Robert Landsdorp as a coach.

[5263]

There isn't a "ton of options".

That you, 5263, has found an amazing insight that Federer and Annacone haven't thought of or explored? Or that you, 5263, don't have near enough data points and are being overly simplistic?

When I apply Occam's razor, I know which option I'm choosing.

Sure there are a ton of options, lol, that you can't see them does not make them
go away.

This is a great example of how the beginner's mind works in tennis. I never stated
that Roger or Paul "haven't thought of or explored" as you say. Thats just where
your frantic mind took you. I even stated he has used the strategy in the
past and as recent as the OZ Open on a big hitter like this. I'm not trying to
take credit designing the better strategy here, but have observed Fed use it!
So your whole premise never even gets a start.

I'm simply stating that of the options that Fed has used in the past, he chose the WRONG
one for this match. He even went to it for a period of the 3rd set
where he dominated handily. We can only guess why he didn't stay the winning course.

As for me questioning his choice of strategy...well that is not near as out of place
as you questioning mine. As a young 3.5 closing in on 4.0, your trying to make
sense of what you are seeing to pass judgement is far, far more of a stretch
than me doing it with my experience as a player and coach. So with Occam's
razor, it's a no brainer to go with my assessment over yours (to use your thinking),
especially considering yours and Feds was proven unsuccessful! At least mine still
is has the chance it could be better, where yours is in the books as a loss.
Funny you ref Occam's, but say I may be too simplistic and suggest I have too few
data points when you have no idea how many I have. : ) reaching greatly.

Yes, I know you are thinking yours is better because it lines up with Fed, maybe the GOAT,
BUT he did lose this one and I think we all know it was
a winnable match for him if he could have made some better decisions.
So stick with Occam, but learn to use it better. The simple solution is
not usually one already dis-proven and a 3.5 rarely has better insight than
a much higher level player/coach.

 

[mightyrick]

Sure there are a ton of options, lol, that you can't see them does not make them
go away.

This is a great example of how the beginner's mind works in tennis. I never stated
that Roger or Paul "haven't thought of or explored" as you say. Thats just where
your frantic mind took you. I even stated he has used the strategy in the
past and as recent as the OZ Open on a big hitter like this. I'm not trying to
take credit designing the better strategy here, but have observed Fed use it!
So your whole premise never even gets a start.

I'm simply stating that of the options that Fed has used in the past, he chose the WRONG
one for this match. He even went to it for a period of the 3rd set
where he dominated handily. We can only guess why he didn't stay the winning course.

As for me questioning his choice of strategy...well that is not near as out of place
as you questioning mine. As a young 3.5 closing in on 4.0, your trying to make
sense of what you are seeing to pass judgement is far, far more of a stretch
than me doing it with my experience as a player and coach. So with Occam's
razor, it's a no brainer to go with my assessment over yours (to use your thinking),
especially considering yours and Feds was proven unsuccessful! At least mine still
is has the chance it could be better, where yours is in the books as a loss.
Yes, I know you are thinking yours is better because it lines up with Fed, maybe the GOAT,
BUT he did lose this one and I think we all know it was
a winnable match for him if he could have made some better decisions.
So stick with Occam, but learn to use it better. The simple solution is
not usually one already dis-proven and a 3.5 rarely has better insight than
a much higher level player/coach.

I just listened to Federer's press conference. In the end, his reasoning for the loss wasn't a bunch of strategy gaps. He repeatedly said that it just wasn't there for him that night... and that he could have played better... taking advantage of his opportunities. But he didn't, so he lost.

Some nights, you just don't hit your shots -- because of whatever factors. And on those nights, you're going to lose. Period.

It might not be good enough for you, but I'll still take their view over yours. I might be a fledgling in tennis, but I've been on the earth long enough to know how to identify qualified experts.

 

[FrisbeeFool]

OMG another thread destroyed

So 5263, when Federer loses, it's because he's using an outdated Lansdorp style, but when he wins, it's because he used the modern mtm style?? Is that what this boils to for you?

You've filled up another page in the thread, and few if any of your comments are about Robert Lansdorp's coaching. Why turn every thread into an MTM debate? It's really silly.

 

[sureshs]

So 5263, when Federer loses, it's because he's using an outdated Lansdorp style, but when he wins, it's because he used the modern mtm style?? Is that what this boils to for you?

