Papa's shifting triangles - Please expand
- Thread starter bukaeast
- Start date
5263
G.O.A.T.
Papa isn't the only one playing with triangles!!!
Cheers
Ash
so this approach does not show staying in front of the ball with shading to the side away from the partners side?
In both pics, the net man is over playing to the side of his partner, putting them in I formation, covering essentially the same areas, right?
My material is quite different than this. I'm not sure what this is from but it looks like its probably more of a cone of coverage for someone playing net in these two positions. In a way it is relevant but I'm more interested in what opportunities are "available" to the net person as well as those options the baseliner might entertain.
Without additional information, I would have to assume the baseliner is driving a hard volley at the net person - not necessarily a very smart decision but it depends on circumstances involved. Also, positioning yourself this close to net in both diagrams leaves too many options available for the player making the ground stroke - although I might suggest going right at them on occasion, I think more than likely a passing shot or offensive lob would be the better option. However, I'm not sure what the diagram is intended to show so I don't want to be too critical.
Trying to drive the ball through someone works on occasion but more often than not, your going to lose - all the net player has to do is angle the ball off in either direction for the easy point. In most instances, they (net person) is not going to give you another bite of the apple.
5263
G.O.A.T.
I understand, and intended the question for ash really.
I'm assuming you are holding back the details of your info for your presentations.
Although I still haven't received Cayer book from Amazon, I did receive a booklet entitled "Technique: development effectiveness in tennis" written by Louis Cayer & Wayne Elderton in December 2008 - this was written "after" the book I ordered.
Although I don't take issue with anything in the material presented, I don't see any reference to triangles. Seems like a re-working of System Five but again maybe/probably I don't have the complete version.
However it does state "1) DETERMINING FACTORS: There are two factors that determine the direction of the ball. When receiving a slower ball the horizontal angle of the racquet face at impact determines the direction of the ball. When receiving a faster ball, the angle of incidence and reflection also comes into play." Certainly can't disagree with either factor here. Although I did read the entire thing, it seemed to be about spin, trajectory, pace, etc. I would agree these are all critical factors.
Although I don't take issue with anything in the material presented, I don't see any reference to triangles. Seems like a re-working of System Five but again maybe/probably I don't have the complete version.
However it does state "1) DETERMINING FACTORS: There are two factors that determine the direction of the ball. When receiving a slower ball the horizontal angle of the racquet face at impact determines the direction of the ball. When receiving a faster ball, the angle of incidence and reflection also comes into play." Certainly can't disagree with either factor here. Although I did read the entire thing, it seemed to be about spin, trajectory, pace, etc. I would agree these are all critical factors.
5263
G.O.A.T.
To be clear, you don't plan to put the full description of your triangles on here, right?
I've tried to answer all questions relating to it to the best of my ability and I've also indicated it would be made available in full when completed. I didn't start this thread, have no idea why it was started, never encouraged anyone to start it and have just tried to respond accordingly. I have conducted quite a few clinics about it and possibly someone who attended is also part of this forum - don't know. All I can tell you is that I didn't have any part of the process and quite frankly would have preferred waiting a while longer because of a couple of commitments I've already made. Additionally, one posters, who I very much respect, has brought information to me that I'm attempting to check out. So, I'm doing my best.
Its a system that I'm encouraging everyone to use, especially instructors like yourself. The bottom line is that I'm attempting to have newer or intermediate players see the court like more experienced players see it. You, at times, have mentioned you individual frustrations with some of the methods used in teaching the game - many of us associated with major teaching organizations want to make the game easier to understand, eliminate roadblock to player development, make the game more attractive to a greater audience and make it more fun to play and participate.
It would be rather difficult posting the full content on this forum because it, although not difficult to understand, does have a lot of diagrams and pictures in addition to everything else. Some of the pictures and diagrams illustrate how to make up the on-court equipment (fairly inexpensive and readily available to everyone at places like Lowes and Home Depot), how to set it up on-court (probably takes under five minutes by one person and doesn't in any way damage either the court or other equipment), typical on-court situations and how to quickly set them up (endless varieties that can be illustrated on-court), practice/training methods so students can get the feel of seeing/hitting into the court in different ways, credits to the people who have helped and so forth.
