Wanted a few opinions. What is the benefit of developing players on clay, versus the benefit of development on hard court? If you had a choice, one or the other, clay, or hard court, what would you pick? Both surfaced are not an option. 
-
-
Clay. People who learn on clay have bigger coils, but can win on all surfaces. Consistent big shots wins more often than inconsistent big shots. -
I agree on the consistency Geoff. Any other points in your head?Last edited by hockeyscout; 08-28-2014, 01:24 PM.Comment
-
It's also the predominant style: clay court grinding big coil shots, with a lot of topspin. The reason why the wta rpms don't match the men: no snap back type III fh, so the shots are flatter, similar speeds from frame to frame, but 1,000 rpm less. Clay also teaches a student to slide into timing zones. Teaches the value of drop shots. Teaches the value of change of pace, of contact point heights: heavy top, slices low, out of the strike zones. Teaches the kick serve wide. Teaches the big bomber serve first. Teaches the defense so nec. to win, and the offense so nec. to overcome it.
The main reason why no American men are in the top: no red clay courts to learn on in the juniors. Har tru green clay is not real red clay. No tournaments are played on it other than Houston sometimes.Comment
Comment