The following list is a personal favorite list of tennis coaching and
teaching concepts I endorse. Some have been mentioned earlier. There
are many other fine ideas by others, but these are the main approaches I
use most often.
The Balance Approach. This is Welby Van Horn’s concise method for
teaching beginners. His film, Tennis Fundamentals, is particularly good for
coaches of young teams.
The Rebound Approach. Dennis Van Der Meer has become one of the
all-time great teachers of groups. His work exists in every form – written to
film and tape. One of his most important contributions has been to help
players understand the bounce of the ball and how to move properly to
cope with the movement frustrations of the game.
Graduated-Length Method. Any number of teachers have
shortened the court, the racquet, or in some way modified the game itself.
Be it mini-tennis or “pickle ball,” making the game easier at the beginning
is a working method. We use mini-tennis annually at the collegiate level to
help develop touch, “hit spot,” and movement.
The Biomechanics Approach. I don’t know what word was used prior to
the popularization of “biomechanics,” but it is the closest thing to what
I conceive coaching to be. It is a scientific mastery of the trade, the
dissecting of the physical skills of the game. The reader can read about
my admiration for these people who have lent so much to the game.
Certainly, Jim Leighton and Chet Murphy are two whom I have drawn on
most heavily.
The School or Academy Approach. Nick Bolletieri and Harry Hopman are
the two men well known for a growing method of combining school,
tennis, and competition into a sound method for developing serious
young players. Quite honestly, this is similar to what college tennis has
been doing for years only it happens earlier and with serious intentions
toward tennis improvement.
The Checkpoint Approach. This method is the most common way of
teaching tennis and can be good or bad, depending on the ability of the
coach or teacher. Here, the coach stands before his pupils and shows them
how to take the racquet back, grip the racquet, or whatever point he is
attempting to impart. Books teach in this fashion with pictures or
diagrams. A sound understanding of biomechanics enhances the
“checkpoint” approach.
The Use of Psychology and Motivation. One of the things good coaches
do best is get their players to a “proper level of arousal.” You can pump
them up too high or let the whole deal drag. How to handle players is a
major part of the profession. There seems to be more written on tennis
psychology than ever before, and these are excellent statements that vary
”far out” to “no nonsense” approaches.
The “Shadowing” Approach. I once saw a college tennis coach
encourage his college team to mimic patterns of shots without using a
ball. Dean Smith, North Carolina basketball coach, used this method as
early as 1964 to teach defensive fundamentals in basketball. This seems to
be a way to teach footwork and to slow down the actions to a level that it
can be better assimilated. My experience also has been that it is restricting
to simply tell someone how to execute a task. Demonstration is better, but
even better is to move the person through the stroke pattern yourself, a
“hands-on” approach, if you will, where you blend and shape and talk and
mold a player while having him pass through the stroke pattern. Once
again, you have to know these patterns to move people through them
correctly. The more you teach the more adept you become at this
approach, and talking is needed less and less.
The Target Approach. “Targets for Tennis” was one of the articles I wrote
that appeared in the January 1972 Scholastic Coach. Since that article,
many teachers have written similar, more detailed, and more thorough
statements. All are centered on the understanding that you have to know
where to hit the ball, and a mind’s eye picture of the proper target is
essential to getting the ball where it belongs.
The Axiom Approach. The use of time-honored statements, whether
they be motivators, instructions, or “drill-sergeant” type commands, have
their place in coaching. Practice sessions are filled with statements like:
“The harder he hits it, the easier you swing,” or “the farther in you come,
the shorter the shot, the more open the shot, and the more apt you are to
hit under spin,” or “the function of the stroke determines the length of the
stroke.” (These are all examples of axioms related to shot selections.) Some
more familiar ones are “get the lead out of your pants,” or “move around,
you’re killing the grass.” The players themselves develop the use of axioms

such as “go for it,” or “this is our time,” or (heaven forbid) “awesome.” What-
ever turns you on will get a lot of esprit de corps out of some people, little out of others. It does add to the fun of it all.
There are too many concepts to list them all, and some are blended in throughout the book. Some work well one time and not so well the next.
