Another source of information was hosting semi-pro or “money
tournaments.” BB&T (Branch Banking and Trust) hosted a fine tournament
with people like Freddie McNair and other great college players of the
mid-70s. The most impressive, though, was an older Texan, Jimmy Parker.
What a nice guy and great player. Jimmy could stand on the service line
and return serve. He also ran a below 10-second 100 yards. Blink and he
was at the net. We also hired Tim Wilkison and Charlie Owens for our local
exhibitions. If you couldn’t learn from those guys, don’t take calculus.
I learned a shot from Tim’s brother, Andy, who played for North Carolina
State. Andy, troubled with a bad knee, was a fine player himself.
Watching him return serve caused me to define his return as “Z” shaped.
I never told Andy, but his quick move to the left and in, accompanied by
moving his weight in toward the target, became the model for our
doubles return.
Charlie Owens perfected a “just high enough” forehand lob down the
line to force the net player to hit a lukewarm backhand overhead to his
only logical cross-court target. Charlie would be there waiting for it with a
“passer.”

Another shot from our opponents is etched in my memory. However
my memory fails on his first name. A Carson Newman College player, last
name of Yentilmez, had a “flop” shot that he’d perfected. No matter how
you approached, he’d spin a “semi-topspin lob” cross court at a pace that
left you just short of comfortable. We added the “Yentilmez flop.” Many got
out of deep trouble with the “flop.” Takes some practice!

One segment in our handbook challenged our team with this statement:
“Drills: Coach hitting balls to you? (“That’s what ‘gulls’ like.” Imre Kwast of
Holland).
If the coach teaches you something that’s valuable but you don’t “like it,”
is that the coach’s fault?  If the coach teaches you something valuable but you won’t practice it, is that the coach’s fault?
If the coach lets you do something “comfortable,” is that good coaching
or a waste of practice time?
If the coach shows you something that will work but you can’t do it, is
that the coach’s fault?
The best girls’ teams in our league do the tough things in a match. We
can learn these tough things or lose in the spring. We may lose even if we
try hard, but isn’t that what it’s about?

“Miniaturizing” the games helps young girls. Mini-tennis, or even
quarter-court tennis, teaches early understanding of the importance of
movement. A basic pattern I’d used for young stars was essentially:
• Explain with demonstration
• Have them “mimic” or imitate, the shot (air stroke)
• Drop them the ball
• “Mini” toss them the ball
• Back up at their pace; if you lose it, move back in
Someone called it the graduated-length method (GLM). It works with
youngsters. Rallying also benefits from this method. Start up close to the
net and work back, controlling the ball. If you lose control, move back in
where you can control it.

I’d never heard the term “unweight before the service return” before
going to Kansas City. I watched a kid (no idea now who he was) jump
about a foot off the ground before receiving serve. Exaggerated, probably
a useless “vertical jump,” but it was the moment I realized, “Hey, I’m not
teaching that correctly.”
To this day I watch many returners stand flat-footed before the serve.Pros often still don’t teach the “left, right, split, and hop” technique,
essential for quickness on the return. Yet all good players do it, most
having learned on their own, out of necessity.
Borg “unweighted” after every ground stroke. Women do this better
than men.
One of the things I learned watching Chris Evert at 15 years old in
Winston-Salem, North Carolina, was that a good early backswing made
one quicker. I don’t know why, but it’s true.

My advice to young coaches is to recruit good kids who are good players
who can function academically and be happy in your school. Perhaps the
two biggest errors I see the young coaches make are first, they insist on
recruiting some borderline jerk who is talented. Eventually that kid throws
the team and the coach “under the bus.” Don’t bet on that person, Coach!
Get some good people. You’ll win your share and have a fair chance of
staying sane in the crazy world of athletics. Second, I see the young
coaches work the kids too much. Your players are not employees, or
machines, and you can run them into the ground. Perhaps the biggest
criticism I heard of my teams was that we didn’t work hard enough. But at

tournament time we were fresh, eager, and goal oriented. Often we waxed
the “hard workers” whose coach had worn them beyond caring much. I
never had a team that wasn’t ready to put away the racquet for a while at
the end of the season. It’s call “periodization.”

Answer: It takes a player as good as Serena but who also
has a great drop shot.
And how to beat that player?
Serena with a drop shot and
also very good defense against the drop shot.
Tennis evolves.

