Tiley Turns Down USTA Job
One of my Nine Intriguing Questions for 2008 was posed as "Who will help Arlen Kantarian develop the Next Great American?" (For my answer see below*.)
According to Charlie Bricker at the Sun-Sentinel, it won't be Australian Open director and head of player development Craig Tiley, whom I understand was Kantarian's first choice. With Bill Mountford now available, I assume he'll be considered, but as Bricker says, the USTA is now back to square one.
*Speculation on the search to fill the newly-created position of head of elite player development has centered around former professionals Todd Martin, Billie Jean King and Patrick McEnroe. But if Australian Open tournament director and head of player development Craig Tiley can be lured back to the United States, Kantarian will happily turn to a South African known more for his coaching and administrative skills than his tennis-playing career.
33 comments:
We could debate all day long why the U.S. is falling behind other countries in developing tennis talent but I can give you one definitive reason why we are in trouble. In the summer of 2006, I was in Europe with my non-sponsored daughter playing ITF Grade I tournaments (Wimbledon, Roehampton). I noticed that almost every country in Western Europe and the Eastern Block, along with China, Australia, Japan, etc. had fully sponsored teams of approximately six players and coaches. Even the ITF itself had a team of at least six sponsored players from countries without teams. There were very few non federation sponsored players. It seems to me for the USTA to be on a par with the other European countries, we would need federation sponsored touring teams for each of our sections. In reality, we had one coach and three players representing the entire U.S. I’m not saying I have the solutions... this is just an observation of how the numbers are clearly stacked against us.
Does anyone really believe Craig Tiley could make a difference? He has done nothing to improve Aussie tennis. Jared Easton is not part of the Aussie tennis team. Matt Reid is at Bolletteri's. Bernard Tomic was already the top player in Australia before he got there. Having the rest of the Aussie kids stay in the juniors until they are almost 18 or 19 is stunting there development like they did with Greg Jones when they should be playing all Futures be that age if they are going to make it professionally. He has had exactly ZERO to do with the development of most of these players. It boggles the mind as to why he gets so much credit and why we would be that high on this guy. Good organizational skills people can be found anywhere. Lets not mistake that for player development and give him credit for things he hasn't done. At what point do we start finding American people to take care of American kids.
REMINDER:
Comments will not be posted unless at least a nickname is chosen.
I think Coach Tiley's name gets brought up because he turned a school that was not good at tennis into a dynasty. He did this by identifying players with upside and then enabling their development. Its not like they were bad junior players but they were just not the "chosen ones". A lot of them wanted to play pro tennis and he helped them develop pro style games. Coach Tiley and his former assistant Coach Berque have tremendous reputations in the college tennis community as coaches and their former players are constantly complimenting them.
Getting coaches like these guys, as well as the Coach Sheltons of the world would go a long way towards helping our players develop.
Steve Smith, who keeps a very low profile and seldom writes letters, wrote this the last time his understudy, Craig Tiley, turned down a high ranking position with the USTA's Player Development department. The letter needs to be re-read and Arlen Kantarian should be informed that Craig Tiley was trained in America by an American.
Here is a copy of that letter...
January 15, 2006
To Those Interested in American Tennis:
When I read in an American magazine (Tennis) that a former student of mine turned down an ‘option’ to assist the governing body of American tennis (USTA) with player development, it is time to write a letter.
The USTA should do their homework and research the matter at hand.
Craig Tiley, a South African, who is the new director of player development for Tennis Australia, was trained in America by an American. Tiley’s first American experience was an education. He was a student in America’s first accredited comprehensive degree plan for tennis teachers (Tyler Junior College, Tyler, Texas).
Tiley was not a high level player. Tiley progressed from an entry level student teacher and became a high level teacher in a very unique program that I designed and directed. Craig was under my direction for seven years.
After earning a specialized degree from Tyler Junior College, Craig continued with us and acquired hours and hours of experience training tennis teachers for occupational competency. In addition, Craig acquired hours and hours of experience in player development. Besides the curriculum for tennis teaching pro-managers, I had a small junior development program based in a small population base that produced more high school state champions than Dallas and Houston combined in the second five years of a ten year period.
In fact, Tiley acquired the ‘know how’ on how to develop NCAA champions long before he moved from Tyler, Texas to Champaign, Illinois. Chad Clark (Texas) and Julie Scott (Stanford) were both students in our program that went on to win NCAA individual titles. Our junior program was the anti-academy with no recruiting, no scholarships and no merchant of flesh scenarios that are prevalent at every level of the game today.
Tiley was a devoted student of the game. He was a tireless worker and literally a former soldier who could follow directives. To reward him for his efforts and to further assist him with his career, I organized player development projects with the governing body of tennis in South Africa that was conducted in Tyler, Texas. Years later when Craig became the Davis Cup Captain of South Africa, while living in America, two of his players had trained in Tyler, Texas in their formative years (John-Laffnie De Jager and Jeff Coetzee).
To make an understatement, I know Craig Tiley, his tennis education and story of tennis at the University of Illinois (Champaign, Illinois). Craig’s first trip to the Illinois campus was with me serving as my assistant in a mini-camp conducted for the university’s women’s team. During the camp, a meeting was held with the women’s coach and the interim athletic director at the time as well as Craig and myself. The meeting was a success and Tiley was hired as director of instruction for the university’s new tennis center. Tiley was recommended because of his long list of positive attributes. Although, his ability to teach was the most important.
The progression of the Illinois Men’s team that Tiley took over is a script for a Disney picture. Tennis Magazine referred to the story as a blue print for player development.
Being an insider to the story, I know it from beginning to end. Tiley’s first NCAA champion (Graydon Oliver outdoor/doubles) and his last NCAA champion (Ryler DeHeart indoor/singles) were junior players I trained before they went to Illinois. And within the NCAA rules, I conducted several clinics at Illinois for Tiley during his tenure.
For those trying to understand player development, Tiley’s greatest accomplishment was not winning the NCAA team title with what he called the greatest recruiting class ever in college tennis (Amer Delic, Brian Wilson, Phil Stolt, Michael Calkins). It was developing non blue chip athletes into great college players. Tiley’s early success at Illinois was based on development not recruiting. When Illinois finally won the national team championship, Tiley had a player whose career at Illinois was only one spring semester (Rajeev Ram).
Tiley will organize Tennis Australia from A to Z. The USTA should know the number one factor that they lost out on in not retaining Tiley’s services. He will make sure that everybody associated with player development in Australia understands the neurological connection between how a kid hits the ball on their first day and then a decade later.
There is no substitute for a good beginning. The USTA is spending money and time on players that do not have the technical foundation to build on. The USTA may also be spending money on coaches that do not understand a technical foundation. The athlete is a bio-computer and needs to be programmed from the beginning to avoid the pitfalls of ‘little kid’ tennis, players with no tactical options.
Coaches cannot be pretentious about teaching, they have to understand diagnostic instruction. For a stroke production problem there is a flaw, a cause and a cure.
For example, most coaches do not know all the ramifications of one’s grips. Sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel is a train coming right at the player. Tiley will create a ‘be brilliant with basics’ philosophy throughout his new organization.
No doubt, Tiley is currently telling top Australian juniors that they need to go back to the drawing board. Winning is a by-product of skills and he has been trained on how to evaluate a player without looking at whether or not they are winning on the local scene.
Tiley will unify Tennis Australia In player development you cannot have a fragmented order of coaching from one level to the next. Tiley’s training will allow him to get the high performance coaches on the same page as the tennis for tots instructors.