Coaches tend to think constantly about what will help. I remember once
watching a number one player of mine as his reflection was cast off a
clubhouse window. This right-handed player I’d watched for three years
now appeared to be left-handed. Almost immediately, I said to myself, “
That’s it! He doesn’t pronate his wrist on the serve.” Oddly enough, after
viewing others the same way (or hitting left-handed in the mirror), I could
pick out minute details that I’d never noticed before. Try it; you’ll be
surprised.
There is almost no limitation to tennis knowledge and the ways you can
learn about the game. Surely, you’ll develop your own favorite concepts
that work for you and your players.
The real joy in coaching is the constant learning and transferring of
knowledge: to see something you have gathered and given to a player,
and to see the pleasure and success they derive from implementing the
improvement. This is what coaching is all about.

At one athletic meeting, our sports information director made repeated
notice that one of our coaches was approaching 200 wins. While I had 597
in my career, what struck me at the meeting was the “other side.”
I blurted out, “I’m getting near 200 losses.” They looked at me strangely.
My point: If I lost 200 matches, that’s about 1,000 times I’ve had to deal
with a singles player or doubles team who had lost. You’d better know how
to handle losing and your players who’ve lost.
There are much bigger losers than in athletic contests. If you deal, as I
did, with several thousand students, athletes, faculty, townspeople,
coaches and their families, there are inevitable tragedies. I lost one young
player. I mourn him daily.
Your players will turn to you when times are tough.
My first prayer at every season’s start is for safety in the van. No one
drove but me. I prayed that prayer every trip.

My language gets me in trouble, but I already know I’m going to heaven
because God sent me Roland Thornquist.
About 25 Swedish men played for me. Ron Smarr, longtime men’s tennis
coaching friend, and NCAA National Coach of the Year in 2004, got me
started. Ronnie’s “hand-me-down” letters included one from Roger Ossmin
of Linkoping, Sweden. He had an interesting resume result: Bjorn Borg beat him 6–3, 7–5. He had to be pretty good to be on the same court with Borg, who
was tearing up world tennis. Many Swedes would excel in the post–Borg era. They
were bright, tough, attractive, and understood team tennis. They took me for
a ride, Atlantic Christian and Elon, too.
“Thumper” Thornqvist was beautiful.
All smiles, 6’6” tall, and just blossoming as a player. People repeatedly ask me how
I recruited him. They assumed a gigantic sales coup. Stefan did it. A “pipeline” is a
coach’s dream. One kid begets the next.
Stefan Hager, a senior Swede, told me about Roland.
“He might come to Elon, Coach.”
Roland didn’t like the junior tennis circuit. It was lonely and required a lot
of travel. I always let the current Swede talk to their “recruits” in their own
language. Two minutes of watching Stefan’s eyes told me the conversation
was going well. He handed me the phone. My great recruiting job went
like this: “Roland, we can give you a scholarship in the spring.”
“I’ll be there,” were the first words he spoke.
International recruiting is like buying the proverbial pig in a poke. I
always checked them out with the other kids. My deal was play hard, get
your degree, and we’ll replace you with a countryman. They felt a
responsibility to the next Swede, whomever he may be.
I knew Roland was good, but when he lost the first three games of his
first match, I gulped. Not to worry! Nerves settled down, he went on to win
that match 6–3, 6–0. And the next 44 matches. He lost three sets all year,
won the NAIA singles title and teamed with Stefan to win the doubles.
We had four North Carolina starters in addition to the two Swedes. It was
unusual for the NAIA team winner to have an American starter in the 80s
and 90s. Four “plain vanilla” Tar Heels were proud as punch. With Roland,
it was like having a tough big brother in a fight. He “buoyed” the rest of
us. He also was selected as the “Freshman of the Year” in NAIA tennis. And
he won the NAIA Sportsmanship Award. It was a dream season. We were
treated to dinner at the Governor’s Mansion in Raleigh. Jim Martin served
as host. We were cited in the Congressional Record sponsored by
Congressman Howard Coble of our district.
