Blog

American Men Have Weak Performance at French Open

horvath Leave a comment

The performance of the American men at the 2013 French Open was at the opposite end of the spectrum from the women. Ten players entered the tournament, four made it to the second round, and two played their final match in the third round. Combined, they had a total of six wins and three losses.

Unfortunately, the outlook for the future is more of the same.  Only 4 of the 10 American entrants were born after 1990, i.e. they are less than 23 years of age.

The record and birth year of the American men follows:

First round losers (0-1)

  • Alex Kuznetsov,  1987
  • Michael Russell, 1978
  • Rhyne Williams, 1991
  • Steve Johnson, 1989
  • James Blake, 1979
  • Denis Kudia, 1992.

Second round losers (1-1)

  • Jack Sock, 1992
  • Ryan Harrison, 1992

Third round losers (2-1)

  • John Isner, 1985
  • Sam Querrey, 1987.

Without a doubt, every player on this list is a talented player. Unfortunately none of them have made a name for themselves as consistently strong performers in the Grand Slams.

Will we see a breakthrough performance for the American men in the 2013 Wimbledon? Can John Isner’s big serve carry him to a strong performance? Will one of the younger players advance into the third or fourth rounds?  Not likely.

USA Volleyball Coaching Fundamentals Apply to All Sports

horvath Leave a comment

The USA Volleyball certification program for coaches begins with IMPACT, a mandatory course for many club and school coaches.  At a high level the program covers: sports medicine/risk management, ethics, coaching philosophy, motor skill development, drill development, and parents.

The second phase in the certification process, the Coaching Accreditation Program (CAP), is more extensive.  The CAP I course is based on the book, Coaching Volleyball – Building a Winning Team. The course focuses on basic skills (forearm pass, overhead pass, serving, spiking, serve receive, blocking, individual defense), developing offensive and defensive systems, game-like drills, putting together practices, strategies and tactics, and coaching philosophies.

Highlights from a recent CAP certification held in Durango, Colorado follow:

The game teaches the game.  Skills are transferred best in game-like situations.

  • Never be a child’s last coach. Give them a love of the game.
  • Principles matter more than methods.
  • A good coach will tell his/her players, “Your job is to show up with a smile on your face. My jobs are to send you away with one.”
  • The pleasure of competition should always exceed the pressure of competition.
  • Effective coaches will tell their players what they want to see them doing, not what they did wrong.
  • Teach the whole rather than the part, for example teach the full spike rather than breaking it down in parts.
  • The power of story is an effective way to teach – guide your players’ discovery through story.
  • If punishment worked, prisoners would be angels.
  • A team’s practice must be deliberate and focused.
  •  Kids don’t know how much the coach knows about volleyball until they know how much the coach cares about them.
  • Specificity is a key in motor learning. Give students specific cues such as “Good job reaching for the ball.” This is more helpful than being a cheerleader and saying, “Good shot.”
  • There is a greater transfer in skill from random training rather than block training.
  • “Streaks Happen.” 50% of the time an athlete performs above their average and the other 50% of the time they perform below their average.

Every coach has a different philosophy and approach to helping their athletes learn. Philosophies may vary, but quality programs will be based on the above mentioned fundamentals.

 

Does Your Kid Have an Opportunistic Coach – opportunityisnowhere?

horvath Leave a comment

All parents want their kids to play on sports teams where the coach takes advantage of opportunities to make the players better.

Does the coach teach kids proper techniques, tactics, and mental toughness and then catch them doing things right. Or does the coach focus only on the things the players do wrong? 

When the team loses, does the coach find ways to use the loss to make the team better? Or does the coach become frustrated and take it out on the kids?

When the best player on the team is injured, does the coach view it as a chance to allow other players to step up and contribute to the team? Or does the coach act as though the team doesn’t have a chance because their best player has been sidelined?

When the referee makes a bad call (referees are human), does the coach accept the call and challenge the players to find a way to offset the error? Or does the coach holler at the officials and accuse them of trying to make the team lose?

When the team’s best player has a chance to win the game with two seconds on the clock and misses an open shot, does the coach celebrate the fact that the player accepted a leadership role and had the courage to take the last shot? Or does the coach become angry and bench the player in the next game?

Does the coach read the letters “opportunityisnowhere” and say “opportunity is now here”?  Or does the coach read them and say, “opportunity is nowhere” (this is how the Microsoft spellchecker reads the letters).

Perception is everything.  Good coaches find ways to create opportunities in every situation!