You've filled up another page in the thread, and few if any of your comments are about Robert Lansdorp's coaching. Why turn every thread into an MTM debate? It's really silly.

I don't know why he insists on seeing everything from just one angle. It is getting tiring dealing with this all the time and responding to him about the countless other things that are going on.

 

[5263]

Why turn every thread into an MTM debate? It's really silly.

You darned right this is silly, lol. You don't even know a MTM issue. This has nothing
to do with MTM that I know of Except does not teach to overextend like that. But I
don't remember mentioning it. It is a RL thread, so his overexertion is on topic.
Really the Fed tactics deal more with targeting issues though.
You are showing how little you know on all the
issues at hand...sorry.
I would have thought Sureshs knew better though.
I'm impressed with the boldness of the 3.5s and their knowledge online, but
they tend to be much more humble on court : )

 

[mightyrick]

I'm impressed with the boldness of the 3.5s and their knowledge online, but
they tend to be much more humble on court : )

I'm pretty humble when it comes to advanced tennis concepts. If you'll notice, I didn't offer any strategy at all. No suggestions. All I did was offer observations of what I saw. I am nowhere near qualified to tell Federer the nuances of what he should or shouldn't have done in that situation.

The only thing I said is that I trust Federer and Annacone's view and strategic approach more than I trust yours. Why? Because they are imminently more qualified than you are. You certainly aren't going to disagree with that.

How you can say it is overly bold of me to take that stance, I simply don't understand. If anything, I would think I'd be praised for it. Because I'm deferring to the ultimate authority. Not some NTRP four point something middle man who happens to be a coach of other four point something players.

 

[JW10S]

I don't know why he insists on seeing everything from just one angle. It is getting tiring dealing with this all the time and responding to him about the countless other things that are going on.

Because he simply doesn't understand that there is more than one way to effectively play tennis, or to effectively hit the ball. As I've said before not everyone can, or should, play the same way--one size does not fit all as is evident by watching the pros play. He only knows one way--the one someone else told him--not the one he developed through his own experience. What's more tiring is that whenever anyone disagrees with him it's because, according to him, they 'just don't understand MTM'. It's not rocket science, it's tennis...we get it. We see it for exactly what it is--and for what it isn't.

 

[5263]

Because he simply doesn't understand that there is more than one way to effectively play tennis, or to effectively hit the ball. As I've said before not everyone can, or should, play the same way--one size does not fit all as is evident by watching the pros play. He only knows one way--the one someone else told him--not the one he developed through his own experience. What's more tiring is that whenever anyone disagrees with him it's because, according to him, they 'just don't understand MTM'. It's not rocket science, it's tennis...we get it. We see it for exactly what it is--and for what it isn't.

You guys are clearly the ones who want to discuss MTM and keep bringing it up.
Must be a real sore spot for you. Is that envy?? I don't get your fasination.
Clearly several of you are quite preoccupied with Oscar and MTM, lol.
This discussion on Fed is mostly a strategy issue, which is not directly related
to MTM from my perspective.

But should be no surprise, since you love to talk about things you no NOTHING
about, like what my experience is or why I learned to appreciate MTM so.
But guess that is just how you roll with false assumptions. Looks like your learning
from your experience is full of false info, so what kind of example is that.
Maybe I shouldn't call it learning though.
What is truly tiring is correcting your mistakes from such a self professed hot shot.

So are you agreeing with those who think it was Fed's only chance to go for the lines?
Or just using this to bring up and take a shot at MTM?

 

[sundaypunch]

I just listened to Federer's press conference. In the end, his reasoning for the loss wasn't a bunch of strategy gaps. He repeatedly said that it just wasn't there for him that night... and that he could have played better... taking advantage of his opportunities. But he didn't, so he lost.

Some nights, you just don't hit your shots -- because of whatever factors. And on those nights, you're going to lose. Period.

It might not be good enough for you, but I'll still take their view over yours. I might be a fledgling in tennis, but I've been on the earth long enough to know how to identify qualified experts.

Yes, that is exactly how the game works. Sometimes there isn't an alternate strategy that would have changed the outcome of the match. It is simplistic for people to assume that they know more about what works for Federer than he does, Paul Annacone, etc.

 

[5263]

Yes, that is exactly how the game works. Sometimes there isn't an alternate strategy that would have changed the outcome of the match. It is simplistic for people to assume that they know more about what works for Federer than he does, Paul Annacone, etc.