Roland was a potential pro, and I knew it was in his best interest to move
up. Still it was hard for us. I think we both shed tears as he transferred to

UNC-Chapel Hill to play for Coach Allen Morris, a great player, friend, and
protégé of Coach Jim Leighton.
Roland was in the top two or three college players in America. And, as a
junior, he was also given the NCAA Division I Sportsmanship Award. This is
a one-time award, but an odd thing happened. Playing in the NCAA
Division I Indoor Singles Championship in 1993, senior Roland was down
a set to Georgia’s Mike Sell, a fine player. This final match was on ESPN and
Sell served a second serve. Down 4–5, 30–40, it was a precious service
break point for the set. The lineman called the serve out. Double fault, set
to Thornqvist. One set each. The puzzled commentators watched
Thornqvist as he spoke to the chair umpire. Then one commentator said,
“Well, you don’t see that every day.” Thornqvist had overruled the linesman
on his opponent’s behalf. Roland told me he’d seen the ball hit the line
and he couldn’t have returned it. He gave Sell the point. Roland won the
second set and the third. More than that, he exemplified the best in sport.
At the spring coaches convention, the question of the sportsmanship
award came up for vote. It was noted Roland, though a logical candidate,
was ineligible. An unattached coach rose in the meeting and suggested,
“Men, we can give this award to anyone we wish, but Roland Thornqvist
deserves the award. I move we waive the rule for one year.” Roland won
his third National Sportsmanship Award.
Dean Smith, Carolina’s legendary basketball coach, found out about
Roland and had him on his TV show. Smith had himself won a rather
significant sportsmanship award that year: Sports Illustrated’s Sportsman of
the Year.”
Coach Smith commented, “You know, I’ve never argued with the official
to call that foul on us rather them. Roland’s one up on me!”
Coach Smith helped Roland get the women’s coaching job with Roy
Williams’s school, the Kansas Jayhawks. Williams came back to Carolina,
and Roland did too. Carolina bolted into the top 10 women’s tennis teams.
Roland then accepted the Gators job at Florida. In his second year, his girls
won the NCAA Division I Women’s title.
Roland has never failed to cite Elon as a great place to start.

While the humor in sports is great, more impressive are the truly noble
things that manifest themselves on the court. Line calling in tennis
provides a mirror to one’s character. There was never a player I coached
who I didn’t have a pretty good estimation of their “line calling” philosophy. Being honest is quite tough sometimes, but it is tennis’s
finest moment. I have already described what was my “most impressive
show of sportsmanship.”
“If you are not positive it’s out, it’s good.” That’s not complicated.
It’s just as wrong to unjustifiably accuse an opponent of cheating as it
is to cheat yourself.
There are, of course, all kinds of other rules, but line calling is crucial to
a worthy contest.
Steve Wilkinson, long-time coach at Gustavus Adolphus College in
Minnesota, did the best job of any coach I observed at fostering good
sportsmanship among his players. His team guidelines were stellar.
One teacher would drop a ball inside the court and ask his group of
students: “In or out?” “In” was the obvious response. He would then have
them close their eyes. Then he’d drop a second ball: “In or out?” The
puzzled ones would hear the perceptive ones reply, “In” (if you can’t see it
out, it’s in).
My age and my job were beginning to conflict. Someone said it’s time
to quit coaching when the pain of losing is worse that the joy of winning.
I can tell you there is a place beyond that: When you don’t really care
whether you win or lose. I wasn’t quite there but I knew it wasn’t far off.
I had begun to look at things differently. Dr. White had asked me to add
the girls’ team to my duties. I decided I couldn’t say no to Alan, plus I would
do my best after I said yes.
We’d had several good women’s team coaches but longevity was a
problem. Title IX, too.
In retrospect I should have argued for two coaches. Coaching two teams
is best done if you have a M.W.A. degree (“Management While Wandering
Around”).
