I left after a road match at Davidson for a three-hour trek to Columbia,
South Carolina, trying to recruit Tom Morris. It was late when I arrived at
the stately Bermuda Hills mansion. Father Jack Morris told me later that
my willingness to drive there that night, putting me back in Davidson at
3:00 AM, convinced them I’d look after Tom. Tom Morris led us, willed us,
played us to the school’s first-ever National Championship. He won the
conference singles title all four of his years, the only person before or since
to do that. And he did it his senior year with a badly damaged thumb.
Congratulations to an “All American Leader.”
Category: A2. THE LITTLE GREEN BOOK OF TENNIS
THE CORNERSTONE (64)
Watching Elon University grow was fascinating. Our team was changing
fast, too. Duane Johnson was an unlikely “cornerstone” for a college tennis
team, but I recognized him even before I changed jobs. I’d seen him play
the year before. His mom, Eleanor, was the engine that drove Duane. Here
I repeat an earlier story. It applies to a lot of mothers, including Duane’s,
Eleanor. Coaches have known this about good mothers for a long time. In
James Michener’s “Mexico” the author explores bull fighting. The worst
scenario for a promoter is a cowardly bull; Ferdinand, if you will. No
courage, no fight. Michener explains that determining the probability of a
fierce bull can’t be ascertained by “trying out” the bull. Show him the cape
and after one audition, he’ll know where the matador is. Solutions for
fight promoters? You try out the mothers. If the mother has courage, it’s
likely the offspring will.
Maybe “drive” is the word for the Johnsons. And for so many other
successful people. “Just keep pecking away at it.”
Duane would park in my office chair and wait for me. He’d tell me his
ideas, goals, and how to motivate others. Once he (or we) obtained one
goal, on to the next. He wanted to beat neighbor Guilford College. Done in
year two. Atlantic Christian? “We’ve never beaten them!” Beat them in the
second conference and district tournaments. Go to a national tournament?
Elon’s first qualification in 1987. Next goal, same chair: “I want our team in
the top ten of the country.” Our finish in 1988? Tenth of 55 teams. I want to make Academic All-American! Picked that up in 89 too. First-Team All-
American? 89! When he graduated in 1989, I thought I’d done about allI could do as his coach.
Our team, led by Roland Thornqvist, won Elon’s first national title in 1990.
I thought Duane would be elated, but when I saw him he was angry. “Well,
what is it now, Johnson?”
“I wanted to be on that team.”
Big drive.
TENNIS TACTICS: THE CIRCLE STINGER (65)
Here are a few observations of singles tennis strategy, some
conventional and some new. Strategy can be defined simply as how you
plan to win. Great teachers deliver memorable sound bites. Dennis Van Der
Meer: “attack the short ball.” Jim Verdieck: “get in a position to volley away from the source.” A successful high school coach once told me, “Hit it at his
backhand and go to the net.” Jack Kramer boiled it down to “Find out what
your opponent can’t do and make him do that.”
Tactics are the tools you use to implement your strategy. Coach Jim
Leighton defined the “basic unit of play” as: the approach shot, the passing
shot, and the first volley.
In Leighton’s book Inside Tennis, Techniques of Winning, Coach Leighton
pointed to Wayne Sabin’s ABC’s of Tennis Strategy:
• Hit it in
• Hit it deep
• Hit it to your opponent’s weakness
• Move your opponent side to side
While there is truth to the old suggestion of staying out of “no-man’s
land” on a tennis court, mid-court shots (approach shots, service returns,
balls hit on the rise…) must be mastered. These shots establish an
aggressive court position. Given two right-handed players, Leighton and
Sabin suggest a firm approach down the line at the weaker backhand.
This is intended to force a weak passing shot to be volleyed to the
opposite corner.
One of nine players is left-handed. The two-handed backhand is often
your opponent’s better passing shot. Differing opponents dictate different
approaches, as do your own abilities. However, there is a common thread
in all of these suggestions—tennis players are statistically vulnerable to
firm attacks on their backhand.