Yep, those experts have all the answers, riiiight, lol.

That's why a certain superstar D1 coach tried to run off a certain QB who was
not even listed on the depth chart to get his scholarship available.
But after a couple of transfers and injuries, that QB was all that was left in a
offense that sputtered using the top QBs.
That expendable QB goes on to get the offense going,
win MVP of his first bowl game and lead them to SEC championship the next yr,
leaving the school holding SEC & NCAA records.

That's why another D1 school with ok offense had to go with 5th string tailback after some suspensions and injuries, then this 5th stringer goes for
over 200yds (highest for team that season and bowl record) in 1st game and is MVP, but had been buried in the depth chart by YOUR EXPERTS.

Thats why you hear of a player getting a certain injury and having to change what shots
he able to attempt, then makes a big comeback due to changes forced on his game style.

That why Tebow, who experts say can't throw or be a NFL QB, leads Broncos to playoff
with like 7wins on a previously losing team and several won on his passes.

That's why the Cowboys whipped the Superbowl champs Wed after ESPN experts said they
had no chance with the awesome Giants pass rush and the poor Dallas O line.

Yes, those experts have all the answers all the time...continue to believe that.

 

[JW10S]

You guys are clearly the ones who want to discuss MTM and keep bringing it up.
Must be a real sore spot for you. Is that envy?? I don't get your fasination.
Clearly several of you are quite preoccupied with Oscar and MTM, lol.
This discussion on Fed is mostly a strategy issue, which is not directly related
to MTM from my perspective.

But should be no surprise, since you love to talk about things you no NOTHING
about, like what my experience is or why I learned to appreciate MTM so.
But guess that is just how you roll with false assumptions. Looks like your learning
from your experience is full of false info, so what kind of example is that.
Maybe I shouldn't call it learning though.
What is truly tiring is correcting your mistakes from such a self professed hot shot.

So are you agreeing with those who think it was Fed's only chance to go for the lines?
Or just using this to bring up and take a shot at MTM?

I 'no NOTHING'--what does that mean? Sorry, I don't share the same narrow view of how the game should be played as you do--and I feel sorry for your clients since they are getting such limited instruction.

BTW, Lansdorp never worked with either Federer or Berdych, so discussions of their match has no relevance in this thread.

And only a 'self professed hot shot' like you, who has never played professional tennis, would assume that they know how Federer, the World #1 and holder of a record number of Grand Slam titles, as well as many other records, should play--I wouldn't, and I have played professional tennis. Correcting my mistakes? I think not...

 

[5263]

BTW, Lansdorp never worked with either Federer or Berdych, so discussions of their match has no relevance in this thread.

And only a 'self professed hot shot' like you,..

No relevance?? Now that is a narrow perspective.

No, I'm not the hot shot one who brags on traveling to lecture on tennis or the
one who brags about what I make and rarely if ever shares tips while
lurking in the tips and instruction forum.

 

[JW10S]

No relevance?? Now that is a narrow perspective.

No, I'm not the hot shot one who brags on traveling to lecture on tennis or the
one who brags about what I make and rarely if ever shares tips while
lurking in the tips and instruction forum.

No, I don't log on here several times a day, everyday, like you. This is a far more important part of your life than it is mine. So your assertion that I 'lurk', which implies I read this forum regulary is where your are wrong--yet again. But on the occasion that I do I keep hoping I'll learn something like I do in my travels around the world. Unfortunately what I find is mostly drivel and nonsense from people who are not even coaches. Even though this is a tips/instruction forum most of those who post here are not coaches--I feel sorry for those who post vids here looking for help but are in reality getting advice from players who are worse than they are. I learn a lot from top coaches around the world, not just tennis coaches, but those from other sports as well. And you are the one who is most interested in what I make and keeps bringing it up--jealous much? The Berdych/Federer match has nothing to do with Lansdorp. Anyone implying such has another agenda they are trying to put forth.

 

[sundaypunch]

Yep, those experts have all the answers, riiiight, lol.

That's why a certain superstar D1 coach tried to run off a certain QB who was
not even listed on the depth chart to get his scholarship available.
But after a couple of transfers and injuries, that QB was all that was left in a
offense that sputtered using the top QBs.
That expendable QB goes on to get the offense going,
win MVP of his first bowl game and lead them to SEC championship the next yr,
leaving the school holding SEC & NCAA records.