I loved the girls. They are different to coach. Anson Dorrance of North
Carolina soccer fame has done the most clinical study of effective coaching
of women. I recommend his book. It took me a while to communicate well
particularly with other women’s team’s coaches. Those who were men were
unreasonably protective of “their girls,” and there was a genre of women
who coached I never did figure out. I got into more arguments coaching
women for three years than I did in 40 for men.
Jessica Fisher typifies my changed attitude toward coaching later on.
Jessica was sweet, a limited player, who’d never been in the lineup. My
first fall practice she asked me about being a bridesmaid in a friend’s wedding during our spring break. We had a four match spring trip
scheduled. I approved the absence. Jessica was number eight on our team.
We could survive, particularly when the four teams were clearly better than
our best possibilities. Before our trip we had some illness and injuries. We
were down to five, needing six girls to have a full team. Plus with five you
forfeit two points. On a drizzling March morning we were loading the van.
Across the parking lot I saw Jessica dragging her team bag and crying. I
mean sobbing. She can’t talk, but she hoisted the bag in the back. “Jessica,
you don’t have to go. We’ll be okay. I told you so in the fall.” Through her
sobs she said, “I won’t let an Elon team be short-handed.” And she crawled
in the back. Company girl.
What I began to realize and see were all the good things kids do. People
who tell you that young people are not as good as they used to be are
wrong.
And it didn’t have to be my kids. The coach from the College of
Charleston, Angelo Anastapoulo, asked if he could sub a senior girl in
our match. “She hasn’t gotten to play much.” “Sure.” Both girls played a
fine match. Down to a tiebreaker. I watched this young woman with
admiration. There were five or six close calls. Calls I’d spent a career
watching and wondering about. The girl never batted an eye. Almost
overly fair and truly a good sport. She lost. I asked Angie if I might speak
to her. “Sure.”
“You are about to graduate aren’t you?”
“Yes sir, three weeks.”
“When all this tennis stuff is over, you’ll still be honest won’t you?”
“Yes sir,” she smiled.
I’ve had parents who asked me how to make their kid be more like
those who cheat. Really? I always asked do you really want your good kid
to actually change?
My last year a boy I’d often encouraged to watch his calls and behavior
wound up in a crucial final match against our chief rival.
Fate tests you. The deciding tiebreaker featured an unbelievable number
of balls in favor of the other player and team. It was truly uncanny. Our kid
lost, having made every call honestly. He came to me with tears flowing,
saying, “Coach, I let you down.” I told him the truth. “Mike, I’ve never been
more proud of a player.”
The next week we drew the same team in the tournament and wore
them out.
I saw that happen in Kansas City once. A boy named Ben Taylor had lost a District title on a ninth point (old tiebreaker) of the deciding set. Playing an
hour from his campus, his coach said he didn’t speak all the way back. His
opponent’s own fans had seen the call and booed their classmate openly.
His coach dropped Ben off and confirmed: “Ben, you know your shot was
good.” Ben said, “I should have beaten him anyway.” With a draw of 256
men in the NAIA Nationals, fate pitted Ben against the same guy.
Taylor by 6–2, 6–1.
It was beautiful to watch the shows of honesty, courage, self-sacrifice, playing injured for team, and teamwork in sports. Beautiful moments.

Dr. John Eatman, professor at UNC-Greensboro, was my first number
one tennis player. Through the years,Dr. Eatman has continued playing and promoting tennis. We talked at length about how one should select the right college to play for. John summarize some major points in this handout for prospective student-tennis athletes. The following comments were prepared with input from college coaches.They reflect a general view of the ideas of the coaches rather than the views of any particular coach. They are offered as aid to NCTA junior players and their parents in the difficult process of finding the right college for junior players to further  their education and advance their tennis.

What does playing college tennis offer me?College tennis offers the participant a number of things besides just the
ability to continue to advance as a tennis player. College tennis is a team
sport. Junior competition is clearly focused on individual achievement
while college tennis has definite team goals. You will make a number of
contacts that are useful in later life and demonstrate you can contribute
to a team effort in a competitive environment. College tennis also can add
a lot to your social life and help you establish yourself as a member of the college community. Many of the people you meet as a member of a col- lege team will become lifelong friends.

