David Taylor on the weaknesses in the women's game

Paul Murphy

Hall of Fame
Some interesting comments by the Aussie coach:

Ask David Taylor about the differences between men's and women's tennis and there's both a short and long answer.
``It's a different sport,'' he says.
Taylor, Australia's Fed Cup captain, is the pre-eminent coach in the women's game, having guided a clutch of stars including former world No.1s Martina Hingis and Ana Ivanovic and now US Open champion Samantha Stosur.
He points to grand slam queens Serena and Venus Williams and Justine Henin, who have piled up 27 majors between them, to highlight how theirs is a sport played as much between the ears as between the lines.
``I think the limitations in women's tennis are mental,'' Taylor said ahead of what shapes as the most competitive Australian Open women's singles in history.
``They all play great. It's just what they believe they can do in the big moment.
``Henin was better at it, the Williams sisters are better at it than their peers and they're the ones who have won most of the grand slams in the last decade.
``It's very unusual in men's tennis to have ranking fluctuations like that of (ex-No.1 Dinara) Safina for example.
``Further proof of this are the inexplicable early round upsets in women's tennis.''
Stosur's transformation from a one-time big-point nervous wreck to a cool-headed Serena slayer in New York further confirms women's tennis being very much a mind game.
To Taylor, though, the differences between the men's and women's game are far more than that; the two are distinctly different.
He reels off the dissimilarities, like Stosur thumps forehand winners.
The men's tempo is different because, owing to heavier top spin, they play further back in the court. Women, on the other hand, are often on the baseline, even well inside, particularly Serena when returning serve.
Very few women slide effectively on clay, whereas almost all men do. He notes that Monica Seles and Mary Pierce won the French Open without sliding at all.
The backhand crosscourt has for so long been the dominant shot in the women's game, as opposed to the men. Stosur, Ivanovic and Svetlana Kuznetsova are exceptions who have enjoyed grand slam glory in recent years while bucking the trend.
Women's return games are often stronger than their serve and they rely on breaking serve much more regularly.
Superior foot speed helps men volley better and to turn defence into attack. Look no further than the world's top two male players, Novak Djokovic and Rafael Nadal.
One of the major technical discrepancies lies in the second serve, Taylor observes.
``Men all use kick serves, whereas 95 per cent of women use slice due to inferior technique with leg drive on serve,'' he says.
``Therefore predictability of placement of the second serve in women's tennis is much greater.''
The list goes on but ultimately he believes ``weaknesses in the women's game are more obvious so are much easier to define''.
``Therefore it's easier to work out a strategy to be effective in the women's game,'' said Taylor, who started out as a hitting partner for former Wimbledon champion Conchita Martinez ``way back when''.
``It is possible to have major holes in your game and still be a top-10 player - for example, (Elena) Dementieva and Hingis had poor serves.
``This would be impossible in the men's game.''

For all that, Taylor couldn't possibly see himself coaching on the men's ATP Tour.
``I wouldn't want to put my hand up for a big men's coaching job,'' he said.
``But I think I feel comfortable having coached a lot of the good girls. It's such different tennis.''
Hard to believe then that Taylor fell into the role.
``I didn't choose to be a women's coach. It just happened accidentally,'' said the 39-year-old from Bathurst.
``I guess coaching is pretty much an accidental profession really. You know, a frustrated tennis player who didn't make it.
``So the next sort of thing if you love the sport and you've got passion, you end up coaching.''
And if you're a women's coach, you often end up comforting and consoling as well.
While leading men's players exude unflinching self-belief, Taylor says instilling confidence is half the battle in the women's game.
The other half is providing a simple, pragmatic game plan.
``You've got to have a bit of that laidback attitude off the court because there's a lot of time (together) off the court,'' he said.
``But I think the coach is there to provide direction and structure, and really for me that's how I work.
``They have to live under certain rules. You can't be having six options. I provide that clarity. If someone asks why my players have done well, I'd say that.
``You give them very few options and make them live between narrow lines.''
It's an approach that worked wonders with Alicia Molik, who often nominated Taylor's influence as the key behind her rise from honest tour campaigner to grand slam contender and world No.8.
The same philosophy has turned Stosur's career around since Taylor began coaching her in early 2008 after she returned from a long absence with illness.
He loves the work, but Taylor's successes with Stosur and Molik, in particular, are also hugely satisfying, more so because of a conversation he had many years ago while coaching top Bulgarian Magdaleena Maleeva.
``When I coached her she was No.11 in the world and she said to me: `Coaches only ever get one success story','' Taylor recalled.
``But after hearing that, it was a good motivation to prove her wrong.
``I'm very lucky. I've had some good jobs in women's tennis but the best ones have been with the Australians, or the most rewarding for me because they are Australian.
``Unfortunately Alicia got injured because she would have kept going, I think. That was pretty sad for her.
``But to have coached two players outside the top 100 into the top 10, for me is very satisfying.''
Taylor modestly credits the similar playing styles of Molik, Ivanovic and Stosur as a secret behind his and their success.
``I was very clear about how they could win,'' he said.
``Sam always, for example, thought she had to hit backhand crosses with the best girls in the world.
``The first thing I said when I saw her was: ``You've just got to hit backhands through the middle and lines so you can get forehands.
``Why are you going string for strings? Get it back on your terms.
``If you're going to win 70 per cent of your shots with your forehand and serve, that's what you should be practising. Not practising the two per cent shot.
``It's pretty simple: the more forehands she gets, the better chance she has to win.''