It is one thing to understand core and scientific information and another to apply it. Yes, the game has evolved but Tiley will throw out the term ‘modern game.’ Tiley understands that the dimensions of the court and physical laws dictate stroke production, no coach’s opinion or any unique theory.
In regard to tennis history, no one has to look any further back than Roger Federer for a display of fundamentals. Granted there are endless reasons why he is so great. In our sport, unlike others, generally there is no X’s and O’s expert, no teacher in the commentating booth for televised matches. We, the public, are told Federer has great strokes but are not told the nuts and bolts of why he has great strokes. Tiley is trained to do that.
Take into consideration, Andy Roddick, while representing America in 2005 in Davis Cup play, he did not serve and volley once over five sets on a hard court. Roddick, who is a great athlete and great competitor, hits a serve with newsworthy speed. It is my guess that Andy Roddick would run through a wall to get the news on how to improve. He, like the total beginner, needs a true technician in his corner.
Tiley will offer an education for parents and coaches that will be objective. For years, I have documented development by using a ‘make sense’ system of skill testing, filming, and charting (stats). Using this assessment procedure, Tiley will remove the emotional confusion that a player is often put through by their parents trying to interpret conflicting and mixed messages from a number of coaches. It is key to have information and the ability to communicate and apply the information in a clear and simple manner.
Tiley will be politically correct and cleverly deal with the egos of former players and administrators. But, he will again, make sure everybody, even the so called high performance coaches learn first and teach second efficient strokes.
In the crazy ego driven world of player development, I give credit where credit is due. I served apprenticeships under Welby Van Horn, Vic Braden and Dennis Van der Meer as well as having learned from many others.
The fact of the matter, I know the nuts and bolts of what Tiley brings to the table for Tennis Australia. I can assure you of this, when Tiley speaks on the topic of player development I have a long list of coaches with Tiley’s training who can finish his sentences. I also know where he served his apprenticeship.
I welcome the opportunity to speak with someone from the USTA, especially about the application and systematic approach on how to work with players, parents and coaches in regard to developing skills for players twelve and under.
Players need to be competitive and so do coaches and player development organizations. If you would like the ideas, insights and information that Tiley is offering Tennis Australia instead of the USTA, call me. I am an American and I know the so-called blue print that I predict will make a significant impact on tennis history through Australian Tennis.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Steve Smith
Tennissmith School
Tampa, Florida
What a great letter. He disects the shortfalls of USTA junior development in a nutshell. I gather the USTA did not take him up on his overture. There is a vast need for old school all court development that is not being given to American juniors .
Chad Berryhill,
thanks so much for your reprint of the Steve Smith letter.
I knew Tiley would have been fantastic for the USA- I just didn't know how good!!
I usullay have a lot to say- but in this case I can only say one word -EXTRAORDINIARY
First of all who is Steve Smith and how can anyone say he keeps a low profile after writing a letter like that to give himself as much credit as possible for creating Craig Tiley. I have been in tennis a long time and have never heard of him so how can he be one of the foremost tennis instructors in America? What great players has he produced? Tons of teachers have produced players in the 50 to 500 range professionally. He was a student at a Junior College under Smith for 7 yrs. in a unique program that Smith himself designed and created (another pat on the back) where he acquired hours and hours of experience in player development. He had a small junior development program based in a small population that produced more high school state champions than Dallas and Houston combined in the 2nd 5 yrs. of a 10 year period. What classification? Most small populated cities are not in the higher classifications and they dont combine them for state tournaments so this is very misleading.(by the way most real good players do not play high school tennis which also makes this very misleading). The job done at Illinois is a script for a Disney movie and a blueprint for player development. How much are they really developing in college? He said he trained them and sent them to Tiley so who gets the credit Smith or Tiley? The national championship had a player Rajeev Ram who was there for 1 semester(4 months so how much did he really develop in that time and no they wouldn't have won it without him). Amer Delic, Brian Wilson, Phil Stolt, and Michael Calkins were non blue chip. I think a lot of other coaches would say otherwise and would have gladly taken them but it sure sounds better for the letters sake. Neuroligical connection between how a kid hits the ball the 1st day and then a decade later.(this is called talent) you either have it or you don't but he is right on 1 point there is no substitute for a good beginning. Who are the players that the U.S.T.A. is spending money and time on that do not have the technical foundation to build on and how does he know? Has he seen them all?-- The coaches may not understand a technical foundation. What an insult to the U.S.T.A. coaches but he learned it in a classroom. For a stroke production problem there is a flaw, a cause, and a cure.(way to overstate the obvious). Does he believe that none of these U.S.T.A. coaches know the ramifications of different grips. He has been trained on how to evaluate a player without looking at whether or not they are winning on the local scene(show me a kid that loses a lot and I'll show you a loser no matter how pretty their strokes are or how sound they are technically). Good strokes and athletic kids are a dime a dozen it doesn't mean they compete well or perform well under pressure or work hard for that matter. No blueprint or classroom will tell you this you have to see it for yourself and results are a pretty good indicator. Then we find out he is the 1 guy who can give the news to Andy Roddick on how to improve. Being politically correct is not very often the right way to be a leader in an individual sport(maybe a team sport) so that in itself is a poor statement. Smith briefly mentions in 1 paragraph about serving apprenticeships under Welby VanHorn,Vic Braden and Dennis Van Der Meerbut and writes a whole article about how wonderful he is and what he has taught Craig Tiley and we're supposed to believe he keeps a low profile. He knows the nuts and bolts of what Tiley brings to Australia and has a long list of coaches who can finish his sentences(in other words there are a lot of people out there who know what Tiley knows). He also knows where he served his apprenticeship. We do too, the whole article is about what a wonderful job you did creating him. He welcomes the opportunity to speak with someone from the U.S.T.A. especially about the application and systematic approach on how to work with players, parents, and coaches in regard to developing skills for 12 and unders.(is he trying to get a job. This is more of a self consumed RESUME than a letter or am I the only one who sees it this way). Players need to be competitive and so do coaches and player development ORGANIZERS. Did we need to be in a classroom or get a blueprint for that. THIS IS THE MOST SELF SERVING, PAT MYSELF ON THE BACK LETTER I HAVE EVER READ. Nothing and I mean nothing takes place of time spent on the court with coaches who have played at a high level that can talk to these kids about what they may go through mentally and dealing with all the peaks and valleys of an individual sport. You can look at all the best players in the world and know that there is no exact correct grip or technique. Federer's game and grip compared to Nadal's. What a contrast. No blueprint or classroom can say which is right or wrong. No blueprint or classroom is going to tell you about their heart, desire, determination or how well they deal with pressure. As I said before the letter from Steve Smith was reprinted(don't mistake good organizational skills for player development). The only thing helping player development is coaches with the knowledge and the patience to spend time on the court with the kids until they get it right. There is no blueprint for that.
Curiousgeorge,
yes, the Steve Smith letter might be self-serving, to say the least. I read past that and based my opinion on what Tiley has accomplished.
Craig Tiley produced RESULTS. Big time RESULTS!!!
Whether it be, because he got Ram for 4 months - he was smart enough to see the talent.
He took a program that was a 0 and made it into a 10 in a very short time. He had RESULTS for whatever reasons- being able to spot talent, teach, motivate, coach, etc.
The USTA COACHES HAVE NOT PRODUCED and how can I make such a bold statement.
Look at the RESULTS!!!
Yes the world has caught up, yes, it is very hard to produce top 10 players, and with those statements go - my shoe laces are untied, the sun is in my eyes, the wind was a problem, etc. etc.
