Papa's shifting triangles - Please expand - Page 9

papa · 03-05-2011, 05:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by julian

Papa,
Please make 2 corresponding drawings to see that one triangle is bigger.

No, I'm not going to do that because it doesn't make a heck of a lot of sense - your coming to conclusions based on line diagrams that IMO, are not well founded or applicable for the average club player. Of course the closer you get to the apex of any triangle, the more you can cover - so what? Do you think that in professional tennis, players stand eight or ten feet behind the service line, when receiving serve, just for fun? They stand there, knowing that they are not going to be able to cover as much of the service cone, but realize that they need the reaction time. If you let any good player hit a ball from or inside the baseline and your hanging right at net, my contention is that you'll get beaten more than you'll win. The ball has to be hit right at the net person and even at that, they have to have good, soft hands - the reaction time on a screamer is nil.

As I mentioned in a previous post, when playing net, we're not hockey goal tenders trying to block a fixed, relatively small vertical goal. I don't know the exact figures on this, maybe I should but I don't, as to what percentages of shots in hockey are either caught, deflected or smothered by the goaltender - I suspect its very high.

Louis Cayer's book, reinforces my ongoing contention that skilled players look at the court very differently than most players in this sport. I throughly agree with this. However, realizing I've only now gone through "poaching skills" (roughly 20 -25% of the book), I see so many things that are just not applicable to the average or even advanced club play. Have I seen some of these play, yes, of course but to expect the club player to pull them off is very questionable.

For instance, how many club players have the footwork/speed and shots to execute a wide serve poach where the net man breaks to the middle and the server covers the alley? This is professional type advice requiring very skilled, conditioned athletes. What do you normally see? Net person generally is pretty well grounded, might poach but not likely, seldom changes position, not totally comfortable with the volley, has no idea what to do if the ball comes in their direction, etc.

I think this might, in a nutshell, showcase what's wrong with a great deal of instruction these days. I want to emphasis that I have NOT read the entire book yet.

We're trying to show players things that aren't realistic or applicable to their level of play. Very few players IMO are playing at the level where this advice is relevant. If you have a long standing partnership and play tournament tennis, you might want to investigate these plays. What percentage of player fit this category? A very small percentage and guess what, they aren't taking lessons. They might be coached (most don't even have that) but their not taking lessons as most who read these boards are familiar with.

Maybe some of this is applicable to college tennis but I certainly wouldn't teach it to most HS players. Some yes, but not many.

So, my bottom line so far is, that if your a pro and want/think your going to introduce some of this to the folks that pay your way, you might consider really modifying it or check to see if you have a wealthy uncle somewhere who will support you. Expecting most players to adopt some of these plays is, IMO, aiming way too high. If we have players who can't hit a consistent ground stroke or volley, what brings us to the conclusion they can run these wet noodle patterns or even remember them.

5263 · 03-05-2011, 05:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by papa

OK, lets take a look at this. Taking a quick glace back as the ball passes is something many of us actually do. However, standing at net and watching partner strike the ball is, IMO, just asking for trouble.

Well said here, I get your point better from this.

5263 · 03-05-2011, 06:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by papa

Do you think that in professional tennis, players stand eight or ten feet behind the service line, when receiving serve, just for fun? They stand there, knowing that they are not going to be able to cover as much of the service cone, but realize that they need the reaction time.

You mean baseline instead of svc line here right?

papa · 03-05-2011, 06:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by larry10s

yes papa your way is different
his method was for doubles you have tne 2 alleys the middle and over both net players as spaces to target. he wanted you to see the spaces as targets not the players

OK. The players (opponent(s)) certainly define/determine where these target areas are along with the size. I don't want anyone thinking that I'm advocating that the opponent is the target. Sure, in cases its appropriate depending on the level of play. Teaching players do this as a routine tactic at the club level "probably" will get you your walking papers. Lets not make any mistake about it, a tennis ball can (potential), will and has hurt many players. Many others are leery of taking certain positions on court because they don't care to become targets which is unfortunate. I think the code and rules are clear on this subject and its probably not necessary to expand on the subject very much.

If another player (opponent(s)) is deliberately head hunting, they should be specifically warned that is inappropriate behavior. If they fail to heed the advice, I think we all have our ways to curb the behavior flaw.

papa · 03-05-2011, 06:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 5263

You mean baseline instead of svc line here right?

Yes, your correct - sorry.

