The Complete Player
Gene Mayer
There are two elements to becoming a complete player. The first is having the technical ability to hit all of the shots in the game; groundstrokes, approach shots, volleys, serves, and returns. That seems obvious. The second element is less obvious. This is being comfortable with using each of those shots under match pressure. Without the second element, the first is irrelevant.
This second element is where many players fall short, even at the highest levels of the game. For example, when you watch Andy Roddick hit volleys in the warm-up, his volleys look reasonably sound from a technique perspective. But when Andy comes to net against Roger Federer, you can sense that deep down Andy does not have confidence in his volley and believe he will win points at the net. Just as importantly, Roger knows that Andy is uncomfortable. The result is that Andy is not effective coming to the net against Roger.
There is a similar story from my era. Ivan Lendl boycotted grass early in his career, but later he made a monumental effort to win Wimbledon. He was coached by Tony Roche, an Australian legend with a history of serve and volley success. He trained on grass "down under" during the clay court season. He even shifted to an oversized racket.
Lendl worked hard on his serve and volley, improved it significantly, and employed it as a regular tactic in grass court matches. But despite all of that work, Ivan never got to the point where he was at home at the net. His game had previously been so focused on baseline play that he just could not make the transition and become dominant at the highest levels of the game. The other players feared him from the baseline, but not when he went to net. Lendl came close to winning Wimbledon (losing in the finals to an in-form Pat Cash), but never hit his stride on grass. It was a great effort, but ultimately, Ivan was unsuccessful in adding a new dimension to his game late in his career.
In this series of articles, I hope that I can help other players overcome the developmental mistakes that are sometimes made even by players who go on to become number one in the world. Specifically, I want to share with you the techniques I have developed for players of all ages and levels. These techniques enable them to become complete players that have the full range of options during competition.
Tempo of Play
Why is being a complete player such an advantage? This is because winning points, particularly at the advanced levels, is usually determined by what I call the "tempo of play." By "tempo of play," I mean the style of the points. Are the points long or short? Are they hard hit exchanges or does one player slow the ball down? Are the points played out from the baseline or does one player or both come to net? Certain tempos will play into your opponent's strengths, and certain tempos will play into their weaknesses, or at least allow you to their strengths.
Being a complete player allows you to employ the tempo of play that is most advantageous to you. A certain tempo may be very effective against a particular opponent, but if you are not comfortable with that tempo, then it not really a viable option. The complete player is able to effectively implement all phases of the game and is free to choose the tempo that exploits their opponent's weaknesses and/or avoids their opponent's strengths.
In my opinion, the best possible way to beat Roger Federer is to put pressure on him (put him in an uncomfortable position) early in the point. This prevents him from establishing control of the point. Once Roger establishes control, he is absolutely deadly. One way to pressure Roger early in the point is to effectively serve and volley.
You need an effective volley like Tim Henman, but you also need a big enough serve to put Roger on his heels. As well as Henman volleys, his serve does not have enough pop to truly pressure Roger, and the results of their matches show this. Roddick may have the serve, but as we noted, he doesn't "own" the volley. The only current player to be able to pull this off is Ivo Karlovic, a 6'10" Croatian with a giant serve. Although he has not beaten Roger he has been able to routinely hold serve playing serve and volley against him. So it is possible.
How would Pete Sampras's serve and volley game have worked against Roger on grass? A fascinating question. Federer did beat Sampras on grass in the 4th round of 2001 Wimbledon 7-6, 5-7, 6-4, 6-7, 7-5. It would have been very interesting to see the results of many matches over a longer period. However, it's possible a young serve and volley player will emerge with the weapons to test Roger with this style of play.
A second way to pressure Roger is to push him farther back behind the baseline than he likes. Rafael Nadal actually has accomplished this on clay. He did it by hitting very deep and with heavy spin, mainly to Roger's backhand side. This put Roger off balance. He was not able to dictate play and ended up taking more chances than normal. The result was numerous unforced errors, and was enough to swing the balance of the match in favor of Nadal.
Lleyton Hewitt is a great baseliner, an incredible counter puncher, and a tremendous competitor, but he simply does not have the weapons to pressure Roger early in the point. He may even know that early pressure is the one way to be effective, but he simply can't do as much as with the ball from the baseline as Nadal. As a result, Lleyton has no real way to beat Roger.
The Complete Master
Roger, in contrast to the other top players, is the owner of a wonderfully complete game. This enables him to use whatever tempo of point is most effective against his opponent. Recently he was quoted as saying that he wrote down all the shots he would need against different opponents, and then systematically developed them.
Consider how he plays Roddick. Against many players, Roddick wins a large number of points by bombing a monster serve to the opponent's backhand and then, when his opponent returns the serve with a relatively high ball (if at all), belting a forehand. Roger has the ability to neutralize those big serves.