It is clearly obvious that Tiley can PRODUCE at a very high level - the RESULTS speak for themselves.
BTW- I don't know Tiley - never met Tiley -THE RESULTS SPEAK LOUDER THAN YOUR WORDS OR MINE!!!
PLEASE DO NOT USE THE "ANONYMOUS" SELECTION. YOUR COMMENT WILL NOT BE PUBLISHED. USE THE "NAME/URL". URL IS NOT REQUIRED.
In response to the several the postings I have read regarding Smith and Tiley.
I first met both Smith and Tiley some twenty plus years ago. Smith, in his twenties, was the director of Tennis Tech, Tiley was a second year student and I was a first year. Smith had the vision to improve the competency of tennis teaching period. Tiley bought into the same vision and so the education of Tiley began.
Improving tennis-teaching competency for students in the program included classroom lectures and 25 plus hours a week of on court teaching and coaching experiences. More importantly a significant amount of time was devoted to critical thinking. We were exposed to the leading tennis educators at the time and encouraged to evaluate the information that was delivered.
The recognition Tiley has received is deserved, he possess unique leadership qualities that have eluded many great coaches of our time. But I know this; the truth behind Tiley’s 7 years of exposure to Smith day in day out, is significant. This significance is measured in the success of the players both played a role in developing, Tiley/Illinois Tennis have enjoyed and Tiley/Tennis Australia will enjoy.
Lets be clear Smith is asking to work with the USTA, failing which I am sure he will continue work as an educator/coach/advisor/consultant to many good coaches, players and programs around the country and many parts of the world.
Richard Hernandez,
thanks for the info on both Tiley and Smith.
I do not know either person - but everyone knows the accomplishments of Craig Tiley and I wish that the USTA and he could have worked something out.
Australia will be very good in a period of time!!!
"Nothing and I mean nothing takes place of time spent on the court with coaches who have played at a high level that can talk to these kids about what they may go through mentally and dealing with all the peaks and valleys of an individual sport."
curiousgeorge, that's just it, most of the USTA High Performance coaches did NOT play at a high level. Most of them were journeymen grinders in the 150-350 range or 50-200 in doubles! Bring in Michael Chang, Billie Jean King,John McEnroe, Todd Martin to lead the charge. The current coaches have a grinding approach and bring on players that win alot by making a lot of balls even if they are too small to make the big show. This may have worked for them to be a journeyman but won't produce players in the top 20. You need some guns not just consistency. The German Tennis Federation never liked Boris Becker in the juniors becuse he couldn't keep the ball in play and was considered inconsistent. Low and behold, he had the guns which made him a top player. Any institutional approach to tennis development should allow individuality for truly talented players. And I agree that the current coaching team cannot spot and develop this players.
The Dude, curiosgeorge, man in the moon,bystander.....suggestion...write your first name and your last with your blog.
Smith is not looking for a job. He has a job. He is looking to help. Curiosgeorge, you have been in the game a long time and you have not heard of Steve Smith, yes, he has a low profile. Why don't you ask Craig Tiley how much Smith helped him and how much Smith and some of his former students could help the USTA player development department?
Like Tiley did, I work for Smith. I interviewed with Steve Smith for a position in college coaching. Smith had me contact a few people to reverse the screening process. I contacted Tiley and asked what curiosgeorge should ask Tiley. Tiley informed me that studying under and working under Smith was the most important part of his education/background in tennis.
Recently I made a presentation with Smith at the Intercollegiate Tennis Association's national convention. We showed pre-post films of players Smith had worked with. Showed the improvement in their formative years. Showed films of kids that had won titles from Kalamazoo to the NCAA to Wimbledon. Showed high speed film of, yes curiosgeorge, Federer and Nadal, covering their differences and similarities. Showed young players going through application/progressions to acquire the foundation needed to develop. Showed film of Craig Tiley doing demos of essential and efficient strokes.
Why show Tiley demonstrating strokes to a group of college coaches? College coaches run tennis camps for kids. The legendary success of Tiley's tenure at Illinois was explained. Hopefully, those in attendance got the connection between ones team and ones camp. Tennis is tennis. Hopefully, they got the connection with Tiley's background in tennis teaching and his background in college coaching.
Smith is to secure, competent and confident at what he does to claim he, curiosgeorge, created Tiley. He developed Tiley in his formative years as a teacher and coach, pure and simple.
I am privileged to be going through the training Tiley went through. I have met a group of coaches, that like Tiley, spent years with Steve Smith. It would take some time to understand the relationship among these coaches. It is based on information and understanding. The homework done has been extensive and the results impressive.
Rightfully so, Tiley did get a great deal of media coverage for his efforts at Illinois. It was Tennis magazine that called Tiley's work a blue print for player development. There was no media coverage for his training. And some decision makers should know he was trained in America by an American. This point is worth bringing back up because we are talking about American tennis.
And, man in the moon, it is not about results first. It is about development first. Results follow development.
I know. Tiley knows. Smith is tough. For the deep thinkers reading this, an example, Smith has observed Amer Delic since he was fifteen. There are two sides to every story. Amer is an NCAA champion and a top 100 player. I'd like to be a fly on the wall to hear Smith question Tiley on Amer's development. Delic is one of the best physical specimens in the game and has one of the best serves. Smith would be critical. He is not wowed by the results.
And, bystander, having a playing background is a huge bonus for a coach, no doubt. But get over it, you do not have to do to teach and coach. When is the last time an NFL coach was in a punt, pass and kick contest?
All governing bodies of tennis are criticized. Ask the French players about the French federation. It is not all laughs and giggles. The USTA does a ton. They have a ton of great people, great causes and great accomplishments.
The culture of tennis has its pluses. It has its down side as well. Please remember tennis coaching/teaching is based on credibility. Credibility does not mean truth, it means you are believable. Tennis teaching is an unregulated profession and certification is not education.
I agree with Hernandez's blog, Smith working for the USTA probably will not happen. He is too truthful and will not work the board room. And we all know it is tough for some to set their egos aside and listen.
But in closing, the USTA did offer Craig Tiley a job and an important job as well. Should we, the Americans, have to wait on Craig Tiley? Should the Americans hire someone else who does not have Tiley's training and therefore will take the program in a different direction?
Smith's letter was a factual report on Tiley's training and abilities. It was positive. If you want to call it self-serving, fine. If you want to call it bold, fine.
Smith stated he wanted to be contacted regarding the development of 12 and under players. He does not need to be pigeon holed. He needs to be contacted to lead USTA's development of coaches. The results would follow.
I will end with a question, whose on your list to teach, train and lead coaches and of those on your list who has taught, trained and led coaches? And I am not talking about making a presentation at a conference. I am talking about in the trenches grinding it out or in a room with the door shut. Checking your ego at the door and producing. Producing better coaches to produce better players.
Over and out, done.
When Bob Knight recently retired Coach K stated that he would not be in the position he is at Duke were it not for his training under Coach Knight.
Having spent nearly 8 years(alongside Craig) training under and working with Steve Smith, I know that I can say the same for myself, Tiley and the hundreds of coaches in the network influenced by Steve and his quest for knowledge.
The USTA would be wise to examine Smith's unique abilty for the application of technical information...a primary characteristic that sets him apart from the rest.
Craig would have had a tremendous impact on the culture in American tennis had he accepted this offer but why go back to square one when Steve Smith can help develop the quality coaches like Craig which can have immediate effect with long term potential which has never been seen in our country.