If I have sounded rude or quick in some of my posts, I'm sorry.
5263
G.O.A.T.
You have not sounded rude or quick and have been as helpful as you could I'm sure.
I sure hope I didn't come off critical, but was just trying to be sure of your position on this.
I had been asked what I thought of your triangles via emails and I had answered that I couldn't say, as I don't know where they are yet. I do look forward to when you diagrams become available.
cheers
Last edited:
salsainglesa
Semi-Pro
you should take the amount of time the ball takes from the contact point to the bounce and into the other players racket into account with your triangles... a high bouncing ball will be easier to get to no matter where it bounces on the court. Just sayin'
OK, thanks 5263. You and I have often shared positions on a variety of tennis topics over the years although we represent different groups which have not always seen eye to eye. I have always enjoyed your posts, found them helpful/accurate and in my opinion, well thought out & presented. Yes, we probably have disagreed on occasion but that's what makes this forum what it is.
Certain subjects and individuals seem to galvanize this forum and I think you have presented your positions and made clear/reasonable arguments in support of those positions. I happen to think that speaks well for the type of individual you are and the organization you represent.
When my material is ready, I will not forget you and several others who have helped along the way.
Yes, good point salsainglesa. I do, because the reaction time any player has, determines to a great extent the amount of space they can effectively cover so their triangles on any particular shot might be significantly larger. That's not totally true for some that might not move but basically, as you realize fully, you and I can cover/defend more territory if we're given more time, but of course the opposite is also true.
A minor point
Papa,
FYI:
Drawings above (post #19) are explained/commented by a text sorounding Figs 2.3 and 2.6 of the book by Cayer.
A scenario is like that:
A player at the bottom (called a server) agrees with his partner a location of a serve.
A server partner has two extreme locations drawn.
From your point of view a triangle approach by Cayer predicts "limit of a territory" a server partner is responsible for.
A minor point here is that your approach should produce a very similar result/area a server partner is responsible for
(I assume that you address both offense and defense).
Therefore is it worth understanding what Cayer predicts.
Obviouslly a server is responsible for everything outside of a territory of a server partner.
It may dictate what a server will do if a ball is NOT intercepted by a server partner.
BTW:I am repeating myself a bit but I am afraid that this point got lost in traffic.
If you address offense ONLY I goofed.
Papa,
FYI:
Drawings above (post #19) are explained/commented by a text sorounding Figs 2.3 and 2.6 of the book by Cayer.
A scenario is like that:
A player at the bottom (called a server) agrees with his partner a location of a serve.
A server partner has two extreme locations drawn.
From your point of view a triangle approach by Cayer predicts "limit of a territory" a server partner is responsible for.
A minor point here is that your approach should produce a very similar result/area a server partner is responsible for
(I assume that you address both offense and defense).
Therefore is it worth understanding what Cayer predicts.
Obviouslly a server is responsible for everything outside of a territory of a server partner.
It may dictate what a server will do if a ball is NOT intercepted by a server partner.
BTW:I am repeating myself a bit but I am afraid that this point got lost in traffic.
If you address offense ONLY I goofed.
Last edited:
5263
G.O.A.T.
Let me ask the dumb question, haha,
Why a triangle? Can't a person cover each direction pretty equal, giving you more of a circle of coverage from the radius?
Yes, moving back may be slower, but you also have more time for deeper shots, which should balance this out to some extent.
thanks,
I started this thread because you mentioned the shifting triangles in another thread. I thought that I could benefit from learning about them. After following this thread and seeing the more advanced discussions of the theories implied. I still do not "get it" at a basic level yet. I do think that I would benefit from this.
I didn't know that the concept was not ready for general release and am sorry if I compromised your plans for the teaching concept. I would like to take a lesson or learn about this from someone who learned it from you when that is appropriate. After you give your demonstrations in the New England area this year, if you have released this to anyone around the Albany, NY area, please let me know about them. You or they can private e-mail me
at pjpeter at aol dot com
Sorry for any inconvenience, but it did seem to generate a lot of interest and discussion that seemed fruitful.