He has a very effective slice return off the backhand. He will either hit the slice backhand return short and low (near the service line), or float the slice return deep to Andy's backhand, in either case preventing Andy from unloading on a high forehand. Roger is able to shift the scenario and increase his odds on Andy's serve. Inevitably, the result is a few breaks over the course of a match. Another example is Roger's judicious use the serve and volley on certain points. If Andy is getting in a groove pounding away on his forehand on baseline exchanges, Roger will change the tempo by serving and volleying, disrupting Andy's efforts to dictate from the baseline.
Developing a Complete Game
So if having a complete game is such an advantage, the obvious question is: how do you develop one? This is where a coach has a critical role early in a player's development. A coach should size up his student and assess his natural strengths. Just as importantly, the coach must insist that the student, when learning the game, spend ample time on all aspects of the game. The goal is for the player to feel truly comfortable with all phases of the game. This can be a very tough sell, particularly with young players. Most juniors are initially much more comfortable playing from the baseline. It is much easier for them to play the ball after it has bounced than at the net where there is more speed and less time.
The difficulty is compounded because in the 12 and 14 and under age groups, even players who volley well can't reap many benefits A player that spends time working on these shots could well lose to another youngster that has used his practice time almost exclusively to perfect his baseline game.
Players, and even more importantly their parents, have to understand that the development process is a long one and what is important is where you wind-up as an adult player, not how many junior trophies you have. It's not always possible to predict what young players eventual playing styles will be. It is well known that an attacking style simply takes longer to develop. Attacking players sometimes played more conservatively in the juniors. Their eventual game style evolved as they matured physically and honed shots with a higher degree of difficulty. Playing style as most coaches well know is also related closely to personality. (For a recent take on temperament and playing style from Dexter Godbey Click Here.). A player's true personality only emerges over time. These reasons make it very important not to limit young players by failing to develop all their options.
The truth is that the pay off for developing a complete player can be years down the road. The coach needs to remind both the player and the parents that practice time is not about winning practice sets, but about developing skills. It takes vision to see the potential long term benefits of a complete game, and this is especially difficult for parents without a background in tennis themselves. In this respect, we can point to the parents of Pete Sampras. They put his development in the hands of Robert Lansdorp and Pete Fisher who had the courage of a long term vision. In retrospect it all seems as if it was meant to be. Let's remember that Pete Sampras switched to a one-handed backhand at 14, was ranked #60 nationally at 16, and won the US Open at 19!
My Approach
My approach is to spend a great deal of time in practice having younger students work on their volleys and approach shots. I also encourage them to gradually incorporate their use in matches. It is not realistic to tell a 12 or 14 year old to come to the net all of the time in a match, but they can do things like "sneak" into net when they see their opponent off balance and out of position. This fosters the confidence that they can win points at the net. Eventually they can incorporate regular approach shots and some serve and volley.
Not every junior is Pete Sampras or Roger Federer. It is important to note that to be a complete player you do not have to an "all star" at every phase of the game. You need a couple of weapons. Beyond that you need to be comfortable enough with the other parts of your game to use them under match conditions. Jimmy Connors' volley was not nearly as strong as that of John McEnroe, but Jimmy could handle himself at the net, was comfortable coming in off approach shots, and could mix in some serve and volley. This was a critical contribution to Jimmy's game and he was not forced to win points exclusively from the baseline.
In contrast, Andre Agassi does not really want to approach the net. In general, Andre does not use the short ball as an opportunity to approach the net. In most cases, he will try to hit a groundstroke winner off a short ball. If Andre's opponent can his shot and throw back a high looping reply, the point will be "reset" to a much more neutral situation and Andre has to start the whole process again. There are many points Jimmy Connors would win once that Andre has to win twice. If Andre had been as comfortable as Jimmy at the net, Andre would have won more points more easily. This possibly that could have made a difference in some of his tight losses to Sampras
As a coach I have developed certain methods to help students develop this kind of complete game. In upcoming articles I'll explain how a variety of shots can be developed, first in isolation, then in combinations. I have found that asking students to master sequences is often too difficult, but they can be built from the component's as player's develop their confidence. We'll start with one of the basic elements in the complete game--even though it is radically under utilized--the approach and volley.
Coaching Philosophy
As a coach, my perspective has been developed by a number of different influences. The first influence was the timeless insight of my father and coach, Alex Mayer, Sr. who developed both my own game and that of my brother Sandy, also a world top ten player. Another influence was my experience on the tour playing against some of the great players in the history of the game: Bjorn Borg, Jimmy Connors, Ivan Lendl, and John McEnroe to name a few. A third influence is the perspective I have developed observing the evolution of the game and working with players at all levels: juniors, adults, and tour professionals. In my articles for Tennisplayer, I will be dissecting the games of pro players and assessing their relative strengths and weaknesses. It probably goes without saying that this analysis does not imply that any of them are anything less than superb players, which they certainly are. The point is only that every tennis player has relative areas of strengths and weaknesses, and we all can learn from studying these for ourselves.
Note: New Tennisplayer.net Associate Editor Ed Weiss worked directly with Gene in developing this article and filming the click through movies.