The success of the Spanish players, most notably Rafa Nadal, is reason to
examine a new version of a conventional attacking approach shot. Witness
the wear of the grass at Wimbledon. No longer is there a serve-volley alley
of brown on the court. There is a new pattern of wear. There is a circle of
wear just inside the baseline that indicates a shift in post-service attack Once the server serves, he takes an extra step into the court. Not to serve
and volley, but to establish an aggressive position inside “the Circle.” What
is hoped for is a defensive return. A shortened whipping, topspin ball
taken inside the baseline can put more pressure on the opponent than the
conventional, underspun approach shot. The modern player’s ability to hit
on the rise has created a new game.
A trump card, based on this idea, is the shot Nadal uses so effectively
against Roger Federer. Nadal’s shortened, topspin, cross-court attack from
the Circle on Federer’s backhand is an effective tactic. As great as Federer
is, the relentless pressure from Nadal’s stinger from the Circle eventually
yields unforced errors, a short ball, or an open court.An on-the-rise approach from within the Circle can produce more pressure than a volley from behind a serve, or a traditional underspin approach shot. The reason, of course, is that most volleys and approach shots are underspun and lack the speed of an aggressive, stinging,
topspin attack.
What about right-handers and the Circle? The answer is the inside-out
forehand, turning three-fourths or more of the court into forehands.
Running around your backhand is nothing new. While some frown on it,
given a much better forehand than backhand many players use their
footwork to turn marginal backhands into more potent forehands. The
most effective of these forehands are hit from within the Circle.
One may argue that a forehand from the Circle leaves one vulnerable
to the down-the-line passing shot, and that’s true. It’s much like the left
hander’s hooking serve to the right hander in the “add” court. When
McEnroe leftied his hooking serve there, only a few players, including Bjorn
Borg, had an ability to pass him, threading the needle to a very difficult
down the line spot to hit. But the percentages were in McEnroe’s favor, as
the percentages favor the stinging pressure of the Circle attack. (the Circle
in figure 10 is marked as lighter green, in front of number 1.) There seems to be a battle for position in The Circle in many of today’s
strategies. If a good coach teaches a player to implement the Circle tactic,
they should also teach how to defend it. Deep, well-hit service returns can
force the attacker back. Ground strokes are now required to be heavier and
deeper. These shots run the opponent out of the Circle and now you have
a chance, with better ground strokes and returns, to get yourself in the
Circle, thus turning defense into offense.
So, you now have some more shots to perfect: The Circle attacking shots
and the inside-out forehand from the backhand side. Remember you have
to have good leg and footwork to do this, and you must hit more balls on
the rise. Your goal is the Circle Stinger, which now has the advantage of
being cross court and at the backhand.
A few more tactics:
Even pros should play more balls cross court. Cross-court balls are
safer. Hit one more cross-court ball before you try a counterpunching,
two-handed backhand down the line. It is more difficult to change the
direction of the ball from a timing perspective. Those backhands are often
late, sliding wide off the sideline. Watch for yourself and you’ll believe.
As Yogi Berra has said, “You can observe a lot by watching.” I spent
another great week at the U.S. Open. Even against the world’s best
approach shots, passing shots hit soft enough on an angle create errors
or vulnerable volleys.
And while conventional wisdom says don’t drop shot on a hard
court, Federer, Nadal, Verdasco, and other top professionals now use a
forehand drop shot, hit with disguise from the Circle to the open court
of any surface. Once you establish the dominance of the Circle Stinger, this
shot becomes another weapon. It takes great touch and a lot of practice Women and junior girls should develop use of the short corners on your
opponent’s court. If I had any advice to young girl players, it would be to
make your opponent move up and back. Most girls don’t practice these
shots enough. Learn how to move up and back yourself. Practice the
footwork and force your opponents to prove they’ve done the same work.
The week before the U.S. Open, Mardy Fish beat Andy Roddick in a
memorable match in Cincinnati. Mardy played excellent defense with a
cross-court, looping, forehand flop shot. When an attacker with Roddick’s
strength is hitting a forehand so well, the flop is effective, yielding fewer mistakes. You can’t out hit some players’ best shots. A deep, looping top-
spin cross-court ball can’t be easily attacked. Great players like Fish, or Gael Monfils, swing the racquet head at different speeds. They don’t pull the
trigger until they’re in the Circle and ready to fire. Be patient.The hardest time to play is when you are ahead. I watched a top 10 men’s
player get up 30–0, 40–0, or 40–15 in several key games. But he didn’t play
those points tough and eventually lost the games. Don’t play loose points
when ahead. And don’t play loose games when up a service break. When
you do, pressure shifts from them to you. Stay hungry when you’re ahead.