Chad, You missed the point. The point is that there are tons of other people out there equally and probably better qualified than Tiley. Of course you are going to write a letter coming to his defense after all you are now working for Smith yourself. To say the coaches on the U.S.T.A. staff need help with player development is a joke. I do not care to ask Craig Tiley anything about how much Smith helped him or what they THINK they could do to help player development here in the U.S. Its wonderfull that you interviewed with Smith for a college coaching position and that you contacted a few people to reverse the screening process. I don't need to ask Tiley's opinion on what he thinks of anything period let alone his opinion on Smith or what his education/background in tennis is. The bottom line is this:the college rules are different now than when they used to produce so many top world class players. 1st) you can only practice 6 weeks in the fall. 2nd)the spring schedule is far more limited as far as the no. of matches that can be played compared to 25 years ago. 3rd) they don't even complete matches in progress if the team total is reached before your match is done so you don't get to even play the matches that are on your teams limited schedule to completion some times. 4th)they play 8 game pro sets for doubles. 5th) they play the let serve . Everything about college tennis is different now and not for the better as far as developing top pros. You will once in a while have a Benjamin Becker or John Isner do well for a short period of time but even these guys are absolutely no threat at the top of professional tennis. Remember we are talking about what the U.S.T.A. can do to develop top professional players and Tiley's background is in college tennis which as anyone can see is NOT producing top pro players and hasn't in a long time since the days of Mikel Pernfors and Jay Berger( both top 10 players coming from college tennis 25 years ago and Berger is a current U.S.T.A. coach so i am sure he would be pleased to know that he needs to be taught to be a better coach.) You act as if showing this presentation you and Smith made at the Intercollegiate Tennis Association gives credence to what you are saying. I can show films to people all day long and analyze it but does that make me a better coach? You are making statements like these U.S.T.A. coaches need to be taught how to teach and with a lot of their backgrounds thats pretty insulting and stupid. David Dilucia used to work with Lindsay Davenport. Ray Ruffels worked with the Bryan brothers as have most of the others worked with top world class players and not mid level pros and top college players so I do not think they need to be told how to teach and develop players. I too am competent, secure, and confident at what I do. I just don't feel the need to tell everybody about who i have developed. It's good that you feel privileged to be going through the same training Tiley went through. Many coaches have groups of friends that share information and knowledge and I am no different. This knowledge can only come from years of experience from people who have been there and done that and that means spending the countless hours on the court until you get it right from the balance, to the weight transfer, to the court postioning, to the strategy,to stretching, to diet,to rest and on down the line. The point is that many people know these things so quit acting like Smith, Tiley and you have cornered the market on Player Development and that you guys know something that the rest of us don't. It is insulting, pure and simple. A lot of coaches know how to get results and produce players without doing it you guys way period. Nobody but you wants to be a fly on the wall to hear Smith question Tiley about Amer Delic. Anybody can be critical and not wowed by results so whats your point? " When is the last time an N.F.L. coach was in a Punt, Pass and Kick contest." I don't know you tell me how thats relevent here. "Please remember tennis coaching/teaching is based on credibility. Credibility does not mean truth, it means you are believeable". WHAT? If credibility doesn't come from truth then how can it be believeable. "We all know its tough for some to set their egos aside and listen." You are right so please try. You and your group have not and will not ever corner the market on tennis teaching and neither will I. People from many different cultures and countries have many different ways of teaching tennis which is why there are so many different countries represented in the top 10 or 20. The two things they all have in common are talent and a great work ethic. Yes the U.S.T.A. should and will hire someone else but no they do not need to go in a different direction. The current crop of American juniors is developing quite nicely in case people aren't paying attention. To say Smith's letter was self serving would be an understatement and no he does not need to be contacted to lead the U.S.T.A.'s development of coaches. They are just fine without him and as I said the results of the current crop of American juniors is starting to flourish even without you guys help. As for who is on my list of coaches? I wouldn't presume that my way, Tiley's way, Smith's way, your way, or the U.S.T.A.'s way is right or wrong. As I said there are alot of ways to get the job done. The right environment with good competition and a good group of coaches is a good start and that is what they are trying to create with the National Training Center in Boca. Over and Out. DONE
Still Curious,
You seem to have some hostility issues with what you perceive as an arrogant frame of mind of those who have trained under Steve Smith and the letter Chad Berryhill posted from Steve Smith to the USTA. This might shed some light this letter that seems to have you so riled up. When Steve contacted the USTA at one point about being willing to help out with their player development he was soundly told that he is perceived by the USTA as a “beginners” coach. Now I’m sorry, if I was in Steve’s shoes I’d want the USTA to be clear on two matters. First I’d want them to know exactly who I have worked with and trained. Steve appears to have done that in his letter. I can see how it appears to be self-serving, but things aren’t always as they seem. If I had a preconceived notion of Smith being a “beginners” coach his letter clearly would have helped dispel that myth. Second, since the USTA is clearly very high on Craig Tiley I’d want the USTA to be aware of where Craig got his training. Is that self-serving? Perhaps, but if I’m perceived as a “beginners” coach I’m going to be specific about what I’ve done for the development of Tiley. I’m not commenting on whether the USTA is right or wrong for going after someone like Tiley. You’re entitled to your opinion if you don’t feel he’s the man. I will comment that I feel Smith is the man for the job. Many of the people he trained were in their early 20’s back in the mid 1980’s. Those who have trained under Smith seem to be very confident in their teaching abilities. This appears to turn you off as some sort of put down of those who haven’t trained under Smith. That is not the case. If you jump to that conclusion it is your problem to overcome. It also seems those who’ve trained under Smith are very loyal to the man. Some of these people are becoming industry leaders now that they are in their 40’s and beyond with Dave Anderson being one of them. My educated guess is that at some point the powers that be will give Smith his shot and the results will speak for themselves. It may not be today, but hopefully in the near future Smith will get his shot.
Now Jay Huffer, Hostility Issues--Let's see, we get to read a long letter from Steve Smith about how wonderful he is and now it is justified because he was told he was thought of as a beginners coach. Who has the hostility issues here? In my first post I stated that it sounded like a self serving resume. I got a response from you guys saying that it was not because he had a job and that he was just trying to help. Now we come to find out from you that he was in fact trying to get a job with the U.S.T.A. Call it help if you want but he was trying to get a job plain and simple, but I'm sure he was just trying to reverse the process on how to go about it. Look, I applaud you guys that have worked with and trained with Steve Smith and for the loyalty you guys show but the fact of the matter is that there are a ton of people out there that are equally qualified or more qualified to do the job. I can guarantee you I am one of them. My track record as a player and a coach would have absolutely no problem stacking up with what I have read from you guys.(does that sound arrogant or confident) you tell me but it's true. I just don't need to tell the world of tennis about it because I already have a good job teaching and working with great players and I happen to think the U.S.T.A. is moving in the right direction as I stated in my last post so I don't need to try and get them to hire me or to offer my help. If they wanted it they would ask. I hope you guys continue with the enthusiam and passion and stay in the game for a long time. I just believe the highest levels require more than you guys would know plain and simple. I understand you will disagree and I respect that but hopefully the job will be taken by someone who has played near the highest level that can talk to the up and coming juniors about what lies ahead.
Hi Still Curious,
Let’s do a little dissection. HOSTILITY ISSUES LET’S SEE, WE GET TO READ A LONG LETTER FROM STEVE SMITH ABOUT HOW WONDERFUL HE IS AND HOW IT IS JUSTIFIED BECAUSE HE WAS TOLD HE WAS THOUGHT OF AS A BEGINNERS COACH. WHO HAS THE HOSTILITY ISSUES HERE?