That's why another D1 school with ok offense had to go with 5th string tailback after some suspensions and injuries, then this 5th stringer goes for
over 200yds (highest for team that season and bowl record) in 1st game and is MVP, but had been buried in the depth chart by YOUR EXPERTS.

Thats why you hear of a player getting a certain injury and having to change what shots
he able to attempt, then makes a big comeback due to changes forced on his game style.

That why Tebow, who experts say can't throw or be a NFL QB, leads Broncos to playoff
with like 7wins on a previously losing team and several won on his passes.

That's why the Cowboys whipped the Superbowl champs Wed after ESPN experts said they
had no chance with the awesome Giants pass rush and the poor Dallas O line.

Yes, those experts have all the answers all the time...continue to believe that.

You know, I generally agree with most of your MTM related comments. When you start professing to know more about how Federer should play than he or his coach does....... frankly, that just makes you sound as if you are completely out of touch with reality.

You might be a competent instructor. As an anonymous poster here we don't even know that. There isn't a person here that thinks you are capable of giving Roger Federer any new insight.

 

[5263]

You know, I generally agree with most of your MTM related comments. When you start professing to know more about how Federer should play than he or his coach does....... frankly, that just makes you sound as if you are completely out of touch with reality.

You might be a competent instructor. As an anonymous poster here we don't even know that. There isn't a person here that thinks you are capable of giving Roger Federer any new insight.

You are making the common mistake of putting you words to me. I didn't ever
say I know more than them, but said they made a mistake. Big difference.

That is fine. You are entitled to your opinion. I'm not trying to elevate myself so
much as I just don't put folks on a pedestal like that. For me, they are just
people that have done well in a sport or a business. I've done pretty well in
a few things myself and don't put myself on any pedestal either.
I know your perspective is far more common and understand that many people
tend to idolize and imagine their superhuman abilities; some more than others.
It's all fine and you will believe as you do of course. I've just been blessed to
have played with and closely associated with some of the best athletes of our
time. As amazing as they are in some areas to you, they can be so avg or common
in others, but maybe that is a reality not available to you.
It's all good

 

[Uthree]

You know, I generally agree with most of your MTM related comments. When you start professing to know more about how Federer should play than he or his coach does....... frankly, that just makes you sound as if you are completely out of touch with reality.

You might be a competent instructor. As an anonymous poster here we don't even know that. There isn't a person here that thinks you are capable of giving Roger Federer any new insight.

You should probably speak only for yourself. I think he may well be capable of adding new insight as may others. You don't need a special qualification to add a new perspective.

 

[FrisbeeFool]

BTW, Lansdorp never worked with either Federer or Berdych, so discussions of their match has no relevance in this thread.

Thank God, a ray of sanity, in this crazy thread! Why don't we talk about Lansdorp's work with Myskina, Sampras, Davenport etc. Why are we talking about berdych and federer when neither player has any connection to Robert Lansdorp.

 

[FrisbeeFool]

http://tenniskalamazoo.blogspot.com/2009/03/talking-with-robert-lansdorp.html

If you go down to the comments section there are some interesting comments from players that trained with Robert Lansdorp.

 

[FrisbeeFool]

Another interesting read is Sampras's autobiography. He speaks very highly of Lansdorp.

 

[treblings]

http://tenniskalamazoo.blogspot.com/2009/03/talking-with-robert-lansdorp.html

If you go down to the comments section there are some interesting comments from players that trained with Robert Lansdorp.

interesting link, thanks
would you say that RL had more influence on u.s. tennis in the last decades than Nick Bollettieri? who is much more known btw over here in Europe

 

[5263]

You should probably speak only for yourself. I think he may well be capable of adding new insight as may others. You don't need a special qualification to add a new perspective.

I know my observations are not enough for the doubters, but
Here is a bit of an Expert who covers not hitting for the lines.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrpXbmTjZNo
Thanks for the words. Don't know why they are so threatened by a different
perspective.

 

[Uthree]

I know my observations are not enough for the doubters, but
Here is a bit of an Expert who covers not hitting for the lines.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrpXbmTjZNo
Thanks for the words. Don't know why they are so threatened by a different
perspective.

No worries. I'm interested in specifics what I can use on the court today.