A last thought:
Please don't hold off releasing this until it is completely perfect,as it may never reach that state... and we need it out here.
Ash_Smith
Legend
nope, it's server on the deuce side, I just haven't marked the server in that version of the diagram. It illustrates the positioning and movement pattern of the server partner in relation to the contact point of the return.
For the ad side, just reverse the image.
Ash
Last edited:
OK. Yes, I know what a scenario is but the page I saw had no writing or other information on so it would have been inappropriate for me to speculate what it really was/is. Sure I can guess and I "apparently" was right although I thought it was singles based on where the ball is hit from and the net person. If this is part of a doubles scenario, why aren't the other players shown?
Zones of coverage are important but this can be very misleading because it seems to assume (guessing again) that the net person can adequately cover this area and more importantly it implies that this is correct positioning - I would debate both issues. We've all seen this type of diagram for years but I don't think its instructive or provides the reader with anything useful. I'm more interested in positioning of the net person and what are his options/opportunities if they are able to play the ball.
In other words, lets assume for a second the two diagrams that were posted (apparently Cayer's?) represent an actual situation and that for whatever reason the net person finds themselves as pictured. Assuming this (I have already questioned why the net person is where they are), I want to show that net person what opportunities they now have for their play to beat the individual who is at the apex of the triangle in the diagram. I think you would have to agree that they (net person) is probably not going to get two bites in this situation so they better not just tap the ball back.
Is one way better than another? What are the percentage changes of one way vs another? Was it a backhand, forehand, overhead? Was the net person tall, short, able to move,etc? How much pace or spin are we talking about? Where was partner positioned (if doubles) and where was baseliners partner?
Seems to me that this diagram shows what the net person "probably" can cover on a normal groundstroke from the baseline. It doesn't provide the information the net person needs to play the ball smartly or take advantage of percentages - if you want to refer to that as what someone predicts will happen, I don't quarrel with that. I just like to show the player where the opportunity is when you might be in the formation shown.
Checked with Amazon, book was ordered on the 19th of Feb and shipped on the 20th so it should be here shortly - better be because I have to leave in a couple of weeks for the start of HS practice.
No question is dumb, especially one coming from you. Circle coverage targets have been used for years, as you know. Yes they work to an extent but the triangle concept provides more of a directional approach as compared to one shot.
Like to talk more but I have clinics and classes all day - have to run.
Some minor points
Figures of post #19 are a bit different than 2.3 and 2.6 of the book.
A difference creates some problems in communication between us.
I will explain after arrival of the book.
Thank you for your response.
FYI:
Figures of post #19 are a bit different than 2.3 and 2.6 of the book.
A difference creates some problems in communication between us.
I will explain after arrival of the book.
Thank you for your response.
Last edited:
5263
G.O.A.T.
Not trying to make a big issue of this, but just trying to get on the same page with you here. I'm not questioning that you know you stuff.
Server is deuce side as u say, which is to the right in the second diagram.
Partner moves to the center of court
,with a contact pt on the left side of the center hash.
How does server to right, partner to middle, and contact point to left not put the server and his partner on the same side of the contact point, with the partner also having some momentum towards the right (server side) as well?
In the 1st diagram it's more understandable due to the wide serve.
I guess I can only speak for myself as to how I enjoy it as a returner, when net players choose to cover as depicted. It may work well against many returners, cause I do get to see it quite often for about a half a set, before adjustments are made.
I started this thread because you mentioned the shifting triangles in another thread. I thought that I could benefit from learning about them. After following this thread and seeing the more advanced discussions of the theories implied. I still do not "get it" at a basic level yet. I do think that I would benefit from this.
I didn't know that the concept was not ready for general release and am sorry if I compromised your plans for the teaching concept. I would like to take a lesson or learn about this from someone who learned it from you when that is appropriate. After you give your demonstrations in the New England area this year, if you have released this to anyone around the Albany, NY area, please let me know about them. You or they can private e-mail me
at pjpeter at aol dot com
Sorry for any inconvenience, but it did seem to generate a lot of interest and discussion that seemed fruitful.
