PDA

View Full Version : One of Evert's drills


Rabbit
03-26-2008, 10:31 AM
I took a lesson last week and the pro I take from told me of a really interesting drill that Chris Evert's father dreamed up for her. The pro had seen footage of the entire drill and Evert's reaction during the drill. I post this because of another thread justifying some unfortunate comments about Evert and because I think this is awesome and speaks to Evert's talent.

Here's the drill:


Rubico/HarTru Court
A male pro stands at the baseline either on the deuce or ad side of the court.
The male pro can hit any depth, side to side, and the doubles alleys are good.
Evert must hit every ball, regardless of depth or position back to the male pro.
Evert must hit 50 in a row without missing.
She must do 3 sets of 50 to complete the drill.
Evert got 3 "do overs" within the 3 sets of 50. If she missed more than 3 (total, meaning she could miss 3 balls in 150), regardless of which set of 50 she was on, she had to start over. Evert got a water break between sets of 50.The pro said watching her, even if her last miss was in the 3rd set of 50 at number 47, her expression never changed and she accepted the fact that she had to start over. Her control and precision were amazing. She hit every ball regardless of where she was, right back to the male pro she was training with.

Thinking about this drill, it made me understand even more why Evert did not play the kind of attacking tennis that Navratilova did. She was conditioned to be consistent and her game was built on precision. Hell, if Martina Navratilova tried this drill in her prime, she'd probably still be trying to get through at age 52!

anyway, I thought it was cool

Moz
03-26-2008, 10:34 AM
Thanks Rabbit, interesting.

I think this drill would turn me into the fastest pusher in my county!

Moose Malloy
03-26-2008, 10:58 AM
The pro said watching her, even if her last miss was in the 3rd set of 50 at number 47, her expression never changed and she accepted the fact that she had to start over.

Yeah, she had a unique work ethic.

I've seen a lot of players practice over the years, but I don't think I've ever seen any pro hit as many balls in a short session as I saw Evert do at the '86(maybe '87, can't remember exactly) USO.

It was insane, she hit like 50 balls in a row, never misssed, all were within a foot of the baseline. And this was near the end of her career, it would be understandable if she wasn't as crazy to practice like that anymore.

Rabbit
03-26-2008, 07:43 PM
Yep, the real quandry is folks who claim Evert was not an athlete. When you stop to think how precise her game was, how her feet had to be in position for every shot, it makes you realize just how much of an athlete she had to be.

Reading Joel Drucker's book and how Connors' mother and Evert's father knew each other, once dated, and were of the same tennis mind really gives some clarity to both of their games and mindsets.

bigmatt
03-27-2008, 08:30 AM
I saw Chrissie play Claudia Khode in 1986, and was just amazed at how the ball seemed to never be less than a couple of feet from the baseline. This drill helps explain that. It really made me appreciate how difficult it was to play against, much less beat, her. It also made me that much more in awe of Martina for doing it so often!

Loco4Tennis
03-27-2008, 08:53 AM
this is a very good control exercise, makes you focus more on where and not how hard you hit the ball
i think i am going to have someone run shorttly to this drill :-)

NoBadMojo
03-27-2008, 08:54 AM
I dont think Evert was a great athlete, but obviously it depends upon ones' def of an athlete....she was a trained tennis player and won by out steadying opponents and frustrating them because she was a wall. to me a real athlete would be able to stand the test of time, and her serve was pretty bad. any good current player would not only jump on all of her 2nds, but would pounce on her firsts.

That's a pretty common drill. we call it the 'injured guy drill' because we do it when one of us has a bad wheel and cant run. in our version, the runner has to win 5 points...that can mean a tremendous amount of running. the drill benefits both as the stationary guy can groove strokes, and the runner gets a tremendous cardio workout and practices hitting on the run

Moose Malloy
03-27-2008, 09:24 AM
to me a real athlete would be able to stand the test of time

Well, she had a 19 year career(1971-1989), so it seems to me like she did stand the test of time. And I think she was top 5 during that entire span. Not many athletes in any sport have played the game at that high a level for that long a time.