Correcting a preconceived notion with a letter detailing your credentials certainly isn’t a hostility issue. In fact, if you learned from a person that they are not interested in working with you because they feel you are only good teaching at teaching the serve, would you want to find a way to convince this person that you can do more than help their serve?
Personally, I think a statement like this is more in tune with dealing with hostility issues:
THE POINT IS THAT MANY PEOPLE KNOW THESE THINGS SO QUIT ACTING LIKE SMITH, TILEY AND YOU HAVE CORNERED THE MARKET ON PLAYER DEVELOPMENT AND THAT YOU GUYS KNOW SOMETHNIG THAT THE REST OF US DON’T. At no point did Chad act like he, Smith or Tiley have cornered the market on Player Development. You came to that conclusion. Not everyone reading this blog is coming to the same conclusion(s) you are.
CALL IT HELP IF YOU WANT BUT HE WAS TRYING TO GET A JOB PLAIN AND SIMPLE, BUT I’M SURE HE WAS JUST TRYING TO REVERSE THE PROCESS ON HOW TO GO ABOUT IT. Okay, Steve is interested in the job because he feels he could do some good. Yet, he was looking for virtually no compensation. You obviously disagree with someone like Smith. We don’t need to argue about this since it’s a matter of opinion.
REVERSE THE PROCESS
Sorry about this one Curious but there is no policy or process formulated by the USTA regarding this. I have that straight from the USTA office. It took me awhile to get that confirmed. In fact, I was quoted that making yourself known to the USTA is definitely a way open the door. Let me ask you this. In the job you have now, did the place you’re working for seek you out? Did they come to you and ask you to join their club, or did you make them aware you were interested in pursuing a position at their club? Did you formulate a resume? If so, did you send them a cover letter? Did you feel you could this club some good? Did you make them aware of your credentials? You sound like very self-confident person so my guess is that you did and that you’re very good at what you do.
LOOK, I APPLAUD YOU GUYS THAT HAVE WORKED AND TRAINED WITH STEVE SMITH AND FOR THE LOYALTY YOU GUYS SHOW BUT THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS THAT THERE ARE A TON OF PEOPLE OUT THERE THAT ARE EQUALLY QUALIFIED OR MORE QUALIFIED TO DO THE JOB. Actually Curious, the “fact of the matter” is that your statement is not fact. It’s your opinion, not fact. I don’t doubt your abilities, but you aren’t interested in pursuing the interest of the USTA in this matter. What if you were? If you were, would you sit on the sidelines? Would you wait for the USTA to seek you out? That is not the way I’d go about it. In my opinion, you need to make the decision makers aware of your interest and your credentials. I honestly don’t see how a rational person could argue this point.
MY TRACK RECORD AS A PLAYER AND A COACH WOULD HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO PROBLEM STACKING UP WITH WHAT I HAVE READ FROM YOU GUYS. (DOES THAT SOUND ARROGANT OR CONFIDENT) YOU TELL ME BUT IT’S TRUE. I JUST DON’T NEED TO TELL THE WORLD OF TENNIS ABOUT IT BECAUSE I ALREADY HAVE A GOOD JOB TEACHING AND WORKING WITH GREAT PLAYERS AND I HAPPEN TO THINK THE USTA IS MOVING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION AS I STATED IN MY LAST POST SO I DON’T NEED TO TRY AND GET THEM TO HIRE ME OR TO OFFER MY HELP.
And this is the crux of the situation; you have no desire to try to help the USTA in this matter. That is fine. I don’t either. But if I did, or anyone who is interested and qualified should feel they could let the USTA know of their interest in helping out. That is all that has happened here. For the mere reason Smith wanted to set the record straight about the “beginners” fallacy and where Tiley received his training you’ve decided to make the statements you’ve made. Fine, but don’t expect your ideas and statements of how things should be done to go unchallenged by others.
IF THEY WANTED IT THEY WOULD ASK. I HOPE YOU GUYS CONTINUE WITH THE ENTHUSIAM AND PASSION AND STAY IN THE GAME FOR A LONG TIME. I JUST BELIEVE THE HIGHEST LEVELS REQUIRE MORE THAN YOU GUYS WOULD KNOW PLAIN AND SIMPLE. As much as I’d love to put myself at the same level of Steve Smith, I cannot and I don’t feel I would be a good candidate for the position. Many who’ve trained under Smith would feel the same way. However, there are some who probably are qualified, most notably Smith himself, in my opinion. I can easily put my ego aside and clearly realize I am not qualified for that position. If I felt I was qualified and I had an interest you can be assured I’d let the USTA know of my interest. I certainly wouldn’t wait for them to necessarily come to me.
I UNDERSTAND YOU WILL DISAGREE AND I RESPECT THAT BUT HOPEFULLY THE JOB WILL BE TAKEN BY SOMEONE WHO HAS PLAYED NEAR THE HIGHEST LEVEL THAT CAN TALK TO THE UP AND COMING JUNIORS ABOUT WHAT LIES AHEAD Yes, we will disagree since in my opinion, few at the highest level understand the dynamics involved in proper stroke mechanics and production. And if they do, they usually don’t have the training or concepts as to how to make corrections in stroke production. This, in my opinion, is where Smith is unparalleled. Now I will concede that certain players at the highest level will have other strong points to help our best players. Talking to them about what lies ahead is a minimal part of what the training of these junior necessitates (again in my opinion). It’s this last part that I’m writing here that we clearly will most vehemently have a disagreement. I just think we’ll have to agree to disagree. Since I no longer plan to rebut any of your or anyone else’s comments I will let you reply at your leisure so you may have the last word. I wish you well Curious.
Touche, jay huffer, well done. Technique and stroke production are the most important elements of the game. That's what breaks down under duress. We all remember Agassi flubbing volleys at key points in matches when he lost. If he had better technique he may have been a more dominant player. Many juniors don't have power to put away shots with their western grips and open stances. They grind well but don't have the instinct for attacking.
The Dude, I don't think you have to be a rocket scientist to know that technique and stroke production are important elements of the game and that this is what breaks down under duress. I think we agreed here. The point was that I feel that there are a lot of people out there who can and do teach this. The other point was that to produce juniors at the highest professional level you must also have more than this. This is where we disagreed. I do not believe at the highest levels that these guys could discuss the little things that go into getting these kids over the top. As for the tecnique on Agassi's volley had he spent more time on this he very well may have never had the return of serve or the groudstrokes he had so whose to say. Regarding todays juniors not attacking I think far more are learning to do so than they were 10 years ago and I've seen an awful lot of them so as I've stated before take a look at the American juniors coming up(both male and female) and you will see that American tennis is on the upswing again. Touche
Still Curious. I’ve been watching this discussion and feel that I need to add my 2 cents.
First, I must disagree that the person who ultimately runs the USTA’s development program should be a high-ranking former player. In fact, I think that putting such a person into the role of leading player development, would dramatically affect and reduce the number and quality of top juniors the USTA can produce.
Development begins when a tennis player steps on to the court for the first time, not when he’s reached an elite junior playing level. You’ve actually ignored the fact that there are 10 years, or possibly more, that a developing player spends on the court taking group and private lessons and playing tournaments before he can be identified as an “elite” junior. In fact what you’ve written in previous posts about needing a high-ranked player at the helm of the USTA, indicates to me that to you, development begins when a player has reached an elite level.