A last thought:
Please don't hold off releasing this until it is completely perfect,as it may never reach that state... and we need it out here.
OK, and thanks for the comments. Long day - I can't imagine how many balls I fed today but I know it was a lot but in addition, it was hot here but starting to cool a little now.
Forget the inconvenience, if I mentioned it, its my own doing. I now know a couple of the players who frequent this forum and any reference could have involved them. In regards to your original post, more than anything, I didn't want anyone thinking this whole thing has been self-serving on my part. I have no idea who you are and you probably don't know me either, at least yet.
I know where Albany is, (Capitol of NY?) but have only been there once when I was a best man in a wedding. Was a fairly new Army officer attached to an airborne division at Ft. Benning, GA. Arrived an hour before the wedding which was at night and the groom, also an Army officer was stationed in VA - he met me at the airport but we got totally lost trying to find the church. Marriage didn't last very long.
So, who knows, maybe I'll get to see Albany again.
Yes there is but if we're just putting the setup on one side of the net, that point would be blunted (top part of triangle would be cut off that extends to where the ball is coming from) and we would have two pivot points. However, depending on the players mobility and skill set (or the group your working with) those two pivot points are further back from the net and almost come together and the triangle for all practical purposes. In other words, the higher the skill set of the receiver, the bigger the triangle becomes because they can cover/defend more territory.
Now, as far as the question of where the receiver is in their triangle - centered or not centered. Most players, even up and including very very good players, tend to favor or are a spec more comfortable on one side vs the other. Of course, at lower levels of the game this difference can be quite significant so the player is seldom in the middle. As you know, the backhand is generally the weaker side so the receiver knowingly would favor that side.
Lets back up a minute here. Every server, regardless of skill, can hit the "T" occasionally as well as being able to hit the outside of the service box (singles line) at the halfway point. In the pro game these two points would represent a spot on the triangle that most receivers are prepared to cover - so the lines of the triangle start where the ball is struck and extend through those two points in straight lines - I know that these are not always straight but for the purposes of this discussion lets assume they are.
As we go down in levels, the servers ability to hit these targets is greatly diminished (luck becomes a factor) and although its possible to hit the same points, its just not realistic or one that should be planned on. Nor is the receivers ability to cover these extreme points the same as we come down in levels. So the point here is that the receivers triangle is considerably smaller than the outside limits of the "possibilities". Also at the lower levels one side is generally somewhat weaker so the receiver is probably going to favor the weaker side by positioning themselves a little closer to that side.
Have to run, just saw the time and I have a Clinic to do - sorry, I'll try and finish later - busy day and its hot again.
OK, so I'm back - good clinic, everyone seemed to be paying attention and somewhat focused.
So, positioning in the triangle for the receiver is the issue. Think I covered quite a bit already. However, one element we haven't discussed in positioning is how it effects the size of the triangle. Actually, it effects it very little because as the receiver moves forward his reaction time is also reduced and therefore can't cover as much territory. Court surface is a factor here also because the receiver's ability to sufficiently react is dependent on what happens after the ball bounces (ex. Har Tru - ball will bounce higher and will be significantly slowed down compared to a roll type surface where the ball skids and stays low).
Although there might be fifteen or twenty (maybe more) variables that "could" be factors, I'm only concerned with the actual players and their respective skills. These have to be in the equation because it would be absolutely ridiculous to assume that everyone can cover/defend the same amount of space or that their shot selection is the same. What might be a routine shot for a pro player could very well represent a high risk undertaking for a club player. I can't tell you how many books and articles I've read which just kinda gloss over this issue.
I was hitting and then running some drills today with a college coach and we were discussing how these triangles play into running certain plays/formations. We were also discussing and playing out points to demonstrate the importance of aggressively moving in and out of these areas/positions as play develops - something very few club player do. Some move well but seemingly without purpose while other have a tendency to stake out their spot and homestead.