NoBadMojo
03-27-2008, 09:50 AM
Well, she had a 19 year career(1971-1989), so it seems to me like she did stand the test of time. And I think she was top 5 during that entire span. Not many athletes in any sport have played the game at that high a level for that long a time.

by standing the test of time, i am thinking in terms of her game translating to tennis how it is played now. her serve simply wouldnt hold up and i dont think she would be fast enough to hang from the back. the serve is one stroke that really hasnt changed much since you dont have to have both feet on the ground. she was from the wood era, and her abilities/athletisism <in my opinion> would only work given wooden racquets and her having lots of time to set up because i really dont think she was a great athlete...certainly nothing approaching the likes of Navrat, Court, mandlikova, Goolagong, Graf, etc. she was trained to keep the ball in play and to hit it consistently deep and bore the opponent into submission..her game lacked the variety and skills of an athlete.
players had lots of trouble generating pace to put the ball away when playing her because she didnt give them much to work with and because it's much harder to generate pace w. wood...she was a wall

Arafel
03-27-2008, 10:26 AM
by standing the test of time, i am thinking in terms of her game translating to tennis how it is played now. her serve simply wouldnt hold up and i dont think she would be fast enough to hang from the back. the serve is one stroke that really hasnt changed much since you dont have to have both feet on the ground. she was from the wood era, and her abilities/athletisism <in my opinion> would only work given wooden racquets and her having lots of time to set up because i really dont think she was a great athlete...certainly nothing approaching the likes of Navrat, Court, mandlikova, Goolagong, Graf, etc. she was trained to keep the ball in play and to hit it consistently deep and bore the opponent into submission..her game lacked the variety and skills of an athlete.
players had lots of trouble generating pace to put the ball away when playing her because she didnt give them much to work with and because it's much harder to generate pace w. wood...she was a wall

Umm, no. Chrissie was more than a wall, and she certainly was more than the pusher you claim her to be. She wasn't trained to serve and volley, so she learned to play her style at the best of her skills. Her ability to thread passing shots continuously past net rushers was unequalled. Even against Martina, Chris could hit passing shot after passing shot.

There was also an interesting quote from I think Nancy Lieberman in the book the Rivals, which said, basically, that Chris wasn't playing patty-cake out there; she was hitting the hell out of the ball, consistently.

NoBadMojo
03-27-2008, 10:45 AM
Umm, no. Chrissie was more than a wall, and she certainly was more than the pusher you claim her to be. She wasn't trained to serve and volley, so she learned to play her style at the best of her skills. Her ability to thread passing shots continuously past net rushers was unequalled. Even against Martina, Chris could hit passing shot after passing shot.

There was also an interesting quote from I think Nancy Lieberman in the book the Rivals, which said, basically, that Chris wasn't playing patty-cake out there; she was hitting the hell out of the ball, consistently.

have you seen her in her prime in person up close to support your claim? i didnt say she was a pusher..i said she was a wall who hit the ball consistently dep in the court. your use of the word 'trained' is pretty revealing in the context of this thread..supports what i said..she was trained to play tennis..you dont have to be a great athlete to be successful at tennis. also, you said she was learned to play at the best of her skills which also supports my claim...that she isnt a great athlete..she didnt have skills to volley very well, she didnt have a serve, etc...things that athletes would have..i do agree she had great passing shots...but only because she had plenty of time to set up for the reasons i alluded to earlier. she was a slightly more powerful and more disciplined tracy austin who didnt get injured much <unlike austin> that i know of

Kaptain Karl
03-27-2008, 11:04 AM
I saw her play "up close and in person" several times. Chrissie's gift -- to me -- was her perfect positioning. She'd keep her opponent more than six feet behind the baseline and flawlessly put herself in the proper place to play the next shop without having to scramble to get there.

Chrissie didn't have any above average physical skill, but great positioning, anticipation and concentration. (IOW, she more than made up for her lack of astonishing physical ability with really astonishing mental focus.) A few of my buddies in the Juniors would admit "that skinny little girl" ran their butts into the ground when they played her ... and lost miserably.