A closing thought:
The point penalty system and cyclops line-calling machines have helped
control the poor sportsmanship that once damaged the reputation of
tennis as a ladies’ and gentlemans’ sport. Innovation in the rules and
technology have returned respect to the game. These are positive changes
for a great game that is still evolving strategically and is as fun to watch as
it has ever been. Let’s not move back in the other direction.
THE NEXT LEVEL OF MEN’S TENNIS (66)
Novak Djokovic’s win over Rafa Nadal in the 2011 Men’s U.S. Open
showed tennis fans a new level of play in the history of the sport. I’ve
discussed Nadal’s Circle strategy to defeat Federer and the rest of the
men’s tour consistently. But Djokovic has taken the baseline game to a new
level. He has perfected deep, heavy shots that keep Rafa out of his Circle.
Djokovic and his team have engineered their rise to the top of the men’s
game much like Andre Agassi’s team did. A rigorous fitness regimen and
diet have amplified his natural counter-punching style, and he is returning
serves and hitting passing shots as effectively as any player ever. I
can’t remember a Grand Slam final (grass, hard, or indoor) where the first
service percentage carried almost no statistical advantage. Neither Nadal
nor Djokovic benefited from their normally deadly first serves. It makes you
wonder if Pete Sampras could have held service while serve and volleying
against Djokovic.
This also makes me wonder about the upward evolution of the game and
who will achieve the next level.
Djokovic has almost perfected corner-to-corner baseline strategy.
Another thing that he seems to be getting better at is the drop shot. The
old adage that you can’t drop shot on a hard court is being tested more at
the top level. There are four corners on each side of the court. Two are up at
the net. The only player I have seen who could hit an unreturnable drop
shot from the baseline was CharlieOwens. Many watched Charlie
dismantle quality players with a disguised, featherlike drop shot that
confounded even great players.
Maybe there is someone coming along with this unique touch, who
combined with the other tennis skills needed will produce the next level
in the never ending evolution of tennis. Women players might be well
advised to note this possibility. And to be aware that not only should she
be able to hit drop shots, she must be able to defend against them. My
guess is that many players and teachers have realized there are four
corners on each side of a tennis court. I watched the Wimbledon men’s single semi finals. If you go to the three strategy articles in review, I think you will find I was pretty close:
basic tennis strategy, The Circle Stinger, and Rafa vs. the Joker. In the latter,
I predicted this season would feature a lot more drop shots (Andy Murray
vs. Baghdadis, for example). To follow up, or evolve, as a teacher-coach, it
then seems we must learn defense against the drop shot. In addition to
the basic strokes of tennis there are auxiliary shots (returns, approaches,
passing shots…) with different techniques to be mastered. Drop shots are
one of these now more than ever. There are also unlimited awkward shots
in tennis (for example, a backhand overhead, or running down a shanked
shot). These shots, including defending against drop shots, must be
identified, the proper techniques practiced, and implementation mastered.
Please remember, players and parents, that this isn’t easy work. Don’t
abandon the insightful pro who pushes this mastery for a guy who simply
moves you left and right. And don’t worry about how you get
to a good drop shot. No one has done that gracefully.
MENTORS (67) + JIM LEIGHTON (68)
In the mid-’80s I began writing a coaching manual. Maybe I’ll add the
next 20 years’ experience to that in a “tennis coaching book” later. If I do,
one person will be responsible: Coach Jim Leighton of Wake Forest
University.
North Carolina had, for years, featured the East-West High School All-Star
Games. The state added more sports, then girls’ all-stars, and the games
progressed. My team had just won a trip to the NAIA Nationals. We finished15th in the nation. The first tennis clinic held in Greensboro was an after-
thought. Coach Ira Norfolk was going to the basketball game, and I figured I’d pile in with him. My running buddy, Jack Hussey, was at the clinic, and
we were off. We were all over Guilford County and Greensboro as well.