So, positioning in the triangle for the receiver is the issue. Think I covered quite a bit already. However, one element we haven't discussed in positioning is how it effects the size of the triangle. Actually, it effects it very little because as the receiver moves forward his reaction time is also reduced and therefore can't cover as much territory. Court surface is a factor here also because the receiver's ability to sufficiently react is dependent on what happens after the ball bounces (ex. Har Tru - ball will bounce higher and will be significantly slowed down compared to a roll type surface where the ball skids and stays low).
Although there might be fifteen or twenty (maybe more) variables that "could" be factors, I'm only concerned with the actual players and their respective skills. These have to be in the equation because it would be absolutely ridiculous to assume that everyone can cover/defend the same amount of space or that their shot selection is the same. What might be a routine shot for a pro player could very well represent a high risk undertaking for a club player. I can't tell you how many books and articles I've read which just kinda gloss over this issue.
I was hitting and then running some drills today with a college coach and we were discussing how these triangles play into running certain plays/formations. We were also discussing and playing out points to demonstrate the importance of aggressively moving in and out of these areas/positions as play develops - something very few club player do. Some move well but seemingly without purpose while other have a tendency to stake out their spot and homestead.
Thanks, I think its going to work out.
By the way Julian, someone who had been been looking for Louis Cayer stuff gave me a few pages of information yesterday that I had a chance tonight to read a little more. Some of the material is interesting and some is not what I would agree to in section (d) entitled "Keeping the racquet face angle constant (The hitting Zone)". Has nothing to do with triangles but after I receive the book, I want to comment on some of his points - that will be later.
I'm still looking forward to getting his book and if its not here tomorrow I'll have to call Amazon. I've ordered (and received) many books from them over the years and I don't recall ever having to wait this long. I can't help but wonder if it went to my other address but I specifically stated I wanted it shipped to Florida.
E
eliza
Guest
Never at 3.0 level, eheheheheh
E
eliza
Guest
Papa, let us know when you get the book...
It took 3 weeks for a tennis bag to arrive................Stupid snow!
It took 3 weeks for a tennis bag to arrive................Stupid snow!
Well, it hasn't snowed where I live in the winter in a long time, if ever. We get a frost maybe every couple of years but that's about it.
My order has a seventeen digit number which I assumed was UPS but when I entered it in their tracking system it didn't recognize it so I tried USPS and it didn't register with them either - must be Amazon's numbering. I'll try calling them later if I can find a number but have to go to a match this afternoon and have a clinic this morning.
Although I'm very interested in seeing this book, I never even heard about Louis Cayer until Julian mentioned him - if I had, which is a possibility (I see a lot of tennis material), I don't recall anything relating to this concept - triangles. I've never seen any of his books, manuals, DVD's, etc. other that the one a friend got me the other day which is about 20 - 25 pages. If he has a similar concept, I'm not concerned about it because all of my material is mine, its not copied from anyone or anywhere - they are my words, my diagrams, my pictures, etc.
I maintain a fairly extensive tennis library and study the sport extensively. Do I purchase every tennis book on the market, no, and I have no plans to start now. I have about 35 titles and probably get an additional 3-4 every year that folks bring to my attention or send me. I get four or five tennis publication per month in addition to being part of a few web tennis type publications, if that's the right word.
A resume of Cayer dated 2000-2001
Louis Cayer
Louis Cayer is presently the Head National Coach, in charge of Club Development, in Canada. He was with the Davis Cup Team, as a coach (1989-1993) and as captain (1994-2000) for 12 years and was also the Olympic Coach when the men’s doubles team of Daniel Nestor and Sébastien Lareau won the gold medal at the Sydney Olympics in 2000.As the author of the “action method”, a game-based approach to tennis, he has been the leader of the Canadian Coaching Certification System since 1989 and sat on the ITF Coaching Commission from 1995 to 2000. A tennis coach since 1968, Louis travelled for over 10 years on the ATP tour with doubles’ teams ranked inside the top 4 and has spoken at coaching conferences on 5 continents. Louis has presented at each ITF Worldwide Coaches Workshop since 1987 and, due to popular demand, will for a 4th time present on a topic related to doubles. In 2001, the ITF also asked Louis to lead the video, Doubles Tennis Tactics, produced by Human Kinetics.