- KK

Rabbit
03-27-2008, 11:13 AM
have you seen her in her prime in person up close to support your claim? i didnt say she was a pusher..i said she was a wall who hit the ball consistently dep in the court. your use of the word 'trained' is pretty revealing in the context of this thread..supports what i said..she was trained to play tennis..you dont have to be a great athlete to be successful at tennis. also, you said she was learned to play at the best of her skills which also supports my claim...that she isnt a great athlete..she didnt have skills to volley very well, she didnt have a serve, etc...things that athletes would have..i do agree she had great passing shots...but only because she had plenty of time to set up for the reasons i alluded to earlier. she was a slightly more powerful and more disciplined tracy austin who didnt get injured much <unlike austin> that i know of

I disagree. Evert didn't have a great serve, but that has nothing to do with her athletic prowess. Vitas Gerulaitis had an anemic second serve and was a fine athlete quicker than a cat. Jimmy Connors was never known for his serve or his volley and was a great athlete. Ken Rosewall is yet another player not known for serve and volley, but was a great athlete. Bjorn Borg didn't have great volleys, but no one is going to say he wasn't a great athlete.

I have seen Evert play live in her prime. Evert's game had plenty of variety, unlike today's game. While she didn't serve and volley, she did use the entire court as evidenced by one of the greatest drop shots the game has seen. Her level of play, with or without a concession to her athletic abilities, was good enough to keep her as the only competitor to the player who may have been the most athletic, Navratilova.

Vitas Gerulaitis once summed it up perfectly. It was in John McEnroe's heyday and everyone was clamoring about what a genius and athlete McEnroe was. VG said that while McEnroe was a great athlete, his genius was only perceived because his positioning wasn't what it should be. In order to make up for his feet, McEnroe had to over-compensate with his hands. Jimmy Connors, by contrast, was not perceived as an athlete, certainly no where near the class of McEnroe, but that was only because Connors was in perfect position every time he hit the ball. VG went on to say that Connors was every bit the athlete McEnroe was, but is was perception that made the difference. I think this is very analogous to Evert/Navratilova.

Connors and Evert came from the same mold. As I mentioned before, Connors' mother and Evert's father once dated and were players in their youth together. They both thought of tennis in the same vein and it shows in their children's games. Both were baseliners and both exploited the entire court.

NoBadMojo
03-27-2008, 12:00 PM
I saw her play "up close and in person" several times. Chrissie's gift -- to me -- was her perfect positioning. She'd keep her opponent more than six feet behind the baseline and flawlessly put herself in the proper place to play the next shop without having to scramble to get there.

Chrissie didn't have any above average physical skill, but great positioning, anticipation and concentration. (IOW, she more than made up for her lack of astonishing physical ability with really astonishing mental focus.) A few of my buddies in the Juniors would admit "that skinny little girl" ran their butts into the ground when they played her ... and lost miserably.

- KK

i would aagree with this assessment. and add that she could have perfect positioning because she hit the ball deeply enough and slowly enough where she had plenty of time to be in perfect positioin for a next shot. i've also watched her in person close up in her prime and my first thought was that she is 'tiny' and almost frail looking, and really wasnt fast a foot by any stretch.

hitting balls deep with not a ton of pace gives a wood player lots of time to be in position for a next shot, and makes it next to impossible for an opponent to get her on her horse using a wooden racquet. hitting short would give her much less time to be ready for a next shot, and hitting harder would have also robbed her of time to be ready for the next shot. her strokes were longish and werent hit with a great deal of batspeed, werent spinny, and i'm trying to remember if she even possessed a reliable one hander? she had so much time to be ready for a next shot that she really didnt need to have a one hander....so no one hander, not a very good volley, not a very good serve, not fast, her service return wasnt much, etc doesnt spell great athlete to me. i also was suprised to see that her movement up and back was very unremarkable...her movement was side to side..she was a metronome....

by the way, i consider players like Nalbandian as walls as well..certainly wouldnt call players like that pushers

Arafel
03-27-2008, 12:25 PM
have you seen her in her prime in person up close to support your claim? i didnt say she was a pusher..i said she was a wall who hit the ball consistently dep in the court. your use of the word 'trained' is pretty revealing in the context of this thread..supports what i said..she was trained to play tennis..you dont have to be a great athlete to be successful at tennis. also, you said she was learned to play at the best of her skills which also supports my claim...that she isnt a great athlete..she didnt have skills to volley very well, she didnt have a serve, etc...things that athletes would have..i do agree she had great passing shots...but only because she had plenty of time to set up for the reasons i alluded to earlier. she was a slightly more powerful and more disciplined tracy austin who didnt get injured much <unlike austin> that i know of

I saw her play up close and in person at the 82 and 83 US Opens. Earlier, you said opponents had trouble generating pace because she didn't give them anything to work with; that to me is a classic definition of a pusher, which is why I wrote that she wasn't one.