AAP.
 
I think that is a short-term strategy. Ultimately, the more complete your game, the more you win. You have to have a B, C, and D game, and be able to mix it up, because when someone figures your game out, you have to have somewhere to go.
 
This is so true it kinda hurts.

For some reason, women's technique is often very different from men's. Is it because of small differences in our center of balance? Was it Steffi Graf the only women who ever got close to the men's level of professional tennis at the time, and everything went downhill from there?
 
Last edited:
That's one of the best insights I ever seen on the women's game.

Great read and thanks very much for posting. Could you post the source too?


I think that is a short-term strategy. Ultimately, the more complete your game, the more you win. You have to have a B, C, and D game, and be able to mix it up, because when someone figures your game out, you have to have somewhere to go.

I think what the article points out, or at least according to the experiences of David Taylor, is that what you put applies more to the men's tour than the women's, given the distinct difference of how the game is played on both tours.

Stosur for instance, once she developed a good and distinct game plan, even if there are some holes in it (like her backhand), she would better stick with it and play into her strenghts. That's what he advocates, and it's the kind of choice where sometimes "less is more".

It's a different approach that can be quite successful if executed well, as he proved it.

One thing that is interesting to notice is that both girls that he coached (Molik and Stosur) are known to have some of the best kick serve's on the women's tour.

In a tour where as he put it, nearly all the girls are one or two steps inside the baseline to return serve and there is also a great element of predictability on most of the women's second serve, encouraging her disciples to favor the kick serve to give the returner more trouble with a more unpredictable, action packed ball; is a differentiated approach too.

David taylor seems like the kind of coach who, knowing the characteristics of the women's tour, tries to bring a seemingly unconventional approach to the women's game, with maybe a few elements that are known to work in the men's tour.
Technically speaking that is, because the rest is all mental. Again, sometimes less is more.
 
This is so true it kinda hurts.

For some reason, women's technique is often very different from men's. Is it because of small differences in our center of balance? Was it Steffi Graf the only women who ever got close to the men's level of professional tennis at the time, and everything went downhill from there?

Uhhhhh

No, not in the least!
 
The question is, why has such a gap become obvious when it comes to the mental differences between men's and women's tennis? 20 years ago at this point, people were saying that Seles was the mentally toughest tennis player there was, and Graf was there with her in the mental toughness stakes. Sanchez Vicario was also up there, as she made her opponent earn everything.

Looking at women's tennis today, nobody comes close to the mental toughness those 3 showed. These days, 90+% seem like Novotnas in the mental stakes.
 
Last edited:
The question is, why has such a gap become obvious when it comes to the mental differences between men's and women's tennis? 20 years ago at this point, people were saying that Seles was the mentally toughest tennis player there was, and Graf was there with her in the mental toughness stakes. Sanchez Vicario was also up there, as she made her opponent earn everything.

Looking at women's tennis today, nobody comes close to the mental toughness those 3 showed. These days, 90+% seem like Novotnas in the mental stakes.

Its easy to be mentally tough without the Williams sisters around. That's just the truth of it.
 
Its easy to be mentally tough without the Williams sisters around. That's just the truth of it.