5263 · 03-05-2011, 06:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by papa

Louis Cayer's book, reinforces my ongoing contention that skilled players look at the court very differently than most players in this sport. I throughly agree with this. However, realizing I've only now gone through "poaching skills" (roughly 20 -25% of the book), I see so many things that are just not applicable to the average or even advanced club play. Have I seen some of these play, yes, of course but to expect the club player to pull them off is very questionable.

I expect if someone is looking at Cayer, or often when taking lessons for that matter, they are looking to explore some more advanced plays. It is up to the instructor to find the appropriate level of instruction. Sounds like your work will be helpful with this goal.

papa · 03-05-2011, 08:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 5263

I expect if someone is looking a Cayer, or often when taking lessons for that matter, they are looking to explore some more advanced plays. It is up to the instructor to find the appropriate level of instruction. Sounds like your work will be helpful with this goal.

Yes and I agree with your assessment.

03-05-2011, 09:46 AM

Sorry, Papa, I disagree again. Unless you are teaching 65 and over, players should be taught that.
The opponents are not the Bryan bros, but people of the same level.
I will make a statement that will get many angry here.
Oscar Wegner does not treat club players like mummies; he gives them the same tools that professionals have. And I stand by this.
I am writing all your arguments, and will (as a personal test) put at work what it is said to be "reserved to higher powers".
If I get hit or hurt, I will let you know.
Have a great week-end, everybody!!

larry10s · 03-05-2011, 11:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by papa

No, I'm not going to do that because it doesn't make a heck of a lot of sense - your coming to conclusions based on line diagrams that IMO, are not well founded or applicable for the average club player. Of course the closer you get to the apex of any triangle, the more you can cover - so what? Do you think that in professional tennis, players stand eight or ten feet behind the service line, when receiving serve, just for fun? They stand there, knowing that they are not going to be able to cover as much of the service cone, but realize that they need the reaction time. If you let any good player hit a ball from or inside the baseline and your hanging right at net, my contention is that you'll get beaten more than you'll win. The ball has to be hit right at the net person and even at that, they have to have good, soft hands - the reaction time on a screamer is nil.

As I mentioned in a previous post, when playing net, we're not hockey goal tenders trying to block a fixed, relatively small vertical goal. I don't know the exact figures on this, maybe I should but I don't, as to what percentages of shots in hockey are either caught, deflected or smothered by the goaltender - I suspect its very high.

Louis Cayer's book, reinforces my ongoing contention that skilled players look at the court very differently than most players in this sport. I throughly agree with this. However, realizing I've only now gone through "poaching skills" (roughly 20 -25% of the book), I see so many things that are just not applicable to the average or even advanced club play. Have I seen some of these play, yes, of course but to expect the club player to pull them off is very questionable.

For instance, how many club players have the footwork/speed and shots to execute a wide serve poach where the net man breaks to the middle and the server covers the alley? This is professional type advice requiring very skilled, conditioned athletes. What do you normally see? Net person generally is pretty well grounded, might poach but not likely, seldom changes position, not totally comfortable with the volley, has no idea what to do if the ball comes in their direction, etc.

I think this might, in a nutshell, showcase what's wrong with a great deal of instruction these days. I want to emphasis that I have NOT read the entire book yet.

We're trying to show players things that aren't realistic or applicable to their level of play. Very few players IMO are playing at the level where this advice is relevant. If you have a long standing partnership and play tournament tennis, you might want to investigate these plays. What percentage of player fit this category? A very small percentage and guess what, they aren't taking lessons. They might be coached (most don't even have that) but their not taking lessons as most who read these boards are familiar with.

Maybe some of this is applicable to college tennis but I certainly wouldn't teach it to most HS players. Some yes, but not many.

So, my bottom line so far is, that if your a pro and want/think your going to introduce some of this to the folks that pay your way, you might consider really modifying it or check to see if you have a wealthy uncle somewhere who will support you. Expecting most players to adopt some of these plays is, IMO, aiming way too high. If we have players who can't hit a consistent ground stroke or volley, what brings us to the conclusion they can run these wet noodle patterns or even remember them.