The person charged with player development for the USTA needs to understand that in order to develop top juniors, you have to go back to the starting point and improve the way that tennis is taught. The most important time in the development of a champion is the formative years. In these years, call them from ages 5 to 15, a young tennis player needs to work with a teacher who can teach them efficient technique (least amount of movement with the least amount of muscle recruitment), teach them how to identify when that technique breaks down under pressure (say in tournament play) and teach them how to take the appropriate corrective measures to repair the breakdown.
Now here’s the thing. I don’t actually think there are that many teachers out there who can do that. Teach the scientific fundamentals of stroke production. The reason I say this is that there are very few teachers in the game (I use the word “teacher” rather than “coach” which has a different connotation for me), who have studied the science of tennis and understand the laws of physics that govern the sport and thus, what a truly efficient
stroke is, or how it is produced.
The biggest mistake the USTA and, since I am in Canada, Tennis Canada continue to make is to put such little effort in to ensuring that beginning players are taught well. In fact, when you are newly certified (after a weekend or two of a coaching course, don’t get me started on this!), you are certified to work with beginners. What sense in there in that?? You’ve got a brand new student being taught by a brand new COACH? How backwards is this?? If the USTA is hoping to build a larger pool of talent to bring up the ranks, doesn’t it make more sense to use the very best, most educated technical teachers with beginners???
I also think that you are giving short shrift to the absolute importance of knowing efficient technique. While you may agree that technique and stroke production are important elements of the game and that this is what breaks down under duress, I have yet to see you identify this as a critical factor in player development.
There is an article that appeared in the International Herald Tribune http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/03/05/sports/web.0305prodigy.php about Spartak Tennis in Moscow a place that is little more than a dump, yet consistently produces champions. The reason, and this is a quote from the article If Preobrazhenskaya's approach were boiled down to one word (and it frequently was), that word would be tekhnika — technique. This is enforced by iron decree: none of her students are permitted to play in a tournament for the first three years of study. It's a notion that I don't imagine would fly with American parents, but none of the Russian parents questioned it for a second. "Technique is everything," Preobrazhenskaya told me later, smacking a table with Khrushchev-like emphasis, causing me to jump and reconsider my twinkly-grandma impression of her. "If you begin playing without technique, it is big mistake. Big, big mistake!"
I believe the USTA needs to hire a true technician to run its development program. I also know that a committed tennis “teacher” will do everything he can to ensure that his players are getting what they need on the way up. Now… I do think that your “experienced, high-ranked pro” is an important person on the development team.
To me, when a junior reaches an elite level, it’s time to spend a greater amount of time on tactical playing skills, the psychology of competition and physical fitness. It is here that a good “coach” is very important. I can’t disagree that someone with lots of tournament/pro experience can be influential in a junior’s development. But I don’t think that this “high-ranking pro” should be the only person influencing elite juniors. Besides this experienced coach, a technical teacher should also always be on hand to work continuously on stroke production and to provide corrective measures when technical elements break down under pressure.
As well, the USTA also needs to establish a roster, a chain of highly educated technical teachers who can progress players through the ranks of intermediate, elite to pro levels. All of these teachers should have studied the applicable physical laws of the game: physics, biomechanics, ophthalmology, physiology, motor programming (brain/muscle) connections and more importantly know how to transfer that knowledge to their players and apply it!
The goal is to produce a well-informed and self-reliant player, with great habits and the ability to identify when they make mistakes and better yet, know how to correct them when they happen. If a player misses a particular shot, where did he miss it? Wide, long or in the net? Knowing how to specifically narrow down problems or difficulties allows a player to examine specific biomechanical or movement deficiencies and provides them with an opportunity to make the appropriate corrective action, while understanding the rationale behind doing so.
Every player, the ones with a little more genetic aptitude and the ones with a little less genetic aptitude should be given the same chance to become an elite tennis player. There is no such thing as you have it, or you don’t. Talent is made, not born! It is nurture, not nature.
Of course you’ve probably guessed it, I too am a tennis teacher and a graduate of Steve Smith’s Tennis Tech and I support the comments made by my colleague above.
Before I close I wanted to discuss where these blog posts began, talking about Craig Tiley. I just want to mention that I have no doubt that Tiley’s training with Smith played a role in his success at Illinois. You see, once you have a real understanding of what a truly efficient stroke looks like, you can spot it a mile away. You can also spot who is almost there and know what little technical tweak you’d need to make in order to improve an aspect of someone’s game. Tiley was well trained and has a great eye. Because he understands the scientific principles of tennis, he’s a great recruiter. He found players with champion potential and gave them the coaching/teaching they needed to go over the top. You’ll see the same thing in Australia; the difference being is that Tiley also knows how to lay the foundation and bring players up through the system.
Over and out.
Frank, first of all thanks for responding without the arrogance that has been in every other letter from you guys. Now to address the issues again and hopefully more clearly. In my opinion there are many different levels of development and the 1st 2 years are by far the most critical as you guys have said and I 100% agree as far as learning the proper technique, mechanics,grips,balance,weight transfer and things of this nature. In these first 2 years you will find out what kind of talent a child has and beyond a shadow of a doubt know if that child has the talent to possibly make it to the highest levels. While a talented child has to be made as you put it or taught there are at least 95% of the kids out there who simply will never be good enough to make it to the highest professional level in any sport simply because no matter how hard they work or how much they know they just don't have that level of talent or ability. Talent does not guarantee you sucess at the highest levels but without it you have know chance. In my job I work with the very basic beginner all the way up to some of the very best players in the world so I do understand the need for a great foundation and beginning right on up to the next few phases of development. I don't however think that it is the Director of Player Developments job to teach the game at these levels or that it is even possible to expect them to. Once a kid reaches a level where it looks like they have the ability, the work ethic, the desire and the game to reach the higher levels of professional tennis then I think this is where the U.S.T.A. has to step in and assist in any way they can. I compare it to professional baseball where guys start in the Rookie League, then progress to A ball, then to AA, then to AAA and finally to the big leagues if they are good enough but the Big League manager does not work with these players at this level nor should he be expected to. Only at the Big League level does he begin to manage them. I guess the big question is at what point in this progression should the U.S.T.A step in and try to help. My theory of progression is this: 1st) Almost all kids learn the game at the local club or public park. This is where the foundation is layed as far as proper mechanics, technique, grips, balance, weight transfer and things of this nature. 2nd) They then progress into tournament play at the local and state levels. This is where you find out how well a child competes, deals with pressure,if they love what they are doing and are willing to put the time in off the court as well as on the court. 3rd) The national and international level( this is where I believe the U.S.T.A. should become involved and begin to assist where they can, be it financially or coaching or whatever is necessary to help continue the childs development on to the highest professional level.) I don't know how they could be expected to go to local and state level tournaments and be expected to take care of kids at this point. Where you guys and I differ is that I believe that there are many good teaching pros out there who can and do teach the game the right way in these formative years or there wouldn't be so many good players from so many different areas of the country. I very much pride myself in being able to spend the time on the court and knowing that I can develop a player from a beginner all the way through the progression of becoming one of the best players in the world and I understand that at all levels your technique and mechanics can break down. I just don't happen to think that this is something I could have been taught in a classroom. I teach it from what I see from that particular player and break it down piece by piece mechanically until they get it right. This is why the very best players in the world have coaches and travel with them. Even when the U.S. was by far the most dominant country in the world our players came from all over the country and were taught by different teaching pros all over the country which is further proof that I believe there are far more good teachers out there than you guys are giving credit for. A big part of the problem is our American society as a whole. We have taught kids that it is o.k. to lose and that they should get a ribbon just for participating and that we need to include everybody in everything even if they bring the rest of the kids down and hold them back so we can spend tome trying to pacify them and to try and make them feel better about themselves. Its not o.k. to lose. You must teach them how to deal with it and handle it with class but its not o.k. This type of thinking is what has hindered the development of a lot of the American kids these days.( I know I'll get a bunch of comments about that but its true and it is why the U.S.T.A. can't be expected to spend time with the kids with less aptitude at the expense of the kids with more aptitude) A kid with more aptitude simply can't feel bad about drumming a kid with less aptitude and that is what will happen if you include too many kids at the highest levels. You and I both know this is where the kid with less aptitude has their parents start calling to see whats wrong and you end up spending too much time trying to make the parents and the less aptitude kids feel better and stunting the development of the higher aptitude kids because of it. This will happen if you include too many kids guaranteed and this is why I still maintain that at the world class level with regards to talent YOU EITHER HAVE IT OR YOU DON'T but that talent does indeed have to be nurtured and developed and taught. I commend Craig Tiley for the job he did at Illinois and for the success he has had but my point was that he was getting too much credit for the success just as coaches usually get too much blame when things don't go well. As you can see from my letters I believe there are many qualified people out there who could do just as good a job or better. This is not meant as knock on him but more as an awareness for you guys that there are indeed a lot of qualified people out there. Over and Out Again
I was a student in the Tennis Tech Program at Tyler Junior College from 83-85 under the direction of Steve Smith. I was also involved for a short time in the Junior Development Program in Tyler, TX where Craig Tiley acquired the "know how" from Steve on how to develop NCAA Champions prior to leaving for the University of Illinois.