Also, I would say Evert was a very good athlete. First, after Martina went on her dominating run in 83 and 84, Evert retooled her game, beefing up her serve and starting to come in so that Martina couldn't.

Secondly, as far as her game not holding up, at the very end of her career, Evert played Seles, the prototype power player of today's modern basesline bashing clones, and lost in three tight sets.

I think Chris would do just fine. Her serve was never a liability because she didn't let it be one. Think of a player like Elena Dementieva, the double fault queen, who has hovered around the top 10 and made two Grand Slam finals; Evert's serve was certainly more effective than Elena's has been, because Chris just got her serve deep and in so that players couldn't attack her.

NoBadMojo
03-27-2008, 01:47 PM
I saw her play up close and in person at the 82 and 83 US Opens. Earlier, you said opponents had trouble generating pace because she didn't give them anything to work with; that to me is a classic definition of a pusher, which is why I wrote that she wasn't one.

Also, I would say Evert was a very good athlete. First, after Martina went on her dominating run in 83 and 84, Evert retooled her game, beefing up her serve and starting to come in so that Martina couldn't.

Secondly, as far as her game not holding up, at the very end of her career, Evert played Seles, the prototype power player of today's modern basesline bashing clones, and lost in three tight sets.

I think Chris would do just fine. Her serve was never a liability because she didn't let it be one. Think of a player like Elena Dementieva, the double fault queen, who has hovered around the top 10 and made two Grand Slam finals; Evert's serve was certainly more effective than Elena's has been, because Chris just got her serve deep and in so that players couldn't attack her.

said she didnt give them anything to work with because she kept the ball deep and didnt hit it that hard. i didnt call her a pusher...you said i called her a pusher. it's very hard to generate pace off a deeply hit ball which isnt hit that hard using a wooden racquet. i lost to many a guy back in the day who played that style with wood. ;O it's frustrating...not to mention very tiring.

dont think one lost match w. Seles is much of an indicator <she prob frustrated Seles too by making it tough for even her to hit w. power>. I believe the records might show that Navrat had her way w. Evert as their careers progressed once Navrat figured Evert out and got herself into the type of shape it takes to beat someone like that. I guess Navrat is younger but think they had plenty of matchups to make the comparison valid

actually i think Elenas serve is more effective because it's just so bizarre that they dont know what to do with it..Everts serve just sat there and said 'thump me'. <not that many of her opponents could>

i dont remember that Evert really played much regular tour tennis using graphite, except maybe at the end of her regular career? i'm sure one of our historians will know and also maybe look up the head to head vs Navrat in Majors or otherwise

CEvertFan
03-27-2008, 02:02 PM
I saw her play up close and in person at the 82 and 83 US Opens. Earlier, you said opponents had trouble generating pace because she didn't give them anything to work with; that to me is a classic definition of a pusher, which is why I wrote that she wasn't one.

Also, I would say Evert was a very good athlete. First, after Martina went on her dominating run in 83 and 84, Evert retooled her game, beefing up her serve and starting to come in so that Martina couldn't.

Secondly, as far as her game not holding up, at the very end of her career, Evert played Seles, the prototype power player of today's modern basesline bashing clones, and lost in three tight sets.

I think Chris would do just fine. Her serve was never a liability because she didn't let it be one. Think of a player like Elena Dementieva, the double fault queen, who has hovered around the top 10 and made two Grand Slam finals; Evert's serve was certainly more effective than Elena's has been, because Chris just got her serve deep and in so that players couldn't attack her.

Evert lost that 3 set match to Seles at the Virginia Slims of Houston but she beat Seles 6-0, 6-2 later that same year in the 4th round of the US Open and by '89 Evert was way past her prime.

I do agree that Evert was a wall but I don't think I mean it in the way it has been used in this thread, as it was very hard to hit winners against her and she actually hit the ball quite hard for a player of her time using wood especially off the backhand. She was also a decent athlete who possessed a wide variety of shots and unsurpassed anticipation and ball control. Evert's greatest strength was always her mind though as she was so very mentally tough and had great court sense as well as an uncanny ablilty to scope out her opponents' weaknesses and exploit them to the best of her ability.

As for her not being able to hang with power players from the baseline, watch the loooong rallies during her loss to Graf in the AO final of 1988 and her win over Seles at the US Open. I believe she could hang from the baseline with anyone when she was in her prime. She would have a much more difficult time doing so today with all the power though, but then so would Court, Graf, Navratilova or even Seles for that matter.