pap im 57 and have to disagree
im playing 9-10 years and am a dedicated student of the game
ive taken lessons from the beginning and from the beginning wanted to learn "the right way"
so it was coninental grip for serves volleys and overheads from the beginning
even when i was 3.0-3.5 i wanted to try hand signals ,I formation,australian stuff in doubles but didnt always have partners the were agreeable.
the last 2 years or so ive gotten into a 4.0-4.5/5.0 group (im 4.0 ish)
and the 4.5 guys for sure all use hand signals with me.
both when i serve and when they serve. and they will humor me when i want to go to the I formation on there serve.
many of my fellow 4.0s will also use hand signals and try I formation
our 4.0 and 4.5 USTA team gets to regionals and state quite often
so it is doable at the "club level"
if its not introduced from the beginning it makes longer to "get it"

ive had teaching pros tell me not to try a sharp angled "dipper" or angled volley. just hit the ball in the middle because you are just a club player and that shot is too advanced. i stopped taking lessons from those people

yes you will hit down the middle most of the time but if i didnt practice and be allowed to fail in my lesson i wouldnt be able to hit the angled dipper and angled volleys now

maybe im not your typical student

papa · 03-05-2011, 11:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eliza

Sorry, Papa, I disagree again. Unless you are teaching 65 and over, players should be taught that.
The opponents are not the Bryan bros, but people of the same level.
I will make a statement that will get many angry here.
Oscar Wegner does not treat club players like mummies; he gives them the same tools that professionals have. And I stand by this.
I am writing all your arguments, and will (as a personal test) put at work what it is said to be "reserved to higher powers".
If I get hit or hurt, I will let you know.
Have a great week-end, everybody!!

OK, that's why this forum is here so everyone can voice their individual opinions - I certainly have no problems with that.

The position I take is something like this. If you have a couple of players taking a class and say one is a 3.5 (which up to and including that level probably represents a very high percentage of players) and a 5.5 player (which probably represents less than 1% of players or less). Would you expect them both to be taught the same thing using the same approach? Do you think that both would get the same out of the session? Would you expect both to be able to execute the same shots at the same pace for the same period of time?

Its not a matter of holding back information which will enable the player to develop. Its trying to make it relevant to their skill levels so they can understand and improve. I've been around coaches when they have been working with pros - other than being entertained and probably impressed, I don't think you would get much out of the session because they are focusing on very tiny aspects of the players game.

So, I'd delighted you want to improve but I'd be disappointed to learn that you became frustrated/injured because of the demands of a coach simply because you simply are unable, because of age, conditioning or skill, to perform at a level significantly higher than possible.

If you think you have the tools, go for it - I'm not trying to hold anyone back.

5263 · 03-05-2011, 11:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by larry10s

maybe im not your typical student

Not that papa needs my defense, but last statement is the key and explains the difference in what papa is saying.

Congrats on things you are doing and learning

papa · 03-05-2011, 12:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by larry10s

pap im 57 and have to disagree
im playing 9-10 years and am a dedicated student of the game
ive taken lessons from the beginning and from the beginning wanted to learn "the right way"
so it was coninental grip for serves volleys and overheads from the beginning
even when i was 3.0-3.5 i wanted to try hand signals ,I formation,australian stuff in doubles but didnt always have partners the were agreeable.
the last 2 years or so ive gotten into a 4.0-4.5/5.0 group (im 4.0 ish)
and the 4.5 guys for sure all use hand signals with me.
both when i serve and when they serve. and they will humor me when i want to go to the I formation on there serve.
many of my fellow 4.0s will also use hand signals and try I formation
our 4.0 and 4.5 USTA team gets to regionals and state quite often
so it is doable at the "club level"
if its not introduced from the beginning it makes longer to "get it"

ive had teaching pros tell me not to try a sharp angled "dipper" or angled volley. just hit the ball in the middle because you are just a club player and that shot is too advanced. i stopped taking lessons from those people

yes you will hit down the middle most of the time but if i didnt practice and be allowed to fail in my lesson i wouldnt be able to hit the angled dipper and angled volleys now

maybe im not your typical student

Look, if you can do this stuff at a higher level, go for it as I've said before. I'm not trying to hold anyone back from anything. I don't teach or suggest you go for the conservative approach all the time. If you can poach like Cayer suggests without injuring yourself or partner, than by all means go for it.

I do know players like yourself, that seem capable of doing this stuff but they don't represent a high percentage of club players - most move onto tournament play.

In reading further into Cayer's book (Part ll Serving Team), I couldn't help but be impressed with the first paragraph which emphases "training" as a doubles team. It say "They must play hundreds of matches or be involved in a systematic training environment that accelerates their learning of doubles patterns."