Since Craig Tiley was the USTA's first choice and turned down the position, the USTA should consider taking Steve Smith up on his offer to help with their player development program.
Steve has a proven track record developing players and already has in place a vast network of coaches.
If the USTA gets a great stroke technician like Steve Smith in its corner, we will have a great pool of upcoming players who can hit every shot form every position on the court.
To all the posters on this string,
I really enjoyed the different points of view from each one of the bloggers-- and the passion that was displayed for each point of view.
Very thought provoking and interesting points, even though there isn't a consensus.
Thanks
The reason I don't give me first and or last name -- is because I want to be Anonymous.
I am not a coach, player, agent, own or work at an academy or a staff member of the USTA in any way shape or form. However, many people in the elite junior, collegiate and ATP know who I am and I would rather not have my words affect my relatonships with any one involved in tennis in the USA. My words should be taken or not taken, as they are without predjuice as to who I am!!!
Man in the Moon, I too find this interesting.
Curious, I also want to thank you for your response, but I guess at this point we’ll have to agree to disagree.
Your last sentence actually says it all, “This is not meant as knock on him but more as an awareness for you guys that there are indeed a lot of qualified people out there.” I can’t speak for all of “us guys” only myself but I will say - I don’t think so. I think there are lots of certified pros but very few who teach the scientific principles of tennis to their novice students. As far as I’m aware, there are very few who have studied the science of human movement as applied to tennis and, on top of it, are able to take that scientific evidence and teach the most efficient stroke movements to a beginning tennis player.
Top players, the Federers, Nadals, Sharapovas et al., move too quickly for the human eye, which is only able to recognize 24 frames per second, to analyze. The fact is our vision does not allow us to realistically discern the crucial elements of their strokes. High-speed cinematography at 12,000 frames per second, matched with three-dimensional computers allows researchers to quantify this human movement. With the help of their laboratory equipment the researchers presented students at Tennis Tech with the results - the notion that “everyone has his own style” is not necessarily so, and the eyes are bombarded with idiosyncrasies.
As mentioned before, I believe the fundamental problem facing tennis today and ultimately the problem in developing more champions stems from the fact that in the majority of tennis clubs, both private and public, parks and camps it is the newly certified or even non-certified, least educated, least knowledgeable tennis instructor that is assigned to teach novice players.
Students become guinea pigs of trial and error coaching. Beginning players are constantly under-taught, which leads to under-learning. I don’t want to know the incredible amount of potential elite plus players being lost outright in the process.
Some years back Tennis Canada estimated that approximately 70% of pros working at the grassroots level are not even certified. Being under a very similar cultural umbrella I am quite certain that similar numbers apply to the U.S.
I believe that most, if not all participants involved in the teaching process truly love what they do and believe in what they bring to their students. However, thoroughly trained tennis teaching professionals, equally highly competent on- and off-court, are as rare as truly elite player.
The graduates, who attended Steve Smith’s Tennis Tech program, spent a minimum of two years of their lives - day in and day out – 16-20 hours a day, managing the whole curriculum. We were lectured by the top sports scientists, educators and other experts of the tennis industry and then spent some 800-plus hours on-court, during our stay.
I think that all tennis teachers deserve the opportunity to be taught the scientific realities of the game. Equally, all tennis students deserve to receive the same core knowledge – knowledge that is based on the dimensions of the court and laws of physics – in a phrase – objective information. If you create a larger field of first class tennis teachers, it only can lead to an unparalleled elevation of playing competency at all levels of play, including on the world-stage.
How often do you think tennis students are given objective explanations? Better yet, how often do you think tennis students receive subjective, opinion-laced information from coaches? Well it is most likely that the subjective information vastly outweighs the objective. Subjective teaching usually imposes the coach’s likes and dislikes upon the player but does not give the student opinion-free information based on scientific fact and evidence.
I think it is the responsibility of the USTA and particularly the director of player development to evaluate how players are developed from the ground up. And then correct any shortcomings. How does “Quick Start Tennis” the newest USTA program embrace the science of the sport? How is it based on scientific fact? This program and others like it are great marketing programs, recruiting programs and awareness programs designed to increase the number of participants in tennis. They are designed to fill the tennis courts so that the chances of finding a needle in the haystack, the elusive “star”, are increased. They have nothing to do with teaching tennis objectively based on scientific evidence. I say put a teacher’s teacher in charge of the player development at the USTA and you’ll see way more competent teachers and players alike.
To Frank Hornig,Dave Wiest,Jay Huffer,David Anderson,Chad Berryhill,Richard Hernandez,The Dude,Man in the Moon,Bystander and all graduates of the CULT of Steve Smith Tennis Tech program. I can't help but wonder how many of you guys ever played real tennis to understand where I am coming from. There is absolutely nothing about science that can teach a high level junior or Pro for that matter about court positioning, strategy, patterns of play(both how to recognize them and how to use them), shot selection or any of the mental things needed to play the game at its highest levels. Everything you guys say sounds great for the average U.S.T.A. league player and for average junior players but it is still all fluff and no substance when you get down to the reality of what it takes to play at the highest levels. As I've stated before and you guys just don't want to grasp there is nothing about that classroom jargon and scientific fluff that is going to make good players become great. It simply won't cut the mustard. Where was all this science 15 to 25 years ago when the U.S. so thoroughly dominated the world of tennis. You guys have simply missed your calling. If you guys all went in together and opened up a car dealership you all would make a fortune because you all are truly some of the best salesmen I have ever seen or heard and I mean that as a compliment.
There is a well known book called the "Inner Game of Tennis" by Tim Gallwey from 1974.In one of the chapters it talks about Technique. It says "I believe the best use of technical knowledge is to communicate a hint towards a desired destination. The hint can be delivered verbally or demonstrated in action, but it is best seen as an approximation of a desirable goal to be discovered by paying attention to each stroke, and feeling one's way toward what works for that individual".