In The Little Green Book of Tennis, I have tried, as Mr. Penick stated he
tried, to give the best of the best information: what worked and was
time honored, helpful coaching. Mr. Leighton got me started. Practical
experience gathered through 40 years of coaching and observing college
tennis, and in particular small college tennis, was a strong influence. Jim Verdieck was a heck of a role model for me and many others.
I hope to keep learning and advise others to do the same.
From Play Is Where Life Is: Coach Verdieck told me that three times
he had lights approved for the university courts. 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 said, “If you put lights up, 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 an hour private lesson with Verdi-
eck. Sixteen remaining players got a half hour per week with him. This, in addition to team responsibilities. Upon learning he’d retired at age 65, I
called to congratulate him. He was within 60 or so wins of 1,000 wins. No
one else is 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.” 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 that! 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 that he was one who knew more than I did. Still not convinced, he said
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 on 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 I admired.This book draws on materials gathered over the past 40 years. The early writings came from pre-1984. The following are comments onchanges in the game, some written in 2007, some in 2015.
2007 Observations from Play Is Where Life Is:
Time moves on. What has changed from the 1980s up until now in the tennis world? Certainly some “physical” improvements have affected rac-
quets. So much power generated with such ease. There’s more night play. Lights are better, courts are better, and surfaces are improved. Television
continues to “spread the game.” Instruction is better. College coaches are
now better paid and better informed. Prize money, and more scholarships
for Americans and internationals, has recruited athletes who now “pick
tennis first.” These people are not people who “ couldn’t play anything
else.” And they are bigger, stronger, faster. They train, their diets are better,
weights commonly are used …There has been a positive change in the
governance of matches. The point penalty system cleaned up behavior
problems. College refereeing is better, and they use more refs. Still two
people can’t officiate six (or more contests). Pro players are less likely to
drink to excess now. “Rounders” or “tennis bums” have been “weeded out.” Indoor facilities have leveled the playing field. Now many people, particularly young people, can play year round, not just in the “weather-blessed”areas. When you don’t stop all year long, your “tennis education” grows exponentially (no “re-learning” time needed, or wasted.) One contrast with football and basketball is related to size. Soon there will be a 400-pound, 6’9” football left tackle who is also quick (read The Blind Side) or a basket-
ball player who can dunk himself. Tennis and golf professionals still haven’t produced a dominating 6’7” superstar. Perhaps height produces more
possibility for error in “lengthy shots.” Who knows, but “average-sized”
people still have a chance in championship tennis. (You do need a “big
heart.”) Another factor in American tennis can’t be overlooked: the role of
parents. Connors (mother), McEnroe (father), Evert (father), Agassi (fatherand brother), and the Williams’ sisters, are ample proof that the tremendous role of parents in the development of championship-level American players. Mr. Williams certainly gets the award for “out of the box” results. To train one child to be number one in the world is amazing but number one and number two at the same time is unprecedented. And done without normal routes of American junior play and USTA super support says a lot.
I was disappointed by the way the Williams sisters were often treated by
many in American tennis. They were extremely good sports, as evidenced
repeatedly. America was well served by Venus and Serena. Tennis too. The
effectiveness of western grip forehands, like two-handed backhands, has
been truly “certified” by numerous players. I would still encourage young players to add (“I didn’t change anything, I gave you a new one”—Jim Verdieck) a backhand underspin ball. It is a “tool” worthy of learning the grip change from western to continental, needed to hit this valuable shot. If there were one other obvious suggestion it would be to observe how many forehands are now hit with “open” stances. Many “purists” of
my day would straighten up that front lead foot. I think the racquets aid
young players here, but the “western gripped—open stance—sling-shot
forehand” stands on its own feet (one quite “open”). All players now have
access to what the great players of the later 20th century taught tennis.
Here are some examples (in addition to two-handed backhands and open
stance forehands): Bjorn Borg. I think long taught the world to “hit it as
hard as you can.” And he hit it in! It could be done. Topspin helped! (“I may
hit long, I may hit wide, but I won’t hit into the net.”) Pete Sampras: Serve
and volley with the same philosophy as Borg’s ground-stroke attitude. If
you hit it as hard as you can you eliminate a lot of judgment errors based
on “how hard to hit when?” (“Grip it and rip it”—John Daly.) Martina
Navratilova and Billie Jean King: Women can play the all-court game. All
things being equal ground stroke wise, those who can attack also will win.
There were at least two other contributions that are “must mentions.”
Andre Agassi: Took ground strokes and the value of conditioning to a
whole new level late in his career. Becoming extremely fit, Agassi had a
period of time he ruled tennis by running opponents into oblivion with
the simplest of strategies: Hit it hard as hell into alternate corners (with few
errors) until the other guy was “spent” physically. That truly was impressive.
No one had done this as well as Andre. All made contributions, but none
more so than the overall ability of Roger Federer and the ease with which
he executes all of it. Perhaps no other player has had more “total” ability
than Federer. His talent is staggering. Would he be the same were it not
for the lessons of Borg, Sampras, Laver, Agassi, Martina, and Evert? Is he
the best ever? I can’t say. What I suspect is there are youngsters watching,
learning, and practicing to take it all to a new, and perhaps unknown,
“new level.”
Watching tennis is going to continue to be exciting. Bet on it!

One policy I had was to never say anything to a player who had just lost
for one hour. Then I let them initiate the conversation. My most frequent
question was “If you had it to do over, what would you do differently?”
One kid I coached against wrote an analysis of his match immediately
after playing. “I may have to play him again. Or, my teammate may.”
Pretty smart.