Norfolk was in bed when I sneaked into the shared motel room very late.
The tennis clinic was the next morning. I knew Norfolk was awake because
he smoked 11 Viceroys before taking a morning trip.
I dragged myself out of bed just in time to make the 9:00 AM clinic at
Latham Park in Greensboro. There were four coaches there including me.
Coach Leighton rolled up with racquets and balls. He wore traditional
white, and it matched his hair. He looked just like Colonel Sanders. After
pleasantries and introductions he began speaking in a new language. Two
puzzled coaches left after 10 minutes. The other coach left at noon.
Coach Leighton was a master teacher, and my first introduction to
someone who was knowledgeable about the game. I was fascinated. One
of his players, Paul Caldwell, was with him. When the other guy left, leaving
only me, I was embarrassed, both by how much Leighton knew, and my own misjudgment about my greatness. I offered to abandon the afternoon
session. I was delighted and impressed when Coach responded, “Tom,
we’ve agreed to stay until 4:00. I can tell you are interested in learning. As
long as you’ll stay, we’ll stay.”
Our college offered $200 per year for “professional growth” at convention
trips. I never again spent mine on anything but my new mentor, Coach
Jim Leighton. He would try to refuse my money, but I’d have paid triple. I
was in his home, at his club, at his varsity practices, watching tapes on
everything from his current players to sequential pictures of Ellsworth
Vines. He had just completed Inside Tennis: Techniques of Winning. This
book, much of the information by Leighton himself, also included
contributions by Dennis Van Der Meer, Welby Van Horn, Chet and Bill
Murphy, Wayne Sabin, Pauline Betz Addie, and others. I loved Leighton and the book. I had so many questions. I’d schedule time in his Winston-
Salem home. We’d talk about the book, and with explanations by Coach Leighton, I felt like Moses on the mount.
The USTA held our annual teacher’s convention just prior to the U.S.
Open in Flushing Meadows. One year Jim and I made almost every session.
Every coach seemed to want to use his session to further his tennis
standing. At one session Leighton’s “bull” detector kicked in. A coach was
trying to sell a lame idea as the end of all tennis instruction; Leighton
politely questioned the man’s premise. The clinician sloughed off this old
white-haired guy’s puzzlement. Again coach queried, “I want to make sure
I’m understanding what you’re saying.” An abrupt, “Am I not speaking
plainly enough?” was his answer. Selling the same lame premise, the
clinician was startled when Leighton rose and stated, “Sir, you are
addressing the tennis teachers of America and beyond. Never have I
heard such a crock of baloney.” He turned to me and said “Get up Tom,
we’re getting out here!” I followed him.
One day at the New York host hotel he asked, “Do you want to hear
someone who knows tennis?” My immediate response was “Sure!” Coach
said, “Meet me in the lobby at 6:30 for breakfast.” I joined Coach and Chet
Murphy in a downtown café. Chet and Bill Murphy were Californians who
knew the biomechanics of tennis. I’d heard Chet Murphy as a clinician. He
seemed nervous but once the first technical question was asked, he was
off and running. This morning Coach Leighton did something I’d never
seen him do. He deferred to Murphy, asking questions the way I’d asked
him. And while there was great mutual respect, I’ve got to say Murphy was
impressive. I was all ears. This was a time when all kinds of research was
being done in tennis. I was pleased with the next question asked by Coach
Leighton, “Chet, how do you feel about what we’ve done?” (Meaning the old-time proponents of “classic” tennis instruction.) Chet thought a moment and said, “We should have let them hit more western grip forehands. Other than that everything was right.”
Coach Leighton was buried the day the Jimmy Powell Tennis Center was
dedicated at Elon, North Carolina, in 1988. The
funeral was in Wait Chapel on the campus that had
named their stadium after this fine man, coach, and friend. People say
you don’t have to play to be a coach. Or that you don’t have to have much
other than good players (“You can’t make chicken salad, until you get the
chicken”). I became a much better coach after meeting my mentor. I know
it made me money. I taught everyone in Wilson and the surrounding area
for years. I took Leighton’s advice and sought out private sessions with
Dennis Van Der Meer and Welby Van Horn. They couldn’t have been nicer
to me. As my ability to see broadened, I could connect to my own experi-
ences, while coaching college tennis for 40 years. I learned from television, professional tennis, coaching in 28 national team championships, my own
players, players from other teams, other tennis coaches, and coaches of
other sports. I learned particularly from Coach Jim Verdieck of Redlands
University. It would be unfair to omit Coach Verdieck. The following article
looks at this outstanding coach.
