Thoughts by an Australian Ex-Tennis Professional From a Bye-Gone Era

Prior to entering the financial world this Australian spent some years playing the tennis circuit and coaching. Having gone through the Australian tennis system of the 50s and 60s (this period was one of the greatest in Australian tennis history producing some of the most famous names in the tennis world) and being a student of possibly then the best know coach of that period, Vick Edwards, has taught me a lot about coaching techniques and the mechanics of the game. Vick Edwards was Evonne Goolagong’s coach and world renowned for his coaching and   mentoring abilities. Having played Tremlett Cup for my region in Australia and gained a high Australian ranking, I moved to Spain travelling and playing international tennis tournaments mainly in Europe. While living in Spain I became the main coach at Lew Hoad’s Campo de Tennis, Living with and working with Lew. I spent three years living at Lew Hoad’s house in Mijas Spain. Lew’s name is one of the greatest in tennis. He played a power game that would have  easily been at home in the modern era. Rod Laver recently said that on his day Lew Hoad was unbeatable. During that period my life revolved around tennis. Lew Hoad’s Campo de Tenis was a training ground for many of the UK’s top junior tennis players, Stephen Warboys, Buster Motram and Ashley Compton-Dando. It was also a place of practice and recreation for some of the great players of the period, players such as Guillermo Vilas, Stan Smith, Manolo Santana, Manolo Orantes.

Having lived in the UK for many years I have some thoughts on British tennis. First let’s start with Andy Murray, a player with some considerable talent who developed his tennis in Spain not the UK. The Murray game is far too defensive basically hacking the ball back from the back-line in order to keep it in play. He is so good at this tactic that he tends to frustrate most players but looses the edge when he is up against an attaching player, Nedal or Federer. This problem was exposed by the way Gonzales defeated him in Paris this year. Gonzales power and attaching style will always push the Murray more defensive technique. Of course attaching players take more risks and are open to bad days when the ball regularly misses but risk is what wins majors. A mixture of attaching and defence is the best option  knowing where and when  to use such a mixture is what makes Roger Federer so good.  Roddick exposed the Murray game again at Wimbledon this year. What was surprising in the second set Murray played a talented and aggressive attaching set and won it. He then reverted to defensive hacking from the baseline. Roddick played with a clever mixture of consistency and power. One issue that could inhibit Murray and cause him to revert to a safe game in particular at Wimbledon is the incredible pressure that is placed on any British hopeful. Roddick had been totally written off by the British press speaking in terms of the Murray win record, even against Federer. They forgot that Roddick played a brilliant match two days before against one of the games greatest fighters who this Wimbledon was in a resurgent mood and working with a coach who is one of the games best tacticians.

Most spectators in the UK have little understanding of the subtleties of tennis; especially press writers who seem to generally believe that a winning record against top players in second tier tournaments is confirmation of a better player. This is not necessarily true as to the top players the only tournaments that matter are the 4 slams, Australia, Paris, Wimbledon and the US Open. They lift their games for these great tournaments. Even Sampras lost often in the second tier but would almost be unbeatable in the slams. In later years he only played Slams.  Many second tier tournaments offer appearance money and the incentive for multi- millionaire players to get to the final is not always there. Understanding these issues leads us to a constant dependence in the UK on usually one player with very few in the pipeline. Eastern European countries and Spain have built substantial pipelines and it is from volume and competition that you get the best results. Tennis in the UK needs to be taken to a broader market and not just confined to the middle classes in schools that use P.E. teachers to coach tennis. Anyone can show someone how to hit a tennis ball few can create a winner. Many great coaches have not been great players but have had that understanding and unclouded commitment to the game. Vick Edwards one of the most successful coaches of his period was not a great player, the Williams sisters were under the wing of their father. Many players had a mentoring parent who had the understanding and knowledge, Martina Hingis looked to her mother.  I believe that coaching needs to go back to the basics and look also at more deprived areas for junior development. Bringing coaches into schools in deprived areas and once some of these kids realise the excitement of the game and how much money can be earned by top players the volume in he pipeline will increase. The hunger and competition will also increase. A winner must have hunger. This is what has happened in Russia and Eastern Europe in the women’s game.  

During the 50s and 60s the Australian tennis machine was like a well oiled military machine. I believe this structure has now been lost in Australia and could be one of the problems that are causing the country to wallow in the tennis doldrums. Every Saturday and Sunday would see thousands of juniors from 8 to 16 doing stroke production in graded classes. The more advance at say 12 noon would also play matches against the 11 o’clock, winners would go up, losers down.  Classes consisted of before play commenced standing in a line and going through the motions of all the strokes without a ball. 1234, 1 take the racquet back, 2.bring it to the side of the body, 3. Bring it to the front of the body, keeping the racquet head up, this is where and how far in front you should hit the ball, 4 finishes with the follow-through here. The same counting process was carried out for the serve. The objective to groove the stroke. The volley was taught as an aggressive attaching shot; hit in front of the body while trying not to let the ball drop too low and punching it out like the snap of a boxer’s punch. I see too many players whose objective in volleying is to only get it back into play. The volley should be a set up shot designed to win the point. We were made / instructed to hit the ball on the top of the bounce, don’t let it drop. If it drops you can’t hit an attaching shot. I remember the hours of tactical talk with the coach. We practiced drop shots and lobbing over a right handler’s left shoulder. We had balls fired at us at the net to increase the sharpness. Volleying accuracy was demanded put away to the right, put away to the left; you can’t win unless the ball is going where you want it to go. Serving we were taught to hit targets on the court, down the middle out-wide, change the grip slightly to swing the away from the receiver especially when serving down the middle, kick the ball, serve into the body jam the receiver, move the racquet head slightly late in order to disguise where you intend to hits the shot. We were taught how to use disguise change direction on a shot at the last minute. Waite and be a little late sometimes. Let your opponent commit then you commit.  I see a lot of stroke production talk but little really taught. Bringing out what is best in a payer and making the player play chess is what makes a winner.  

From one player from a bye-gone era who believes these issues need to be addressed to build a tennis pipeline. Many of the great Spaniards are from poor backgrounds. Manolo Santana Manolo Orantes to name two.