 

[FrisbeeFool]

interesting link, thanks
would you say that RL had more influence on u.s. tennis in the last decades than Nick Bollettieri? who is much more known btw over here in Europe

Hard to say. I don't know much about Bollettieri. I got interested in Lansdorp after reading Sampras's biography. I think Bolletieri might be more of a businessman, more into branding and promotion. I think he hires experts to help him with the coaching. As I understand it, he's more of a mentor and motivator, than an expert on technique.

I think Lansdorp is interested in one on one coaching and less into the business side.

They seem to have divergent approaches that were both effective in their own way.

 

[treblings]

Hard to say. I don't know much about Bollettieri. I got interested in Lansdorp after reading Sampras's biography. I think Bolletieri might be more of a businessman, more into branding and promotion. I think he hires experts to help him with the coaching. As I understand it, he's more of a mentor and motivator, than an expert on technique.

I think Lansdorp is interested in one on one coaching and less into the business side.

They seem to have divergent approaches that were both effective in their own way.

i agree why Bollettieri is more of a household name than Lansdorp. just check youtube, and you know who is more into self-promoting and the business end of things.
but there seems to be a school of thought, that Lansdorp is more influential
in how american tennis developed over the last decades and that he is maybe indirectly responsible for the lack of success of u.s. players in the present.
i would like to understand why that is. or maybe i just misunderstood that point

 

[treblings]

I know my observations are not enough for the doubters, but
Here is a bit of an Expert who covers not hitting for the lines.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrpXbmTjZNo
Thanks for the words. Don't know why they are so threatened by a different
perspective.

talk tennis is about bringing your observations, opinions and perspectives to the debate, isn´t it? even if i disagree with something, it forces me to focus my own thinking on the subject.
posters like you bring a lot to the forum, because they actively contribute with tips and advice rather than just critizising others.

 

[FrisbeeFool]

i agree why Bollettieri is more of a household name than Lansdorp. just check youtube, and you know who is more into self-promoting and the business end of things.
but there seems to be a school of thought, that Lansdorp is more influential
in how american tennis developed over the last decades and that he is maybe indirectly responsible for the lack of success of u.s. players in the present.
i would like to understand why that is. or maybe i just misunderstood that point

One of the coaches that contribute here could answer this better, but I'll give it a try. In America, the best athletes gravitate towards football, basketball and other sports. Tennis does not have the same level of prestige. For instance on espn's one hour long episode of sportscenter last night they devoted maybe 45 minutes to the first week of regular season football, but 45 seconds to Serena's US open win.

Tennis is more global now. Competition is coming from all over the globe. No one coach is to blame for a lack or American success. The US coaching system is very decentralized, and individual coaches like Mike Wolf, who coached up Jack Sock in suburban Kansas continue to do great work. Unfortunately many of the best athletes in America can find more prestige within American culture in other sports.

5263 has an axe to grind with Lansdorp because 5263 is a devotee of Oscar Wegner. Nearly everyone here disagrees with 5263, but he posts 10 times for each one post of other posters. Wegner tries to sell DVDs and books online by denegrating other coaches and exaggerating his own credentials. http://www.oscarwegner.com/2012/05/...at-happened-when-and-where-by-john-carpenter/ In this link, Wegner claims Lansdorp doesn't understand topspin, and didn't play a significant role in coaching Pete Sampras. Pete Sampras's own autobiography contradicts this, and is highly laudatory in regards to Robert Lansdorp.

Lansdorp has personally developed many number one players, so how can anyone blame him for Americas alleged tennis failures. He is just one guy coaching private lessons in Southern California.

If you read the junior tennis forums, there is a lot of debate there about Patrick McEnroe and the USTA. I can't comment on that, I'm not an expert.

 

[treblings]

One of the coaches that contribute here could answer this better, but I'll give it a try. In America, the best athletes gravitate towards football, basketball and other sports. Tennis does not have the same level of prestige. For instance on espn's one hour long episode of sportscenter last night they devoted maybe 45 minutes to the first week of regular season football, but 45 seconds to Serena's US open win.

Tennis is more global now. Competition is coming from all over the globe. No one coach is to blame for a lack or American success. The US coaching system is very decentralized, and individual coaches like Mike Wolf, who coached up Jack Sock in suburban Kansas continue to do great work. Unfortunately many of the best athletes in America can find more prestige within American culture in other sports.