A Shift in Power for the Grand Slams?

horvath Leave a comment

Without a doubt Wimbledon is the premier tennis tournament in the world. It was the first held in 1877 and is the oldest Grand Slam. The inaugural U.S. Championships where held four years later, in 1881, followed by the French Open in 1891. Finally, the first Australian Open was held in 1905.

With the increased importance of China, India, and surrounding countries, a shift in power may be in place that favors the Australian Open. This shift would be driven by the increased population and television viewership in these countries and the fact that they are in the same time zone as Australia.

This is illustrated by the following summary of viewership for select Grand Slam events.

U.S. Open

  • 2012 US Open Men’s Finals – 16.2 million viewers watched Djokovic beat Murray (Source: AP).
  • 2012 US Open Women’s Finals – 17.7 million viewers watched Serena Williams beat Vika Azarenka (Source: AP).
  • 2002 US Open Women’s Finals – 20.1 million viewers watched Serena Williams beat Venus Williams (Source: AP)

French Open

  • 2011 French Open Women’s Finals – 65 million viewers in China watched Li Na defeat Francesca Schiavone (Source: Xinhua)
  • 2011 Australian Open Women’s Finals – 135 million viewers in China watched Li Na lose to Kim Clijsters. (Source: Sydney Morning Herald).
  • 2013 Australian Open Women’s Finals – The projected viewership in China was estimated to be greater than 200 million for finals – Vika Azarenka beat  Li Na. (Source: Sydney Morning Herald).

The increased prominence of the Asian market will ultimately impact the other Grand Slam events and the relative strength of tennis in the U.S. Consider the following questions:

Despite its tradition, will the Australian Open continue to reside “Down Under”, or will it be relocated to a more centrally located  Asian-Pacific city?

  • How much will the prestige and importance of the Australian Open increase given the size of the Asian market?
  • Will other majors be added to accommodate tennis in Asia?
  • How much will excitement over players such as Li Na increase the number of participants in China and around the world?
  • How will increased viewership in Asia impact the role of the USTA in global tennis?
  • With projected growth of the sport in Asia, will American players ever dominate the Grand Slams to the extent that the Williams sisters have?
  • Because of the time zone difference, will the U.S. be able to capitalize off the projected increase in popularity of tennis in Asia.

It will be interesting to see what changes occur in the Grand Slams over the next ten years.

 

Video Capabilities Available for Coaches at All Levels

horvath Leave a comment

Forty years ago, only the top sports programs used video tape analysis to enhance an athlete’s performance. Video tape equipment was extremely expensive, it was temperamental to use, and the quality of the tape was inferior, by today’s standards.

Over the years, Dartfish established itself as a leader in sports video analysis. Its software allowed for easy analysis of an athlete’s performance, including slow motion and side-by-side comparisons. While Dartfish products were a significant improvement, their system was still fairly expense.

Today, most cameras and cell phones have the ability to capture high quality video and multiple apps allow for video analysis. In short, it is possible for parents, little league coaches, and tennis professionals to video their athletes and provide instant feedback.

For example, Ubersense allows coaches to record high definition video and playback frame-by-frame. It includes slow motion analysis, zoom and advanced drawing tools, and the ability to compare videos side-by-side. In short, coaches have access to video capabilities that far exceed the capabilities of 40 years ago, at a fraction of the cost.

In addition to Ubersense, parents and coaches may want to consider apps such as Coach’s Eye, FastCam, or SloPro.

Teamwork Laker Style

horvath Leave a comment

Prior to the start of the 2012-2013 NBA season, the Los Angeles Lakers made a series of trades that made them a sure bet to challenge for the championships at the end of the season.  The team posted a respectable 45-37 record, enough to get them a short-lived bid in the post season.  For a variety of reasons, including the lack of teamwork, the team’s season has best been described as a nightmare.

In early January, Laker Center Dwight Howard assessed the situation on ESPN.com, “We have to play like we like each other. Even if we don’t want to be friends off the court, whatever that may be, when we step in between the lines or we step in the locker room or the gym, we have to respect each other and what we bring to the table.”

Were Howard’s comments a simple explanation of why the team had not been more successful, was he condemning his teammates for their inability to work together as a team, or was he trying to offer motivation to get his teammates fired up? Whatever the reason, his words didn’t help the team reach its potential.

The moral of the story is that money can buy talent, but it can’t buy teamwork, a strong work ethic, and wins.

Is Sand Volleyball on the Horizon for CU and CSU?

horvath Leave a comment

In 2012 sand volleyball became an “emerging” women’s sport for the NCAA. Fifteen schools kicked off the inaugural season.  Another 15 teams were added this season (2013), with the National Championships on tap the first week in May.