I don't think it has anything to do with the Williams sisters. Stosur humiliated Serena in the final of the US Open, yet she still went out in the first round of this Australian Open. The thought of Seles losing in the first round of a major 20 years ago would have been laughable. These days, even the top players can lose early in majors and it's rarely a shock.
 
I don't think it has anything to do with the Williams sisters. Stosur humiliated Serena in the final of the US Open, yet she still went out in the first round of this Australian Open. The thought of Seles losing in the first round of a major 20 years ago would have been laughable. These days, even the top players can lose early in majors and it's rarely a shock.

At least at the slams, Serera exerts an aura beyond the immediate draw. Who knows, stosur carried stress at the prospect of winning against a revenge-seeking serena. Some other players also stated the same in a interview the other day....saying how Serena is an intimidating presence in the locker room and that it has a reason.
 
The question is, why has such a gap become obvious when it comes to the mental differences between men's and women's tennis? 20 years ago at this point, people were saying that Seles, gender for gender, was the mentally toughest tennis player there was, and Graf was there with her in the mental toughness stakes. Sanchez Vicario was also up there, as she made her opponent earn everything.

Looking at women's tennis today, nobody comes close to the mental toughness those 3 showed. These days, 90+% seem like Novotnas in the mental stakes.

Serena comes close to the mental toughness of the three champions you mentioned.

I think alot of the obvious differences in men's and women's tennis exist because there are differentials in women's tennis that just don't exist in men's tennis.

Gaps in the top of the men's game are quite small. However, much bigger physical disparities still exist in women's tennis; in terms of power, athleticism, etc… and even those gaps are getting smaller as the women’s game becomes more about power. The next big step in women’s tennis will be when a female player has the ability to consistently hit with powerful penetrating topspin off both sides.

Clijsters was asked about the women’s game yesterday. She mentioned how the Williams sisters (she emphasized Venus’ name first :) and then said Serena also) elevated the physical standard in women’s tennis and she (and Henin) had no choice but to adapt and become more physical.

The physical envelope in men’s tennis has pretty much been reached and I don’t see how it came be pushed further…
 
"It is possible to have major holes in your game and still be a top-10 player - for example, (Elena) Dementieva and Hingis had poor serves.
This would be impossible in the men's game."

Novak had a pretty poor serve circa 2010 and was top 5.
 
I don't think it has anything to do with the Williams sisters. Stosur humiliated Serena in the final of the US Open, yet she still went out in the first round of this Australian Open. The thought of Seles losing in the first round of a major 20 years ago would have been laughable. These days, even the top players can lose early in majors and it's rarely a shock.

humiliated? you have a right to your opinion, but i disagree, i believe that was a victory of circumstance.....
also the ws are two dominating players, the novontnas, asv and sabbatinis pale in comparison, so their presence would have definitely effected the historical place of graf and seles.
 
"It is possible to have major holes in your game and still be a top-10 player - for example, (Elena) Dementieva and Hingis had poor serves.
This would be impossible in the men's game."

Novak had a pretty poor serve circa 2010 and was top 5.

also nadal lacks a strong offensive game and fed chokes under pressure. also murray is murray.
 
I think that is a short-term strategy. Ultimately, the more complete your game, the more you win. You have to have a B, C, and D game, and be able to mix it up, because when someone figures your game out, you have to have somewhere to go.

Pironkova, for example, does not have particularly great forehand overall. But she has a forehand slice that annoys the heck out of Venus when they play. Just shows you cannot overlook any single shot in your arsenal.

Further consider Kvitova's comments regarding Suarez's 1hb.

I mainly struggled with her one-handed backhand, I never knew what to expect from that backhand - a winner, a huge shot or a chop stroke.

(copied over from tennisforum GM)

Suarez only lost that match due to her own fitness. Getting tired and also carrying not a little flab on her tummy.

Interesting question comes to mind : Peak Kvitova vs Peak Henin...
 
"It is possible to have major holes in your game and still be a top-10 player - for example, (Elena) Dementieva and Hingis had poor serves.
This would be impossible in the men's game."

Novak had a pretty poor serve circa 2010 and was top 5.

It was not great (ferrers is even worse) but you cannot compare their serves to the magnitude of sucking by martina and elena.

I mean those serves at least were solid. not killer shots but solid serves.

elena on the other hand had a disaterous serve. her second serve was often below 70 mph just into the middle of the box.

but despite that she still hit tons of double faults (normally a bad players serve is either slow or inconsistent but a combination is rare:)).

elena had a fantastic groundgame but bad is not a strong enough word to describe that serve:D.
 
