10,000 Hours??

[bobbyswift]

10000 hours

As a coach for over 30 years I read this forum for tiny amounts of new information. One example would be how the pros make the ball move left to right or vice versa with topspin groundstrokes. Another would be the use of left and right arm in two handed backhand. The lefty forehand to me seems like a strength exercise the right backhand seems dangerous because the slot is in the wrong place. Too parallel to back wall for a 2 hander. On 2 handed backswing why is back shoulder higher than front. Same at contact. I think our forum can be better used by some of the great minds on this site.

[bobbyswift]

10000 hours

I would find it more interesting if your post contained your wisdom on court coverage and anticipation. After reading it I gained nothing. You seem to have a take on tennis you would like to share but I only ask when.

[worldsbesttenniscoach]

Just another remark about Donald Young:

Even though Donald had exposure to 2 tennis-teaching professionals as parents, as even though he had exposure to many world-famous "expert' coaches, Donald was not taught the tennis he really needed. Thankfully, Donald has improved somewhat over the past couple of years.

Donald shows to me that he does not know the basic rules I teach in covering court and anticipating balls. Donald uses that misguided Macci style unit-turn forehand, although he seems to be getting away from that, somewhat. Donald also hits those lousy backhand slices that so many players hit so badly.

In general, Donald was taught "today's game" -- which has so many holes in it. Because Donald was mistaught and miscoached, it really is impossible to judge whether he was truly talented or not. The USTA certainly has not helped Donald significantly. "Experts" and the USTA are always so quick to blame parents and other coaches for not providing sufficient coaching, but of course the USTA really cannot show that it provides sufficient coaching, either.

[DougEng]

10,000 Hour Rule Article

Actually the article made several mistakes. First, it was not based on an experiment from the 1990s. It was based upon research from the 1960s and then with chess players. Second, if anyone really examined the data, it didn't say 10,000 hours or 10 years. It was a range maybe about 5,000-25,000 and actually the best athletes were those who were able to achieve a level of expertise at 5,000-10,000. Third, development is important and neglected in sports. Regardless of training, most children start sports at 6-12 years old and don't become professional until 19-23 years old. That translates to 10+ years. Much of it is NOT the development of expertise but physical development and maturation of the body.

Recently, among elite teams, coaches, NGBs, the 10,000 hour rule was abandoned…perhaps in the past 2 years, talent development coaches now don't look at 10,000 hours. They basically abandoned it as the article says, maybe in the past 2 years. They found too many coaches and players were getting neurotic over recording 10,000 hours and expectations were misguided.

As mentioned, it is largely a result of misinterpretation of data. In addition, it will vary from sport to sport or activity to activity. Finally, one has to define what level of expertise? The original studies was with grandmasters in chess, at the time, was maybe top 1 player in 1,000. But in terms of players at physical and mental peaks (disregard ages under 15 and over 60 years old generally for chess), that would mean perhaps even 1 in 1,500-2,000 frequent players in the peak age range.

In tennis for the ATP Tour, that translates to 1 in 1,500-2,000 male players aged 18-37 years old. For example, the US has maybe 3-4 million regular male players age 18-37 and maybe 500,000 frequent players (and infrequent accomplished players, e.g, a strong college player who doesn't play much anymore at age 30). That amounts to the top 200 male tennis players age 18-37 in the US. About 133 are current on the ATP Tour…include another 75 talents players…so it says someone who is on the ATP…the 10,000 hour rule for expertise guidelines.

Best,
Doug

[don_budge]

It's The Bounce...

It's tough to get to the bottom of this one because, on average, people in the Western world are taller now than they were in the 60's, 70's and 80's. The average height of a man over here at the last count was 5'11''...probably taller in the US.

5'11" is tall enough so long as a man is strong with it...as Borg, Agassi, Connors were.

Beyond reason, I wouldn't discount players who are shorter. The beauty of tennis is that physical attributes can be a trade off. Laver had tremendous footwork which compensated nicely for his lack of height.

Someday there will another grand slam winner below 5'10"...it's just written.

Bill Tilden wrote "Match Play and the Spin of the Ball" way back in the 1920's. If you take the wisdom that he imparted in his writings and extrapolate it to 2014 it isn't too difficult to understand why the average height of tennis champions seems to get taller.

It's the bounce of the ball...and the spin. Due to equipment and court engineering. As tennis_chiro illustrates the advent is 1984...the culmination point from classic tennis to "modern" tennis.

[stotty]

Since Borg, McEnroe and Connors stopped dominating in the early 80's, there have been very few players under 6' to win a major. Gaudio at the French in 2004, not quite 10 years ago, is the last.

At the Australian Open, only Johansson and Agassi since Kriek in 1982.

At Wimbledon, only Agassi and Hewitt since McEnroe in 1984.

At the US Open, only Agassi and Hewitt since McEnroe in 1984.

The French is a little different, but only Gaudio, Costa, Agassi, Muster and Chang since Borg in 1981.

But come the French Open next month, it will be a full 10 years since anyone under 6' has won a major.

don

It's tough to get to the bottom of this one because, on average, people in the Western world are taller now than they were in the 60's, 70's and 80's. The average height of a man over here at the last count was 5'11''...probably taller in the US.

5'11" is tall enough so long as a man is strong with it...as Borg, Agassi, Connors were.

Beyond reason, I wouldn't discount players who are shorter. The beauty of tennis is that physical attributes can be a trade off. Laver had tremendous footwork which compensated nicely for his lack of height.