5263 has an axe to grind with Lansdorp because 5263 is a devotee of Oscar Wegner. Nearly everyone here disagrees with 5263, but he posts 10 times for each one post of other posters. Wegner tries to sell DVDs and books online by denegrating other coaches and exaggerating his own credentials. http://www.oscarwegner.com/2012/05/...at-happened-when-and-where-by-john-carpenter/ In this link, Wegner claims Lansdorp doesn't understand topspin, and didn't play a significant role in coaching Pete Sampras. Pete Sampras's own autobiography contradicts this, and is highly laudatory in regards to Robert Lansdorp.

Lansdorp has personally developed many number one players, so how can anyone blame him for Americas alleged tennis failures. He is just one guy coaching private lessons in Southern California.

If you read the junior tennis forums, there is a lot of debate there about Patrick McEnroe and the USTA. I can't comment on that, I'm not an expert.

tennis has the same problem in large parts of europe. if you want your kid to succeed in sports, let him/her play soccer/football.
if you want to mortage your house to pay coaches, travel costs, court time, etc let your kid play tennis
in many countries there is no coordinated system in regards of coaching.
a kid changes coaches, and the new coach often values different things, favors different approaches and the kid has to unlearn,re-learn, etc

concerning Lansdorp. when you are as successful as he obviously is/was, than you are influencing people to follow in your footsteps and copy your methods and ideas. i got the feeling from tt that some think, his technical teaching might be considered outdated.

i cannot share your antipathy towards 5263. i like him and value him.

 

[mightyrick]

I know my observations are not enough for the doubters, but
Here is a bit of an Expert who covers not hitting for the lines.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrpXbmTjZNo
Thanks for the words. Don't know why they are so threatened by a different
perspective.

Nobody is threatened by a perspective or an observation. The issue is with HOW you state your opinions (and they are opinions, not fact). You speak as if you have absolute proof and evidence. You never say something like, "I wonder if Roger might have hit a little safer if it wouldn't have had a better effect." You end up say something like, "They made a mistake." There is a big difference.

And the second somebody calls you on it, you climb up on the cross, nail yourself to it, and get all bent out of shape. It's ridiculous.

Let's be clear. You don't know Federer's game better than Federer and Annacone. You don't know if your suggested approach would have worked or not. You don't know if Federer and Annacone considered this approach or not. You don't know what the outcome would have been in those conditions.

It's one thing to posit an alternative strategy with some humility and have a reasonable discussion. It's another thing to say "they made a mistake" with no humility and a know-it-all attitude.

If you were just a tad more humble in your posts and acted with a little more modesty, you might find people would be more inclined to focus on your content and have a reasonable discussion with you... as opposed to basically having discussions about you acting like a dork.

 

[5263]

If you were just a tad more humble in your posts and acted with a little more modesty, you might find people would be more inclined to focus on your content and have a reasonable discussion with you... as opposed to basically having discussions about you acting like a dork.

Probably pretty good advice overall, but even better for yourself and FrisFool.
Sometimes I mention the term "imo", but generally I figure smart folks should realize that is how
a forum works. Sometimes I put my reference, which really ticks off folks who
don't like that approach. In the end, you can't please everyone and I don't
need to. You always have those like FrisFool that will say anything to advance
their agenda like the several black and white lies above.

 

[5263]

5263 has an axe to grind with Lansdorp because 5263 is a devotee of Oscar Wegner.

At least I give an even handed account on RL strengths and weaknesses as I
see them, and not bold lies like you above. You seem way more of a devotee or
follower because you can't abide any possible negative about RL and you see
nothing good with MTM. Good sign of one with an agenda.

The two issues above are unrelated other than how their techniques differ.
What does RL have to do with Oscar? how do you get there?

 

[Limpinhitter]

Nobody is threatened by a perspective or an observation. . . .

Really? You might want to reconsider that premise.

 

[FrisbeeFool]

At least I give an even handed account on RL strengths and weaknesses as I
see them, and not bold lies like you above. You seem way more of a devotee or
follower because you can't abide any possible negative about RL and you see
nothing good with MTM. Good sign of one with an agenda.

The two issues above are unrelated other than how their techniques differ.
What does RL have to do with Oscar? how do you get there?

Look at the entire post you quoted instead of taking one line out of context and you will have an answer to your question. The two have no connection in mind, just like Federer and Berdych have no place in this discussion. I trust Sampras's first hand accounts of his experiences with Robert Lansdorp. I have offered links that offer even-handed first hand accounts of Robert Lansdorp, and discuss his strengths and weakness. Most of your posts in this thread are not on topic and are actually not about the real Robert Lansdorp or his coaching. I think I'll trust Sampras, Davenport, Austin, and others first hand accounts of their personal experiences with Robert Lansdorp, thank you.