JIM VERDIECK (69)
Not every athletic contest is the Super Bowl or the Final Four. Great
games occur everywhere. There were some great contests, team efforts,
and fine people in NAIA tennis. I’m grateful I saw 28 tournaments. Dick
Gould of Stanford was the “Coach of the Era” (25 years) during the period I
coached. No doubt he was the best.
But our absolute best was Jim Verdieck, a competitor, the coach at
Redlands University (California). Jim was the best at winning I ran into, in
any sport. And he was already a legend when my team made its 1970 trek
to Rockhill Tennis Club in Kansas City, Missouri, home of the NAIA Championships. Verdieck was a strong-willed football and tennis coach. His teams won 12 of 13 NAIA
titles, starting in the mid-’60s. I’d admired him and then
befriended him. I need to write some of what I saw; one could learn a lot
from Redlands and their coach. I asked him once why he didn’t write
about his vast knowledge. Our kids were about to face each other. He
pointed to the court and said, “See that match. If you told me we could
win that match if I’d write 200 pages,
I start right now.”
I asked where, over his coaching years, the non-scholarship Redlands
team would rank in California, including the division I giants of USC, UCLA,
Stanford, Pepperdine, and all the rest. “Sixth.”
The teams wore national championship warm-ups. Only for Kansas City.
No one got to the courts before Redlands. We mimicked that too.
“But what if it dies?” I asked about his knowledge.
“If I die, it dies.”
He proved true to his word. Suffering a major heart attack, he was told
he needed an emergency treatment.
“Not before Kansas City.”
Told he may die if he went, he boarded the plane.
He knew his business. Janice Metcalf, a fine California player, played
number 6 on one Redlands men’s team. It was early 1970, and there were
no girls’ teams in the NAIA. I was on the rules committee that denied Coach
Verdieck’s appeal for a substitute for Janice, who’d injured her knee after
the substitution deadline. The rule was clear and Coach Verdieck accepted
the decision.
He flew Janice out for her first-round match, which she won easily, and
then boarded a return plane to Redlands. Redlands University won the
national title by that one point. When I asked Verdieck about that move, he
explained, “I’d figured the draw pretty close. I knew Janice could probably
beat this kid easily and told her to walk off if it was bad at all.”
Perhaps as impressive as Jim were his sons, Doug and Randy. Doug won NAIA singles all four years. He won the doubles, three times—twice with
Randy. When Doug was inducted into the NAIA Hall of Fame, he flew from
Hawaii. As Doug tried to speak of his father, tears, not words, came. He
backed out and tried again with the same results. Another attempt. The
NAIA official next to him stood as if to relieve him. “No, dammit, no. I flew
all the way from Hawaii to do this, and I’m gonna do it.” Angry now—his
level voice stated: “My dad is the greatest” and sat down.
Coach Verdieck told me he had had lights approved for the university
courts three times. Somehow the school procrastinated every time they
said yes. Later he found out that when he’d tell his wife the lights were to
be installed, she nixed the deal. She simply went to the administrators
saying, “If you put up lights, he’ll stay there all night, and I’ll leave him.”
His roster included 24 players—a very large team. Not only that, each
week every player in the top eight had a one-hour private lesson with
Verdieck. Sixteen remaining players had a half hour per week with him.
This, in addition to team responsibilities.
I called to congratulate him when I learned he’d retired at age 65. He was
within 60 or so wins of 1,000. No one else was close.
“Did you consider staying until you break that barrier?” was one of my
questions.
“No, I promised my wife if I got to 65, I’d stop. A deal’s a deal.”