I would like to ask the Steve Smith school of teachers about where they stand when it comes to the "feel" for the shots versus the ability to remember the shots themselves. If you trust your feel for the shot and are skilled at doing it, then why would you want to introduce too much technique which can introduce a certain amount of doubt (tightening up...am I doing this shot right). I am sure one of the answers may well be repetition, repetition and your strokes will change (self doubt will go away). Maybe that's perfectly true, but one has to feel what works best for him or her self without the constaint of thinking there is a specific right way to do it which he must conform..
any thoughts?
here is a well known book called the "Inner Game of Tennis" by Tim Gallwey from 1974.In one of the chapters it talks about Technique. It says "I believe the best use of technical knowledge is to communicate a hint towards a desired destination. The hint can be delivered verbally or demonstrated in action, but it is best seen as an approximation of a desirable goal to be discovered by paying attention to each stroke, and feeling one's way toward what works for that individual".
I would like to ask the Steve Smith school of teachers about where they stand when it comes to the "feel" for the shots versus the ability to remember the shots themselves. If you trust your feel for the shot and are skilled at doing it, then why would you want to introduce too much technique which can introduce a certain amount of doubt (tightening up...am I doing this shot right). I am sure one of the answers may well be repetition, repetition and your strokes will change (self doubt will go away). Maybe that's perfectly true, but one has to feel what works best for him or her self without the constaint of thinking there is a specific right way to do it which he must conform..
any thoughts
stillcurious, why are you grouping everyone together that disagrees with you? I am not a graduate of Steve Smith school, I merely agree that technique is tantamuount to creating great tennis players. I also agree that the majority of the kids in the HP tennis program do not exhibit instinctive attacking prowess. I'm not attacking you personally so you don't have to take it as such.
in reply to the curious one..maybe these guys are trying to promote themselves and build a name. There is no harm, it means they want more recognition...want justification for their hard work. Looking at Steve's history, he does have the credentials. He has been taught by some well knowns like Welby Van Horne. Clearly Smith comes from the technical school of thought. Shouldn't every aspiring player be evaluated on their game at some point in their development? Technique is just one aspect of that eval. Mental is another. Smith doesn't specialize on the mental nor run boot camps like Bollieteri. You cannot argue that Smith dedicates himself to technical. And maybe he's trying to get the recognition. Big deal. One thing about Smith, he does not like to BS. He tells you straight. That is pretty rare. Kids these days need a kick..there are countless distractions. But i still wonder how you communicate technical changes can have an effect on confidence (good and bad).
..back to technique...to quote Tim Gallwey, "every time you swing your racket in a certain way, you increase the probablilities that you will swing the racket that way again. In this way patterns develop called grooves. Golfers use the same term. The deeper the groove is in the nervous system, the harder it seems to break the habit. We have all had the experience of deciding that we will not hit a ball a certain way again. Often breaking a habit is harder to do. It is a painful process to fight one's way out of deep mental grooves" Smith school of thought takes people at almost any level and tries to get them to start new grooves when they see the old is flawed. That works better when they are young of course, but it also works when they are older in their teens all the way to college. So many aspiring players have dreams, at least there is a school out there that when you decide to attend, you know full well its about technical. They serve their niche. What I really would like to know from anyone is how do you teach the ability to remain cool under pressure. Borg had that better than anyone. Yeah technique and fitnes and tactics, etc...you need all that. As Kipling said those who survive are - "those who can keep their head while all about are losing theirs".
The Dude, Hopefully everyone realized that when I called it a cult I was trying to add a little humor to what has been a good and lively discussion. To further add to the discussion I really don't see the difference in the technical school they are trying to promote and the U.S.P.T.A. certification program. Both are trying to promote themselves as being a better way to have taught people to get into the field of teaching tennis. Some of the very people Smith says he served his apprenticeships under were big parts of the U.S.P.T.A. program if I'm not mistaken. I also think that a lot of the technical things that they try to emphasis are things that should be learned in the 1st 2 years of the game and then after this period they should have this down and move on to other areas but they seem to always come back to talking about science and technique and very little else so I think this is perhaps what gives the impression that Smith is thought of as a beginners coach. To Paul, what I try to get kids to do under pressure to stay calm and cool is to try and keep the score in the back of their minds when a point is over. What should be in the front of their minds is where am I serving the next point and where have I been the most successful when serving to that side or where have they been serving to me when the next point is played and what should I try to anticipate on this service return. In other words if you can get the child to try and focus on strategy and learn to anticipate what they think will happen next then they won't get so consumed by the score that they can't function. The single biggest factor that causes choking is being so concerned with the score that kids forget all about strategy and footwork. When someone is choking they are really nervous. What happens when you are nervous? Your muscles tighten up. So try to keep your arms and legs as loose as possible to ensure better movement and a more fluid stroke in these situations and concentrate on specific things to do and anticipate and keep the score in the back of your mind. If you can learn to do these things you will respond much better under pressure.
As someone who has worked with CT for numerous years at the University of Illinois, I believe I'm in a unique position to shed some light on this topic. I used to play high level junior tennis back in the mid-90s, so I'm aware of the game, and more importantly, how the game is taught. I'd like to share a story - it's the first time CT critiqued my forehand. He was on his way to a meeting (CT didn't sleep) and saw me hit 4 balls. He came over and diagnosed my deficiencies in less then 30 seconds. I stood there dumbfounded. He then prescribed 3 stroke development drills and a slight altering of my grip to fix my problem. CT was dead-on. I couldn't believe in 30 seconds CT had essentially "fixed" (or more aptly given me the knowledge to improve) my forehand. I had hit thousands of balls during my youth, had countless coaches/instructors. None of them, and I mean none of them could have done what CT did in literally 30 seconds. This is why the USTA finally came to its senses and went after CT.
Now on to his development of players with real talent. First, I find posts such as curiousgeorge hilarious. The content speaks for itself, but when he/she then states, "First of all who is Steve Smith" and "I have been in tennis a long time and have never heard of him so how can he be one of the foremost tennis instructors in America", this person's already suspect "cred" goes right out the window. For someone who supposedly is in "the know" about high level tennis in America, Steve Smith's name would be at the top of their list. But I digress. I want to talk about CT's development of players. It was widely assumed when CT and Bruce Berque (don't forget about him)won the '03 NCAAs, it was because of the "polished" talent the Junior class already possessed when they entered Illinos (Del, B Wilson, Stolt, Calk). So as not to bore you with the specifics of each player's development, I'll only talk about Brian Wilson. CT changed roughly 90% (not an overstatement) of Brian's game once he entered school. This says two things: (1)Brain is an incredible athlete and talent who could take instruction and flourish and,(2)CT is so well-respected and trusted that a player who is already at the top of their class would allow for these changes to happen. This is the reason why we need someone like CT running the elite player development program for the USTA. Improvement, at every level, everyday should be the goal. This was CT's mantra. I can't tell you how many "top" players' games looked exactly the same 4 years after I first saw them play. Players understood this and that's why there was a line to come to Illinois. Coaches today don't coach, they manage. CT coached every single day and his players understood. Every player, and more importantly every "coach" should ask themselves at the end of every practice session, "What did we accomplish today that made us better?" I guarantee that's what they're doing down-under. I guarantee that is not happening in the states, at least not yet. Oh, and it will take at least 6-8 years to see the fruits of CT's labor. He was limited to the amount of talent he could focus on while at Illinois. Now he's been let out of the cage in Australia, a scary thought for the rest of the tennis world, or at least to the people who know the name Steve Smith.
Adam Chervin
Post a Comment