There is a fine line between over coaching and continuous improvement and fine tuning tennis skills. One of the biggest challenges in developing high performance tennis players, is the prioritization of technical skills. Even when players get to around 8 UTR, they are likely deficient in a lot of areas, relative to higher level players. The forehand that got you to 8 UTR may need to be re-worked, if your goal is 10 UTR. Unfortunately for many, the physical skills become the limiting factor above 8 UTR. Conversely, many male players can easily achieve a UTR level of around 7 with basic tennis skills if they have elite athletic ability. If the physical skills are developed(see Tennis Athlete Benchmarking post), technical deficiencies can be protected in part by a players ability to fight through nervy moments of a match and defend his side of the court. High level offensive skills aren’t needed in most cases below 8 UTR.
How perfect do those foundational strokes need to be?
Having watched 100+ D1 college tennis matches, I’ll say they don’t have to be perfect, but a player identity is significant at the upper levels.
Not fully knowing what to expect, my first college match that I attended featured two nationally ranked teams. I was amazed at the different styles of play that were featured across the six lines of singles play. The line 6 player from USC Gamecocks exclusively chipped his forehand. Who taught this and why is he playing this way in a college match? The line 2 player from USC had a two-handed forehand. (who teaches this?) The players on both sides are elite players, highly recruited and they aren’t playing like the “book” says. In fact, across all twelve players, there was not a single player that even remotely resembled the technique of the current top ATP players….Federer, Djokovic, Nadal.
I can’t stress enough how important it is to take your junior players to go watch college matches. I’ve learned so much the past 7 years and have been to some of the best matches including two NCAA championships and two National ITA Indoors. All of these were driving distance and mostly free to attend.
The first time I saw UVA’s top player, Mitchell Frank play, I thought maybe he was injured. Here is a guy that has very little rotation on his forehand, almost exclusively arms the ball, doesn’t hit with a lot of power but he did not miss and his technical skills matched perfectly with his play style identity.
The serve however, I think is very “under coached”. I’m amazed at how many elite players at D1 have pretty average serves. These guys have spent a gazillion hours on court banging balls since they were old enough to tie their shoes, and a large portion of them can’t serve well relatively to the rest of their game.
Sometimes even your best skill needs to improve if there are rewards that can come from minor improvements. The serve is that skill that just small improvements can make a significant difference. My son, who has a better than average serve and could definitely play at a higher level with the foundation that he currently has, but there is still room to improve his serve. Could we be over coaching? Only time will tell and the rewards could be significant if the technical adjustments translate into a higher percentage of first serve and second serve games won.
With new apps like Coaches Eye and HUDL Technique, you can analyze the serve and pick up on the nuances that are hard to see in real time. We use these apps about every two months to evaluate and compare to prior videos and even compare to pro player models. This is why identity is important. You may not want to compare strokes to a baseline grinder if your player desires to be an all court player. You probably shouldn’t use Roger Federer as a serve model if you player has a pin point serve. We typically pick a few players that have similar styles and technique and drill down to the common denominators that are fundamental to the techniques we are trying to achieve.
What’s your approach? Leave a comment if you agree or disagree with this approach.
Find Your Game 