KEEP ON LEARNING (70)
Though he quit coaching he couldn’t give up teaching. I asked Coach
Verdieck early on if he knew Dennis Van Der Meer. Not only is Van Der Meer
the world’s most prolific tennis teacher, he was close to my mentor, Jim
Leighton. Verdieck said, “Know Dennis? I taught him ninety percent of what
he knows!” When I asked Coach Leighton if he knew Coach Verdieck, he
said no. I told him of the Verdieck comment about Dennis Van Der Meer.
Leighton was appalled and said he intended to ask Dennis about it! A
couple of years went by, and I asked Leighton if he’d asked about Verdieck.
Leighton admitted that Dennis had responded, “Yes, that’s probably
about right.”
In retirement, Verdieck worked with Dennis at Sweet Briar College in the
mountains of Virginia. I called Coach Verdieck and asked if I could hire him.
“What for?” he asked. I told him I wanted to know more about coaching
and he was the one who I most respected. I’d been coaching 25 years at
this point. Still not convinced, he argued that his knees had gotten so bad
he couldn’t move enough to hit many balls. I replied, “Coach, I just want to
talk with you.” He contended he didn’t talk much but to come by and
we’d probably be done in 30 minutes. My wife went with me and waited
patiently for three-and-a-half hours. “Tom, we have to set the babysitter
free at 8:00 PM.”
You’re never too old to learn, and I learned a lot that day. When I became
director of athletics the first thing I did was book an hour with five different
athletic directors whom I admired. Dylan said you had to get up close to
the teacher if you want to learn anything.
Coach Verdieck was impressive. In The Little Green Book of Tennis I draw
from all my writings, and his coaching and advice show up, as well as that
of my long-term mentor and friend, Jim Leighton.
Here, then, is The Little Green Book of Tennis. Done, I hope, in a style that
does justice to the great game of tennis and to the fine men I have learned
from.
P.S. Find your mentor(s)!
CHET MURPHY (71)
Changing to a proper service grip is an example of where this
technique may be used, or playing with a continental grip for all volleys
or moving the ball toss to the right move for the service or any number
of other changes that are sound and needed. If this all sounds like it is
moving toward the classic vs. modern coaching argument, it is. And no
tennis debate is more heated than debate over the current widespread
use of western forehand and two-handed backhands. Coach Leighton
invited me for breakfast with Chet Murphy at a USTA Teachers Conference.
After listening to these two great teachers, I was particularly struck with
one statement: Mr. Leighton asked Mr. Murphy what his assessment of the
classic method of tennis instruction that their careers had sanctioned. Mr.
Murphy pondered, then responded, “I think we did a good job, though we
probably should have been more tolerant of western forehands.”
THE BALLISTIC SWING (72)
Welby Van Horn would use this technique to teach ballistic swing
footwork. Once you have made the ground stroke or serve or volley, hold
your follow through (or ending) to a count of “3,000”). Look at your feet. Is
your balance foot and adjustment foot correct as described below?
“Balance is the clue to good tennis, and footwork is the key to good
balance” –Welby Van Horn.
I would not allow the lead foot to step backward on the backhand. The
“step hit” is part of a “ballistic” swing, and footwork is comparable to a golf shot or a baseball swing. The front foot on the forehand is set more open
than the backhand. The ballistic swing gets your weight into the ball with
a “one-two” or “step-hit” rhythm. The point of your hip bone (iliac crest) on
a right-hander’s right side is what turns to redistribute weight from back to
front. The “tacked down” back foot maintains your balance. Van Horn called
the front foot the “anchor foot.”
Van Horn’s balance system is certainly one of the most sure methods
of teaching beginning players, and he is meticulous in his delivery. Many
varsity-level players would benefit from a better understanding of the
“balance approach.”
THE CLINIC (73)
One year I took 20 juniors from Wilson to the Raleigh Racket Club.
A “junior clinic” was scheduled at the stadium court. The only problem was
a 15-year-old Tim Wilkison was playing the number one college player
from the University of Alabama at the stadium court.
Though Tim was outsized, he patiently dismantled his opponent right
in front of our youngsters. The only problem was it took a long time. At
the match’s completion I told our crowd to “load up the van.” An assistant asked, “Coach, what about the clinic?” I replied, “We just saw Tim put on a
clinic.” Plus, people from Wilson get hungry.
The Little Green Book of Tennis 