Did you read the link I posted, where Eric Amend contributes his first hand opinion of Lansdorp in the comments section. It's pretty illuminating.

5263 has an axe to grind with Lansdorp because 5263 is a devotee of Oscar Wegner. Nearly everyone here disagrees with 5263, but he posts 10 times for each one post of other posters. Wegner tries to sell DVDs and books online by denegrating other coaches and exaggerating his own credentials. http://www.oscarwegner.com/2012/05/...at-happened-when-and-where-by-john-carpenter/ In this link, Wegner claims Lansdorp doesn't understand topspin, and didn't play a significant role in coaching Pete Sampras. Pete Sampras's own autobiography contradicts this, and is highly laudatory in regards to Robert Lansdorp.

Lansdorp has personally developed many number one players, so how can anyone blame him for Americas alleged tennis failures. He is just one guy coaching private lessons in Southern California.

 

[tennisfan69]

Look at the entire post you quoted instead of taking one line out of context and you will have an answer to your question. The two have no connection in mind, just like Federer and Berdych have no place in this discussion. I trust Sampras's first hand accounts of his experiences with Robert Lansdorp. I have offered links that offer even-handed first hand accounts of Robert Lansdorp, and discuss his strengths and weakness. Most of your posts in this thread are not on topic and are actually not about the real Robert Lansdorp or his coaching. I think I'll trust Sampras, Davenport, Austin, and others first hand accounts of their personal experiences with Robert Lansdorp, thank you.

Did you read the link I posted, where Eric Amend contributes his first hand opinion of Lansdorp in the comments section. It's pretty illuminating.

Can we say if we send one talented 5 year old kid to Robert and make the kid stay and learn/coach/drill with Robert till he is say 19-20 years, we can get a grand slam champion. i would say Yes. what say you all....

 

[connico]

Can we say if we send one talented 5 year old kid to Robert and make the kid stay and learn/coach/drill with Robert till he is say 19-20 years, we can get a grand slam champion. i would say Yes. what say you all....

I wouldn't bet on it...

 

[5263]

Look at the entire post you quoted instead of taking one line out of context .

Naa, I'll just do my post and let you do yours.
By the way, tennis magazine digital suggest that Fed's 40 UEs tell the story
of the match & UEs most often come from going for too much.

I don't have any problem with RL, and am glad to hear all the good things his
fans can share about him. I'm very happy to look thru those for some useful
truths. Would be nice if I didn't have to deal with fans who want to create
drama with misinfo and mis-stating my position.
Clearly he has made a fine contribution to many players games and imo
the obvious couple of things have some forth and maybe some more subtle
things will be learned with time.

 

[5263]

Did you read the link I posted, where Eric Amend contributes his first hand opinion of Lansdorp in the comments section. It's pretty illuminating.

sure did and agree with you very... illuminating & like my take on him as well.
Quoted it before, but guess you missed it.
Here are most of the final summary pts:

In a world of PC, he is politically incorrect....who really cares, but over does it
In a world of the quick fix, he teaches discipline....probably his best quality!
In a world of technology, he uses an ace bandage to tie the player's hand to his racket so as to make the player and the racket "one.".....Ok I guess
In a world of "do it ... but quickly," he emphasizes repetition to the point of frustration....Right up there as a best quality!
In a world of many tennis grips, he prefers one or two grips to be used consistently....RL is on record that aggressive grips are a negative but is wrong
In a tennis world that emphasizes top spin, he emphasizes flat, driving groundstrokes....another mistake as you must have both in spades

 

[5263]

Can we say if we send one talented 5 year old kid to Robert and make the kid stay and learn/coach/drill with Robert till he is say 19-20 years, we can get a grand slam champion. i would say Yes. what say you all....

Totally unfair challenge but would be incredibly impressive if he could.
Conni is right, and highly unlikely for any coach at least in Men's game.
Might could do it in WTA if he screened the girl well.

 

[JohnYandell]

Robert would be the first to say--I've asked him--that when he looks at a young player there is no way to say this one is a sure champion. "Maybe" is as far as anyone can really say, but beyond that only time with all the factors involved can tell. No one is a fortune teller and those that claim to be have the credibility of fortune tellers.