What are the opportunities for playing college tennis?
Most colleges have men’s and women’s tennis teams and most of these
teams will have between 8 and 12 team members. Thus, while there are
many opportunities for playing college tennis, there are also many junior
players who want to play. Because the United States is the only nation with
well-established collegiate competition, U.S. college tennis is attractive
to foreign players. Consequently, there are many persons interested in
playing college tennis and the competition for a spot on college teams is
quite competitive.
What should I take into consideration when selecting a school?
Selecting a college is one of the more difficult choices that a young
person has to make. There are many factors to consider. Ideally, a person
should have a career goal that can help with the decision. Realistically, most students do not have a definite career goal to which they are committed. Assuming that you are interested in selecting a school that offers you the academic and tennis opportunities that you desire, the following factors (listed in order of importance) should be considered.
Academic Environment of the School
Your primary purpose in attending college should be to get an education.
The odds of any player making a living as a tennis player are quite small.
Therefore, it is important to select a school that is compatible with your
academic goals and abilities. In order to do this, an honest self-assessment
is essential in making a good choice.
Social Environment of the School
This is difficult to consider and many times is given too much weight by
a young person. Using the social environment as the sole criteria often
leads to making an unsatisfactory choice in terms of other criteria. One
good way to assess this aspect of a school is to visit the institution while
it is in session and talk with some typical students. Visits in the summer
or holidays can convey a mistaken impression of the real environment.
Most colleges will arrange visits if you do not know anyone attending the
school. Do not be afraid to visit and find out about the school. This is also a
big help in assessing the academic environment.
Cost of Attending the School
The cost of attending college continues to increase and is a financial
burden for most families. The base cost of attending college should not
discourage you from considering the college because there are many
opportunities for financial aid. Basically, a college may offer scholarships
(aid not requiring work or pay back) for academic merit, athletic ability,
and financial need. Often a student will receive some combination of
these. It is important for you to explore all three avenues because they will
not be the same for all colleges. Athletic scholarships are quite limited. The
NCAA, for example, allows for eight scholarships for women’s tennis. Men’s
teams: four and a half. Many, probably most, colleges offer fewer than
the maximum. Thus, in any one year, a college may have limited athletic
scholarship monies available. This will generally translate into the
awarding of partial scholarships. Typically, scholarships are awarded on
an annual basis so they are not guaranteed. A lot of players attend college based on a “promise” of future scholarship aid. Because a situation can
change in a year, there is usually no real guarantee that a promise can or
will be fulfilled.
The Tennis Coach
The tennis coach will have a major impact on your college tennis. In
essence, you are “stuck” with the coach who is at the school you attend.
Thus, it becomes important to find out about the coach and his or her
mode of operation and ways of dealing with the team. This is difficult to
assess. Visiting the school and watching a match or practice session helps.
It is also useful to talk with the players on the team. In dealing with a
college coach before attending the school, a player should be open and
direct with the coach and expect the same from the coach. Coaches do not
like to be misled by prospective players any more than a player wants to
be misled by a prospective coach. A coach should be willing to give you
an honest appraisal of your chances of making the team and getting to
actually play. Some coaches are guilty of inaccurately representing
chances of playing and some players are guilty of misrepresenting their
abilities and interest in attending a particular school. The main guide here
is to ask a question if you have one and answer questions asked you
honestly. Related to this are the recruiting rules. The rules for collegiate
recruiting limit the opportunities for a player to visit a school and talk with
a coach. The NCAA has extensive regulations. For example, a coach has
to be careful in talking with a potential recruit at a tournament. A formal
campus visit is usually a key part of the recruiting process. Often it is better
for the player or the player’s parents to call a coach if they have questions
when the player is being recruited by a college than it is for the coach to
call the player. Remember that a coach’s recruiting priorities are subject
to change and that his/her interest in a player can increase or decrease
during the year as other recruits and current players make their plans
known. At any point in time, a coach probably has a priority assigned to
his potential recruits. While the coach may not always want to tell you
about how you are really rated, you should not be afraid to ask for a clean
statement of your status on the coach’s recruiting list.
