaches in the area and conference. Of course, this one player's positive take on the situation doesn't justify the practice, it merely serves to provide a different perspective.

When all the data is weighed in, I fall somewhere in the mushy gray middle. I firmly believe our young American-born players can benefit from exposure to the often older, tougher, hungrier foreign-born recruits, many of whom have grown up playing on red clay or grass courts. At the same time, I don't particularly like seeing these tour drop-outs taking up precious court time that rightfully belongs to a kid from College Park, Maryland, or Raleigh, North Carolina.

I hope the NCAA will approach this issue with some common sense, and allow for continued recruitment of foreign-born players with some deinitive limitations. For example, limit the number of foreign-born players on each roster to two, and the number with extensive "circuit" experience to one. Anyone who has achieved an ATP or WTA tour ranking above 600 should be barred from matriculating. So, every coach can be free to fill one-third of his six-man roster with two non-Americans, one of whom is a "ringer."

Let's allow the B. Beckers to play collegiate tennis in America, so long as none of their first names is Boris.

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.