Robert has proved himself one of the most flexible and adaptive coaches in the history of junior development. He has learned from the players. As the game has evolved with reverse finishes and wiper finishes, he has studied that evolution and incorporated it into his teaching.

He understands players from Pete to Nadal. He isn't bound by any ideologies.

 

[arche3]

Robert would be the first to say--I've asked him--that when he looks at a young player there is no way to say this one is a sure champion. "Maybe" is as far as anyone can really say, but beyond that only time with all the factors involved can tell. No one is a fortune teller and those that claim to be have the credibility of fortune tellers.

So is Ric Maci a fool for proclaiming one of his young kids is a slam champion every few years? I agree with Robert. No way to know. How does Maci know?

 

[5263]

So is Ric Maci a fool for proclaiming one of his young kids is a slam champion every few years? I agree with Robert. No way to know. How does Maci know?

Macci is picking from his best of the best he has to look at and will still likely
not have a top 10 players in most cases, much less a winner of Majors (on
men's side) I do think the women's side is wide open for odd things to happen.

Macci is a promoter in this case. Not a fool, cause he makes money and few will
remember unless he is right.
Remember, he was passing on Williams sisters till one walked off the courts on
her hands, lol.
I guess when my son was there at 15 he should have dunked as he left the court
having beat Macci's yr older player 1 &1.

 

[tennisfan69]

......
.....
In a world of many tennis grips, he prefers one or two grips to be used consistently....RL is on record that aggressive grips are a negative but is wrong
In a tennis world that emphasizes top spin, he emphasizes flat, driving groundstrokes....another mistake as you must have both in spades

heard from my friend in LA, Robert has stopped recommending or changing grips to players UNLESS the player has been coaching with him continuously for some time and the kid is young enough.

Flat hitting is recommended for most of the shots by Robert. He also recommends using spin for situations where it is required.

actually i agree with John that Robert is still a great learner of Current tennis, I wouldnt call it Modern because what ever IS current IS modern, but he has also some foundation building methods that are age and time tested and proven.

 

[TennisCJC]

Can we say if we send one talented 5 year old kid to Robert and make the kid stay and learn/coach/drill with Robert till he is say 19-20 years, we can get a grand slam champion. i would say Yes. what say you all....

I say yea if the kid is an offspring of Andre Agassi and Steffi Graff. I like Robert and would love to take a lesson from him but let's give him a sporting chance by priming the pump with some good genes.

 

[5263]

heard from my friend in LA, Robert has stopped recommending or changing grips to players UNLESS the player has been coaching with him continuously for some time and the kid is young enough.

Flat hitting is recommended for most of the shots by Robert. He also recommends using spin for situations where it is required.

actually i agree with John that Robert is still a great learner of Current tennis, I wouldnt call it Modern because what ever IS current IS modern, but he has also some foundation building methods that are age and time tested and proven.

Yes, he is learning after multiple GSs are won by less conservative grips, which he
said couldn't happen, but wasn't long ago where he was loudly proclaiming how
coaches who allow this were not telling you that 6-8 yrs down the road, these
grip left you screwed. (paraphrased)
Not bashing him or anything, but just an area where he decided to be outspoken
and drive home a point, but was very wrong. I still think his reps and discipline are
very key! I know some will whine at any mention of a mistake by him.

 

[JohnYandell]

I don't think I have heard Rick say this or that kid will definitely win a slam.

 

[5263]

Really? You might want to reconsider that premise.

blast from the past....the good ole days in many ways, lol

 

[treblings]

blast from the past....the good ole days in many ways, lol

brings back memories
is Robert Lansdorp still active as a coach? Google tells me he is 78 years old.

 

[DUROC]

brings back memories
is Robert Lansdorp still active as a coach? Google tells me he is 78 years old.

Yes.......he had some surgery a few months ago but still out there.

Two of my kids worked with him (yrs ago) and he is grinding..........has a couple of nice kids developing and maybe someone special that could develop.

 

[TCF]

Yes.......he had some surgery a few months ago but still out there.

Two of my kids worked with him (yrs ago) and he is grinding..........has a couple of nice kids developing and maybe someone special that could develop.

Great to hear. We spent time with him years ago. Tough as nails, brutally honest, but totally fair in his assessments.

 

[Ash_Smith]

^^^ He always said he thought he had one more GS winner in him

 

[JohnYandell]

Well, we can only hope. If nothing else for the entertainment value with him back in the limelight.