See as well
http://www.lta.org.uk/News/2010/August/2010-08-23/Louis-Cayer-given-Special-Award-by-the-ITF1/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DNSpXRTptU
http://www.tennisicoach.com/search/...age=8&zoom_per_page=20&zoom_and=1&zoom_sort=0
Louis Cayer
Louis Cayer is presently the Head National Coach, in charge of Club Development, in Canada. He was with the Davis Cup Team, as a coach (1989-1993) and as captain (1994-2000) for 12 years and was also the Olympic Coach when the men’s doubles team of Daniel Nestor and Sébastien Lareau won the gold medal at the Sydney Olympics in 2000.As the author of the “action method”, a game-based approach to tennis, he has been the leader of the Canadian Coaching Certification System since 1989 and sat on the ITF Coaching Commission from 1995 to 2000. A tennis coach since 1968, Louis travelled for over 10 years on the ATP tour with doubles’ teams ranked inside the top 4 and has spoken at coaching conferences on 5 continents. Louis has presented at each ITF Worldwide Coaches Workshop since 1987 and, due to popular demand, will for a 4th time present on a topic related to doubles. In 2001, the ITF also asked Louis to lead the video, Doubles Tennis Tactics, produced by Human Kinetics.
See as well
http://www.lta.org.uk/News/2010/August/2010-08-23/Louis-Cayer-given-Special-Award-by-the-ITF1/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DNSpXRTptU
http://www.tennisicoach.com/search/...age=8&zoom_per_page=20&zoom_and=1&zoom_sort=0
Last edited:
Doubles - Responsibilities of the servers partner
http://www.tennisresources.com/inde...&basicsearch=1&ATT=&LineNbr=1&StartRow=1&ts=1
http://www.tennisresources.com/inde...&basicsearch=1&ATT=&LineNbr=1&StartRow=1&ts=1
E
eliza
Guest
Lucky you. I am interested in what you think of this book.
BTW, since you clearly are an expert: I love history, and I never read the true story of the invention of tennis (english language books). That tennis (palla-corda) was invented in Italy in 1400, and that became fashionable in Milano, where Beatrice DÉste was quite the champion.....and that only after that fashion was exported to France and Great Britain, together with many many other Italian things (use of cutlery, fabrics, painting, music etc)..............
E
eliza
Guest
Thank you Julian, another piece of the puzzle found without effort. A nice gift.
Very impressive - maybe someday I'll get a chance to meet him.
I've never followed very much Davis Cup although when its on the TC, I'll watch it and I'm very familiar with the US team. Couldn't tell you how much Canadian Davis Cup play I've ever seen - generally isn't covered by TC that I know of anyway. So maybe I've seen him (Cayer) play somewhere, sometime - just don't remember. Certainly sounds like a very good accomplished player and coach.
Watched the interview with him - sorry don't recognize him.
One of the other references requires membership ($100/yr?) to view and I'm not going to do that at the moment - I have quite a bit going on and probably wouldn't get to use it much, at least into the immediate foreseeable future.
I appreciate the information, thanks.
Again very interesting material and well presented. It gets into a little bit of what I'm working on but in a different way and from a different perspective. This deals primarily with the responsibilities of the net person and how they would position themselves to play servers partner position. There was little to no mention of "what you do with the ball if you get it" - "what are the targets and opportunities available", "what are the high/low percentage targets and how should one view those targets", "how does opponents positioning effect those decisions", "how do you visually demonstrate these areas on court", and so forth.
Thanks for the information and I think everyone will appreciate it.
I had a rather interesting discussion with Amazon today regarding the Louis Cayer book I ordered from them. After waiting for a person to speak with I was rather rudely advised that this really isn't their (Amazon's) problem. Somewhat taken back, I was further told that this was placed with and shipped by a third party call "Awesome Books USA" and the only information they had is that they had been advised that the order was shipped on Feb 20th but they had no knowledge how it was sent and had not received any tracking information whatsoever.
I was given an email address because, if you can believe it, they don't have a phone number. They (third party) has three business days to respond to my email.