Arafel
03-27-2008, 04:55 PM
said she didnt give them anything to work with because she kept the ball deep and didnt hit it that hard. i didnt call her a pusher...you said i called her a pusher. it's very hard to generate pace off a deeply hit ball which isnt hit that hard using a wooden racquet. i lost to many a guy back in the day who played that style with wood. ;O it's frustrating...not to mention very tiring.

dont think one lost match w. Seles is much of an indicator <she prob frustrated Seles too by making it tough for even her to hit w. power>. I believe the records might show that Navrat had her way w. Evert as their careers progressed once Navrat figured Evert out and got herself into the type of shape it takes to beat someone like that. I guess Navrat is younger but think they had plenty of matchups to make the comparison valid

actually i think Elenas serve is more effective because it's just so bizarre that they dont know what to do with it..Everts serve just sat there and said 'thump me'. <not that many of her opponents could>

i dont remember that Evert really played much regular tour tennis using graphite, except maybe at the end of her regular career? i'm sure one of our historians will know and also maybe look up the head to head vs Navrat in Majors or otherwise

Evert vs. Martina head to head ended 43-37 in Navratilova's favor. Martina at one point between 83-84 won 13 straight against Evert, but Evert broke that chokehold in 85, then beat Martina again at the French and had a chance to reclaim the no. 1 ranking.

I just looked it up; after Evert beat Navratilova in the finals of the 82 Australian on grass, Martina won 13 straight, going through the 84 US Open (an outstanding match, BTW). Chris won at Key Biscayne in 85, lost two more, then beat Martin in three at the French, then lost in the finals in 3 at Wimbledon and Australia. Between 86 and 88, they played 13 more times, and Chris won 5 of those matches, including the 88 Australian semis. I'd hardly call that "having her way."

In addition, you may not have called Chris a pusher, but you did imply she didn't hit it hard, which is wrong. Chris hit with as much pace as anyone on the tour at the time. I don't think she would have any trouble adjusting the the pace of today's game.

NoBadMojo
03-27-2008, 05:48 PM
Evert vs. Martina head to head ended 43-37 in Navratilova's favor. Martina at one point between 83-84 won 13 straight against Evert, but Evert broke that chokehold in 85, then beat Martina again at the French and had a chance to reclaim the no. 1 ranking.

I just looked it up; after Evert beat Navratilova in the finals of the 82 Australian on grass, Martina won 13 straight, going through the 84 US Open (an outstanding match, BTW). Chris won at Key Biscayne in 85, lost two more, then beat Martin in three at the French, then lost in the finals in 3 at Wimbledon and Australia. Between 86 and 88, they played 13 more times, and Chris won 5 of those matches, including the 88 Australian semis. I'd hardly call that "having her way."

In addition, you may not have called Chris a pusher, but you did imply she didn't hit it hard, which is wrong. Chris hit with as much pace as anyone on the tour at the time. I don't think she would have any trouble adjusting the the pace of today's game.

in contrast, her head to head vs Navrat in the finals of Majors is something like 4-10, and 3 of those W's were at the French, and one was way back in 74.. Seems to indicate to me that she just didnt fare so well when she played Navrat in the finals of majors. i think that stat is revealing. dont know how many other times they met at majors.

i disagree...i dont think Evert would fare so well at the pace of todays game (her feet and hands simply werent fast enough as she really isnt such a good athlete), and there is no need to keep dragging along the pusher thing <which i never said and which you wont stop bringing up>

ps. i agree with whoever said her BH was the better side in all respects.

Arafel
03-27-2008, 06:32 PM
in contrast, her head to head vs Navrat in the finals of Majors is something like 4-10, and 3 of those W's were at the French, and one was way back in 74.. Seems to indicate to me that she just didnt fare so well when she played Navrat in the finals of majors. i think that stat is revealing. dont know how many other times they met at majors.

i disagree...i dont think Evert would fare so well at the pace of todays game (her feet and hands simply werent fast enough as she really isnt such a good athlete), and there is no need to keep dragging along the pusher thing <which i never said and which you wont stop bringing up>

ps. i agree with whoever said her BH was the better side in all respects.