The Players on the Team
Obviously, you will spend a considerable amount of time with players
on the team if you are a member of a college tennis team. It is also
obvious that the team members will change over time as current
players move on and new players arrive. Thus, it is helpful to meet the
players when you visit a college to assess your general compatibility. The
quality of the players on the team should be a guide as to whether you can
play on a team and at what position. If playing college tennis is important
to you, then you should honestly evaluate whether you have a realistic chance of making the starting lineup. A lot of players find that they cannot
play for a team after they arrive at a school.
The Schedule
The schedule that a team plays can tell you a lot about what is expected.
Some schedules involve a great deal of travel and this can impact your
academic pursuits. The schedule can also show you what the competitive
aspirations for the team are because most colleges try to develop a team
that will be competitive given their schedule. You should look at the team’s
recent schedule and their record to see how well they are meeting their
goals. It has been said that the typical college team should expect to finish with a record of 50 percent wins and 50 percent losses. A team that is consistently under this is probably overmatched and perhaps putting too few resources into its team, while the reverse might be true for a team with few losses.
The Tennis Facilities
The tennis facilities can be broadly defined as the courts and the training
facilities. Ideally, a college should have enough quality courts to provide
practice facilities for both men’s and women’s teams simultaneously. The
courts should be in good shape and many will have viewing areas. While
many schools do not have their own indoor courts, a number of schools
will have at least some access to indoor courts. This is obviously a more
important consideration in colder climates. In addition to courts, it is useful
to look at the dressing rooms that the teams use and what type of other
facilities (weight rooms, sports medicine facilities, etc.) they have. In some
cases, the facilities may be available only on a limited basis because of
their use by other teams and the general student population.
The Operational Budget
The operational budget for a college team is what the school allocates
for travel, equipment, and other such items. The operational budget for
colleges can vary widely. It is a mistake not to understand what the
college is going to provide for the team and what players are required
to provide for themselves. The coach should give you details of the
operational budget. For example, one team might provide a player with
two pairs of shoes. Another team will provide no shoes and a third team
might provide four pairs of shoes. The families of most junior players have
spent a substantial amount supporting the player in junior competition
and now that family is facing the financial burden of college. Given this,
it is best to not have any surprises by expecting an operational budget
that is different from what actually exists.
What are coaches looking for in junior players?
This is a difficult question because coaches do have different perspectives and their needs are not always the same. In general, a coach would like a
player who would be a good student, capable of competing in singles and
doubles, have good practice habits, have a good on-court attitude, and be
dependable and fit.
The academic expectations of the school and the coach will need to
match. A coach generally will not want to recruit a player who cannot (or
will not) be able to make the grade academically. Most coaches want to
recruit players who they know can graduate, stay eligible for competition,
and will not require constant supervision.
While junior rankings are important, most coaches are interested in how
a player will compete at the college level. Thus, a junior ranking is not a
guarantee that a coach will assume that you will be a good player on
the collegiate level. Some very good junior players have not competed
successfully at the collegiate level and other players have done better at
the collegiate level than in the juniors. In addition, junior rankings often do
not measure a player’s capability in doubles because many junior players
do not play doubles regularly. Doubles at the collegiate level is important
because doubles decides many collegiate matches. Being able to play
successful doubles (or not being very good at doubles) can be a real
deciding factor in a school’s level of interest in a player.
College tennis is a tough, competitive arena. Players need to work hard
each day and come to each match to play. The season can be a burden
when you are balancing academics and tennis. Consequently, a coach
will value highly players who will work hard in practice, stay focused in
matches, and manage academic burdens themselves. Increasingly,
coaches are concerned about players who do not have a lot of composure
in matches. No coach wants to deal with a prima donna and many think
the presence of such a player on a team is a detriment to the team.
Most junior players have a physical adjustment to make in moving to
college tennis. At the college level, most of your matches (in challenges
and against other teams) will be against a player who is perfectly capable
of defeating you. This makes physical conditioning important. A lot of
junior players are not as fit as college coaches require. Thus, getting in
excellent condition and staying there is a prerequisite for college tennis
success. A lot of players have lost an opportunity to make a college team
by not showing up for fall or spring practice in good shape. A coach is also
less likely to recruit a player whose fitness the coach has cause to question.