Someday there will another grand slam winner below 5'10"...it's just written.

[tennis_chiro]

6' and up

Since Borg, McEnroe and Connors stopped dominating in the early 80's, there have been very few players under 6' to win a major. Gaudio at the French in 2004, not quite 10 years ago, is the last.

At the Australian Open, only Johansson and Agassi since Kriek in 1982.

At Wimbledon, only Agassi and Hewitt since McEnroe in 1984.

At the US Open, only Agassi and Hewitt since McEnroe in 1984.

The French is a little different, but only Gaudio, Costa, Agassi, Muster and Chang since Borg in 1981.

But come the French Open next month, it will be a full 10 years since anyone under 6' has won a major.

don

[GeoffWilliams]

6'1" dominating with Sampras and Fed, etc. That's my height, in my sneakers! Ha, ha. GEoff Williams the multiple grand slam fantasy winner!

[lobndropshot]

my numbers above are from the open era.

[lobndropshot]

Gastón Gaudio was the last person at 5'9" player to win in 2004.

[klacr]

Grand Slam Titles by height
5'7" 8
5'8" 5
5'9" 7
5'10" 9
5'11" 35
6'0" 24
6'1" 57
6'2" 25
6'3" 15
6'4" 9
6'5" 1
6'6" 1

Great numbers! I love it. Although it would be interesting to see exactly what years those were when the 5'8" and 5'9 guys won it. I think you'll see an increase in height correlate with the progression of the time frame. I'd love too see these numbers again in 15-20 years. Nadal, Djokovic, Federer are in that 6'1" - 6'3" range which in my mind seems like the "Goldilocks" height. Not too short to be at a offensive disadvantage but not too tall so that speed and agility may come into question.

Obviously, if height was the primary factor, Karlovic would have done much better in his career. Just an interesting idea to think about. Is there an ideal or perfect height? And if so, what is it. Looking at the numbers that were posted i'd say it's pretty much 5'11" - 6'3" seem to have dominated. But again, looking at the size of tennis players nowadays, the height is moving up, not down.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

[lobndropshot]

I remember hearing about Donald Young when he was 14. John McEnroe hit with Young and said his hands were magical, just like Mac. Nike signed him to an endorsement deal. The tennis world was laying out superlatives for this kid. My biggest concern for him was his size. As I've mentioned before on this forum and what we can agree upon is that you can't teach size. Teaching the strokes may be the easiest part if you know what you are doing, but if your player is only 5'9" then how far can it go. You can't teach being 6'6" no matter how good of a coach you are. No one taught me how to be 6'6" I just am.

How much does physical size have to do with champion tennis players? Look at where the game is going. Here is a article from last year discussing the growth of tennis players...

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/more-sports/court-champions-inching-upward/article13946815/

Tall and proud of it.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

Grand Slam Titles by height
5'7" 8
5'8" 5
5'9" 7
5'10" 9
5'11" 35
6'0" 24
6'1" 57
6'2" 25
6'3" 15
6'4" 9
6'5" 1
6'6" 1

[klacr]

There was an article several years ago in Time that claimed Donald Young was going to be the greatest player of all time. At this point he had won Kalamazoo.

When he played his first pro tournament his agent had me film it for posterity.
The hype exceeded his talent obviously but where was the upside for this kid to find success and accomplishment at whatever level he was destined for?

I remember hearing about Donald Young when he was 14. John McEnroe hit with Young and said his hands were magical, just like Mac. Nike signed him to an endorsement deal. The tennis world was laying out superlatives for this kid. My biggest concern for him was his size. As I've mentioned before on this forum and what we can agree upon is that you can't teach size. Teaching the strokes may be the easiest part if you know what you are doing, but if your player is only 5'9" then how far can it go. You can't teach being 6'6" no matter how good of a coach you are. No one taught me how to be 6'6" I just am.

How much does physical size have to do with champion tennis players? Look at where the game is going. Here is a article from last year discussing the growth of tennis players...

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/more-sports/court-champions-inching-upward/article13946815/

Tall and proud of it.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

[John Yandell]

There was an article several years ago in Time that claimed Donald Young was going to be the greatest player of all time. At this point he had won Kalamazoo.

When he played his first pro tournament his agent had me film it for posterity.
The hype exceeded his talent obviously but where was the upside for this kid to find success and accomplishment at whatever level he was destined for?

[stotty]

Who is keeping score??

I feel like the experts say, "this kid is highly talented and is going to be world number one" on a daily bases. I feel like if someone was keeping track of expert predictions they would be less likely to type cast some of these players so early on.

I agree that learning the right stuff and committing enough time is important. But, I feel like the experts end up looking for a needle in a haystack. Kids with equal interest should be coached equally and not be discriminated against because they are a little smaller than the other 7 year olds.

Talent is impossible to see and people are horrible at making predictions. Let the kids figure out who is talented.

I go along very much with this.

As one coach over here put it. "Looking for children that have a chance to make it can be like looking for a black cat in a dark room".

Tim Henman was not considered a serious prospect until very late on...look how well he did. Suddenly by 19 he looked a player.

Yes, I think coaches should stop short of making predictions. They can make themselves look silly and, worse, put pressure on those they have lauded praise on.

You can never tell sometimes even when it's in front of your face. David Lloyd said of Borg, after losing in straight sets in round one of Wimbledon 1976: "He's a good clay court player but he has no future on grass". Look what happened after that...