Yes, they played 14 times in the finals of Grand Slams. Evert went 3-1 vs. Martina at the French, 1-2 (on grass) at the Aussie, 0-5 at Wimbledon and 0-2 at the US. At Wimbledon, Martina had as big an advantage over Evert as Evert had over Martina at the French. I'd also point out that of those 4 Wimbledon, 2 Australians and 2 US Opens that Martina beat Chris in, 6 went three sets (78, 82, 85 Wimbledons, 84 US, and 81 and 85 Australians). Likewise, Chris' three French and 1 Australian went three sets. These were close matches.

NoBadMojo
03-27-2008, 07:14 PM
Yes, they played 14 times in the finals of Grand Slams. Evert went 3-1 vs. Martina at the French, 1-2 (on grass) at the Aussie, 0-5 at Wimbledon and 0-2 at the US. At Wimbledon, Martina had as big an advantage over Evert as Evert had over Martina at the French. I'd also point out that of those 4 Wimbledon, 2 Australians and 2 US Opens that Martina beat Chris in, 6 went three sets (78, 82, 85 Wimbledons, 84 US, and 81 and 85 Australians). Likewise, Chris' three French and 1 Australian went three sets. These were close matches.

thanks for dropping the pusher thing.

the martina chris matchups were always interesting matches because of the contrasting styles i think. i think tennis needs more of those. on the mens side sampras/agassi

now the wta and atp seems to be 95% power baseliners.....many of the players are pretty much interchangeable.

i havent really watched much womens tennis in recent years because of the sameness and screaming and lack of variety. in that respect, i do think Evert was as athletic or more athletic than some of the trained players of today. i just wouldnt put her near the top in that respect, but her record speaks for itself

Arafel
03-27-2008, 07:44 PM
thanks for dropping the pusher thing.

the martina chris matchups were always interesting matches because of the contrasting styles i think. i think tennis needs more of those. on the mens side sampras/agassi

now the wta and atp seems to be 95% power baseliners.....many of the players are pretty much interchangeable.

i havent really watched much womens tennis in recent years because of the sameness and screaming and lack of variety. in that respect, i do think Evert was as athletic or more athletic than some of the trained players of today. i just wouldnt put her near the top in that respect, but her record speaks for itself

Right on. I started following tennis in 1980. I had started playing at the beginning of the summer, and the first televised match I got to see was the Borg-McEnroe Wimbledon final, and I was completely hooked.

I'd like to see more contrasting styles (Evert vs. Navratilova, Borg-Connors, Borg-McEnroe, McEnroe-Connors, Sampras-Agassi) and more colorful personalities as well. They should end the surface homogenization that threatens to ruin the game.

NLBwell
03-27-2008, 09:07 PM
Way too much emphasis on her playing in the wood era. Though she kept her wood racket for quite a while, most competitors were playing with graphite from around 1980 on. She beat Martina many times while Martina was playing with graphite. Chris did switch to graphite because she was getting beaten consistently by Martina but was able to compete with and beat her as well as Seles and Graf to near the end of her career. Unless you think Navratilova, Seles, and Graf could not compete these days, you would have to admit that Evert would be a top player.

CEvertFan
03-27-2008, 10:13 PM
Way too much emphasis on her playing in the wood era. Though she kept her wood racket for quite a while, most competitors were playing with graphite from around 1980 on. She beat Martina many times while Martina was playing with graphite. Chris did switch to graphite because she was getting beaten consistently by Martina but was able to compete with and beat her as well as Seles and Graf to near the end of her career. Unless you think Navratilova, Seles, and Graf could not compete these days, you would have to admit that Evert would be a top player.

Just to clarify, Evert last beat Graf in '86 and retired in '89. They played one another 14 times and Chris won the first 6 and Graf won the last 8 as she took over the women's game. Evert did take Graf to three sets in '89 in Boca Raton on clay though.

Also, Evert played with wood until the end of '83 when she switched to graphite, almost won the '84 US Open over Martina and finally broke the 13 match losing streak against Navratilova in the Virginia Slims of Florida early in '85 and then won the French over Martina and regained the #1 ranking for the first time in 3 years and if she had beaten Navratilova at the '85 Australian Open (which used to be the last Slam played in Dec) she would have clinched the year end #1 ranking but she lost in 3 sets.

JW10S
03-27-2008, 10:37 PM
The drill mentioned in the OP has become, with slight variations, a standard drill on the practice courts of every tournament on the circuit.