Other Suggestions for Potential College Players
Check the website for the school’s rosters.
These are common now and reflect the number of internationals, the number of seniors, people you may know, and their ability levels.
If possible, find out where people you know play in the lineup. Then
compare your ability to theirs.
My golfing pro buddy said: “There are two kinds of people at a golf
course, the workers and the players, and all the players are looking for a
job.” Tim Wilkison is the only person in the entire history of North Carolina
to earn a real living playing tennis. The odds are slim to nothing. Don’t
put playing ahead of a degree. That said, if you really want to play college
tennis don’t be talked out of it. It’s great for those who are suited to it.
Go where you can play.
It’s your responsibility to find the right fit. The “perfect fit” is school,
scholarship, coach, teammates, and starting position. Sometimes you may
have to give on one or two of these variables.
I heard a coach say “most kids gravitate to programs that are one level
too high. Then they don’t play.” There has never been a happy substitute.
My experience tells me if you can’t start your first year you probably
never will.
Go to a school where you will be happy if injured, etc., and can’t play.
Most good kids are happy at most good schools of their choice. But if you
make an initial mistake, nobody (kid, coach, parents) will be happy, and it
can get messy.
The United States Tennis Association produces a document on the same
subject. I’d like to emphasize a few points:
I’d like to reemphasize, if you really want to play, go where
you can play.
It’s been said that many athletes gravitate to one level beyond their ability.
There’s never been “happy substitute.”
In college tennis if you don’t get to play your first year, you probably
won’t get to play. This is not always true but do you want to gamble?
When tryouts were allowed, I’d have my number four player play a set
with the prospect. If the prospect played closely with number four, he had
a chance at our school. It was amazing to me how many times a prospect,
having just lost 6–1, would tell a parent, “I’m better than that guy.”
Transferring, if you make a mistake, is not always easy to do.

Malcolm Gladwell says it takes 10,000 hours to be proficient in any worthy arena. I don’t know how many, from childhood to my coaching career, were spent “watching the ball bounce.” A lot! All kinds of sports. Tennis, one of the latest found. And, as stated, my pivotal find was Jim Leighton. Mentor to many, myself included. He opened my eyes and I began to see things better. And I learned from all kinds of sources. Tennis on television, playing tennis, reading instruction books, watching other tennis players, DVDs, clinics (especially at the U.S. Open’s USTA clinics), coaches of tennis and other sports. Most came from watching my own players. Some positive information, some negatives that needed “coaching.” Next I have listed sources for some of these lessons. Lessons that win watches. The first is one that is unusual but I gotta tell you, we got a lot of points from badminton. “Chai” will tell you that!

Malcolm Gladwell’s book, David and Goliath, has an interesting

viewpoint regarding one’s choice of institutions for pursuing higher
education. He suggests being a big fish in a little pond yields better results
than the other way around. Being in the top third of your class breeds
esteem, whereas being in the lower third (albeit a third with fine students)
often discourages those who are always looking up at those who
outperform them.
I don’t remember a lot said at some 45 commencement speeches I
attended. One statement I do remember was that the best way to become
educated in America was in good small colleges. Gladwell further
acknowledges that even at some of our very best schools exceptions are
made. And often these exceptions are given to athletes. And while many
exceptions are given thinking we are doing them a favor, he suggests
maybe the results are not the outcomes we would want.
Having been involved in college athletics for some 40-plus years,
Gladwell makes one ask questions, because so many exceptions go to
athletes. Are we putting these youngsters into situations they cannot
function or feel positive in?
The real value of athletics lies in the lessons learned therein. Doesn’t the
student have to be capable of and willing to learn the lessons? Choosing
the right school seems critical to marginal students and athletes.

“Bullfight critics row on row,
Pack the vast arena full.
But there’s only one there who knows,
And he’s the one who fights the bull.”
From Michener’s “Mexico”