She also said that the "other company" has 14 business days to get me the publication - this is their standard contract with third party shippers. Weekends & holidays don't count. Strange but true.
They even followed up their conversation with an email that has all of this in it. And we wonder what the h___ is wrong with business in the USA these days.
Although I've dealt with Amazon on many occasions, I think this will be my last.
I was given an email address because, if you can believe it, they don't have a phone number. They (third party) has three business days to respond to my email.
She also said that the "other company" has 14 business days to get me the publication - this is their standard contract with third party shippers. Weekends & holidays don't count. Strange but true.
They even followed up their conversation with an email that has all of this in it. And we wonder what the h___ is wrong with business in the USA these days.
Although I've dealt with Amazon on many occasions, I think this will be my last.
E
eliza
Guest
Papa, do not take it hard. I am dealing with international shipments, and it has become between farcical and tragic...
5263
G.O.A.T.
I like what he said about winning 2 points for his partner, but I'd just like to have a net man not lose 2 pts during my svc games, lol.
I think a big key is knowing when to move, along with turning to face the contact (vs staying squared to the court). Partners that move too early can throw off the returner at times, but also lead to getting passed by giving it away. That's Ok if its a called move, but ad lib, you just gave open court with little in return, Vegas style.
E
eliza
Guest
not sure you asked me
If this was for me, sorry. I am involved only b/c the company deals with parts, and I am the only one who speaks languages other than English ...
But now that I am going abroad with my dobe I am trembling, they now require the dog, too, goes under the scan (which I will refuse) so I do not know if they will "strip search him"? TSA out of control, totally.
If this was for me, sorry. I am involved only b/c the company deals with parts, and I am the only one who speaks languages other than English ...
But now that I am going abroad with my dobe I am trembling, they now require the dog, too, goes under the scan (which I will refuse) so I do not know if they will "strip search him"? TSA out of control, totally.
E-book
Papa,
FYI:
a friend of mine brought to my attention an E-book
version of a Cayer book
http://ebookee.org/Louis-Cayer-Doubles-Tennis-Tactics_1054686.html
or
http://www.gfxtra.com/tutorials/22907-doubles-tennis-tactics-louis-cayer.html
Papa,
FYI:
a friend of mine brought to my attention an E-book
version of a Cayer book
http://ebookee.org/Louis-Cayer-Doubles-Tennis-Tactics_1054686.html
or
http://www.gfxtra.com/tutorials/22907-doubles-tennis-tactics-louis-cayer.html
Last edited:
Julian,
Is this a free service or one that charges monthly? Last time I got talked into doing one of these I ended up with that guy from Sweden - took almost six months of charges to "take a look at something". Some of these place like to charge a monthly rate that never seems to stop even when you advise them so through experience, I try to avoid them.
Well, again without the entire situation explained, my only comments would be that positioning server's partner 6 feet from net on serve is too aggressive for most and 15 feet back is a little weak.
Cutting down the angles is a little different in tennis than say in hockey or soccer (goal tender or defense) because we're not defending a relatively small vertical goal. If the ball touches us we lose the point and we have the added obligation/requirement of returning the ball back over the net. In other words we lose the option of being able to just catch, use our bodies or deflect the ball so we need more reaction time in most instances. We also have to keep in mind the consequences of closing/staying on net.
Of course all of this only addresses the defensive end of things and although very important, I'm a little more focused on the offensive side of the equation.
As a note, although I still have not received Cayer's book, I went to the County Library yesterday thinking in tennis country they might have it. No book, not even any mention of Louis Cayer in the computer system - several Cayers but not the right one. In addition I happened to be talking with a guy a know very well who happens to run a fairly large club in Florida. Great player and a former excellent college player. Said he never heard of Louis Cayer so I guess I'm not alone. We started going through his collection of books and although a little more dated than mine, we found no mention of him.
So, I'm anxious to get the book and willing to spread the word.
A book
1.Page 22 of a book addresses the issue of post #148
2.A book AND DVD are available via Human Kinetics as well.
Papa,
1.Page 22 of a book addresses the issue of post #148
2.A book AND DVD are available via Human Kinetics as well.
Last edited:
Similar threads