If this is available to you and you've had that type of exposure than it sounds like you might be ready to attempt these moves on a regular basis. I don't think most club players are in this category. Maybe your area is different or your club has exceptional players - don't know.

He also says in the Preface, "this book is geared toward advanced doubles performance". To me that means tournament players - teams at the 9.0 or open category.

So, it boils down to this, are you being taught these advanced skills and are you specifically training as a doubles team? If you are, I wish you continued success.

papa · 03-05-2011, 12:23 PM

Look, I'm not trying to pick a fight with anyone here or hold anything back - here or anywhere else, that's just not my style. However, when I see the questions being asked in this forum and see some of the responses, I've come to the conclusion that most participants are not advanced players. Blame it on whatever you like but that's my opinion.

larry10s · 03-05-2011, 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by papa

Look, I'm not trying to pick a fight with anyone here or hold anything back - here or anywhere else, that's just not my style. However, when I see the questions being asked in this forum and see some of the responses, I've come to the conclusion that most participants are not advanced players. Blame it on whatever you like but that's my opinion.

papa
you are correct most of the posters are not advanced players but want to be
imo
at 4.0 im not an advanced player either
most of the questions are not the type an advanced player would ask
they have already found those answers
many here have alot of book knowledge and share it
some such as yourself are truly a professional who is willing to give up his time, knowledge and experience for FREE

i hope i have not added to any other posters to whom you feel offended or defensive
i for sure am not looking to pick or to fight

i enjoy reading your posts and have learned alot
you get me thinking
thats a good thing
i also think its a good thing to hear about the experiences of others
we can agree or agree to disagree
thats not fighting

03-05-2011, 03:27 PM

And I am not interested in a fight, neither. However, I believe that the assumption that there are two kinds of tennis, one for the lay person, one for the true player, is false. Moreover, it destroys players.
I learned about I formation and diagonal switches when I was a 2.5. We had an "historical"night, when our then captain and her partner (2.5s!!!!!) were attacking the net, together, with the same confidence of a professional. The pace/spin must have been very different from a top 10, but they looked just like them.
I mean no disrespect, but tennis is not that difficult. Maybe I am not the common tennis student, but I do not see (and as said before, I will test this on myself) why I should not be taught the very same things as a 5.5.

larry10s · 03-05-2011, 03:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eliza

And I am not interested in a fight, neither. However, I believe that the assumption that there are two kinds of tennis, one for the lay person, one for the true player, is false. Moreover, it destroys players.
I learned about I formation and diagonal switches when I was a 2.5. We had an "historical"night, when our then captain and her partner (2.5s!!!!!) were attacking the net, together, with the same confidence of a professional. The pace/spin must have been very different from a top 10, but they looked just like them.
I mean no disrespect, but tennis is not that difficult. Maybe I am not the common tennis student, but I do not see (and as said before, I will test this on myself) why I should not be taught the very same things as a 5.5.

i only disagree that tennis is a difficult sport

papa · 03-05-2011, 04:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eliza

And I am not interested in a fight, neither. However, I believe that the assumption that there are two kinds of tennis, one for the lay person, one for the true player, is false. Moreover, it destroys players.
I learned about I formation and diagonal switches when I was a 2.5. We had an "historical"night, when our then captain and her partner (2.5s!!!!!) were attacking the net, together, with the same confidence of a professional. The pace/spin must have been very different from a top 10, but they looked just like them.
I mean no disrespect, but tennis is not that difficult. Maybe I am not the common tennis student, but I do not see (and as said before, I will test this on myself) why I should not be taught the very same things as a 5.5.

OK, you've made some good points. I've never said there are "two types of tennis". What I've said is that there are many factors to take into consideration and that conditioning, footwork and skill level are significant. I have never labeled anyone as a "common tennis student" - if you knew me you wouldn't come to that conclusion.

Now, as far as the example I asked you about, do you honestly think a 5.5 player would need/get the same level of instruction as a 3.5? With a 5.5 you might spend significant time on just being able to get the service toss a inch or two this way or that way or reducing/increasing the number of rotations of the toss by a few. You might spend thirty minutes on drills that would exhaust most players in a fraction of the time. You'd be trying to get the serve into not only one side of the box but having a shot configuation of thirty balls in a hula-hoop sized area. You might be hitting 50 or more ball, machine gun style, as the player was at net. And it goes on and on.

I'm not trying to be critical of you or anyone else playing style or ability - I'm just trying to be realistic.