Great insights. He knows what he is talking about. Agreeably he points out the mental side amongst many similar level players, the physical weaknesses and the game planning as the most striking issues. Well, that's just why I find the WTA interesting in the first place.

Thx for sharing:)
 
At least at the slams, Serera exerts an aura beyond the immediate draw. Who knows, stosur carried stress at the prospect of winning against a revenge-seeking serena. Some other players also stated the same in a interview the other day....saying how Serena is an intimidating presence in the locker room and that it has a reason.

That's some strange reasoning. I actually doubt it is that way, regardless of the intimidating presence that Serena may exert.

Stosur lost because Cirstea played an absolutely wonderful match. I think this is all there was to it having watched the whole match. Maybe the pressure from playing home affected her a little bit, but not to the point people who are reading between the lines are saying.

Actually, Serena has been less than impressive in the Aussie so far. I won't be surprised if she's upset before the final.
 
One thing that occurs to me is that the women generally hit the ball flatter than the men. It's incredible how much pace they get, but I think in a lot of cases they get it by sacrificing some spin and using a swing path that goes more through the ball. This would create a lower margin game. When you look at unforced error totals in a women's match it seems to support this idea, though admittedly I have studied it, done statistics, etc.

Thoughts?
 
One thing that occurs to me is that the women generally hit the ball flatter than the men. It's incredible how much pace they get, but I think in a lot of cases they get it by sacrificing some spin and using a swing path that goes more through the ball. This would create a lower margin game. When you look at unforced error totals in a women's match it seems to support this idea, though admittedly I have studied it, done statistics, etc.

Thoughts?

Yes, they have to hit it flatter because they stand in closer to the baseline & take it earlier, therefore getting more "pace" (by taking it earlier) & robbing the opponent of time. A basic principle of coaching women's tennis(it works!).
The downside, if it is one, is that they have less time themselves to get more spin...so you have a lot more unforced errors in women's tennis (not always).

David Taylor mentions this & more...
Great post from OP!
 
Interesting discussion here based on David Taylor's comments.

Well on Sam Stosur, an interesting character, had that terrible limes disease but has come back to be a US Open champion which is fantastic. But at the same time, has only ever won 3 tournaments including the US Open at the age of 28. So as my brother pointed out to me only three days ago, she's made the most of her ability and my brother doesn't expect to see much more. So while David Taylor talks about Stosur concentrating on forehands and a Pat Rafter type kick serve, it's also an acknowlgement that Stosur is never going to be a complete player and win many tournaments.

I also agree that the womens game is totally deifferent from the mens game, this is why I constantly point that out when guys start comparing the mens game with the womens game, there is no comparison and therefore no point doing that in my opinion. Look at a player like Jelena Jankovic, one of the few women players who plays with good topspin on the forehand, good margin for error, really good strategy and construct points really well, great athleticsm and defense. Despite all of these natural gifts, Jankovic is nowhere near being a champion, so proof that the mental side is huge in top level tennis.

This is perhaps down to the equal prize money scenario, why people obsess about womens tennis and it's relative lack of quality compared to the mens game. As far as I can see that will always be the case, but I enjoy womens tennis for what it is now and accept it, I don't get all hung up about the technical deficiencies. The only thing that gets to me I suppose is the mental side. David Taylor mentioned Kuznetsova, her mental game was often all over the place, she could have won a lot more with her physical gifts.

And lastly, Steffi Graf does not compare to the men from that era. Yes she had wonderful footwork and athleticism and forehand. But Graf would not be able to become a top player in the mens game hitting slice backhands all day. And definitely not hit sliced backhand returns over and over again, those will get eaten up off volleys and off the ground.
 
This is perhaps down to the equal prize money scenario, why people obsess about womens tennis and it's relative lack of quality compared to the mens game. As far as I can see that will always be the case, but I enjoy womens tennis for what it is now and accept it, I don't get all hung up about the technical deficiencies.

Yup the real motivation is misogyny and insecurity. You would think that these posters are great civil rights activists, constantly on the watch to ensure equality. Actually, they surface only when their ego is hurt. The intent is more important than what is actually said - because the intent is cloaked in a bogus concern about equality.
 
Back
Top