On Friday April 26 CU and CSU put on a sand exhibition at Oasis Sports in Broomfield to increase awareness for the sport along the Front Range.  It appears that it is only a matter of time before the Rams and Buffs will be competing on the sand as part their respective NCAA athletic programs.

USTA LCB Mandates now Include Some 12U Players

horvath Leave a comment

Thanks to a mandate of the USTA/Colorado Player Development Committee, 12U players in satellite events must play their tournament matches with the green dot low compression balls (LCBs).   Most teaching professionals agree that LCBs and graduated tennis racquets are valuable teaching tools for some entry level players. For younger players, the shorter and lighter racquets are easier to control. Shorter players may find it easier to hit balls in the hitting zone because the balls travel slower and bounces lower. USTA officials claim this combination helps players develop good footwork and better strokes and learn how to be patient, construct points, and develop strategies.

To date, the limited research on LCBs does not show that graduated racquets or LCBs help players learn the game more quickly; however, anecdotal evidence suggests it makes the learning process more fun and less frustrating. Most will agree that LCBs are a useful teaching tool for some players.

From a business perspective, LCBs are valuable only if players continue to play the sport after their introduction to it. There is no evidence to prove this is the case and some anecdotal evidence suggests LCBs have had no impact on participation.

Highlights from a local early season junior tournament follow:

  • The host facility had a strong 10U instructional program, yet there were not enough entrants for a 10U tournament/play day. This was the case for most of last season.
  • There were eight players in the 12U girls’ satellite event, including two open players from the state’s junior excellence program. All participants had previously played for the past year or more with real tennis balls.
  • The LCBs bounced inconsistently. On multiple occasions, shots that were hit with medium pace to midcourt often did not carry to the baseline.
  • The LCBs performed erratically in the wind and in temperatures below 50 degrees.
  • Because the ball bounced inconsistently, carried a shorter distance, and had a lower trajectory, players frequently had to lunge to hit the ball or hit it at knee level or lower. Frequently, they would push the ball because they were out of position to hit it properly.
  • As well, players began trying to hit the ball short as a means of winning points – a tactic that doesn’t work with real tennis balls.
  • Players who could hit a real tennis ball with spin had difficulty hitting the LCBs with spin.
  • Players tended to over swing on their groundstrokes because they were not able to put the ball away. This is counterproductive to development of good strokes and winning strategies.

The current USTA mandates regarding the use of LCBs for 10U and 12U satellite events are hopefully well intended.  Time will tell if the LCB mandates will “grow the game” or if they will “grow the list of failed USTA mandates.”

Title IX – Opportunities for Men and Women Tennis Coaches

horvath Leave a comment

The adoption of Title IX in 1972 created opportunities for women athletes and coaches.

Currently, 8 of the 11 head coaches in the PAC 12 women’s’ tennis programs are female. The USC, Oregon, and Utah programs have male head coaches and Oregon State is the lone school without a tennis program.

Four of the 10 assistant coaches are female and 2 of the 6 volunteer coaches are female. Overall 14 of the 27 coaches for women’s’ teams are female.

It is a much different story with the men. There are 8 schools with programs (OSU, WSU, CU, and ASU do not have men’s programs.)  All 23 coaches (head, assistant, and volunteer) are males.  This is a bit surprising, given there are qualified women who are capable of coaching men.

Given there are differences in coaching men and women, it makes sense that a majority of the head coaches are female. The fact that a majority of the assistant and volunteer coaches are male is an indication that men have learned the subtleties of coaching women.  It is also an indication that

there is a larger labor pool of male coaches and teaching professionals than women. Finally, many head coaches, including women head coaches, prefer to have men on their staffs because they can hit the ball harder in workouts with the women players.

Overall, the PAC 12 ratio of male to female coaches is 72% men/28% women. This is not significantly different from the male/female ratio of the teaching/coaching profession. The good news is that because of Title IX, more qualified women coaches are working in coaching positions and more men have become qualified to coach women.

Are Women’s College Coaches Looking for Mercenaries to Fill Their Tennis Rosters?

horvath 1 Comment

Right or wrong, PAC 12 women’s tennis coaches are looking outside their state to fill their tennis rosters.

The short report “Gender of Coaches and Residence of Players – PAC 12 Tennis 2013” looked at the rosters of PAC schools during the month of April 2013 and found that 32.7% of the players were in-state. Of the 101 players, 26.7% were out-of-state and the remaining 40.6% were foreign players.

A majority of the USC and Stanford players were in-state (8 of 11 and 7 of 8). Four schools did not have any in-state players, including both Washington schools, Arizona, and Oregon. ASU only had 1 in-state player.

Stanford had no foreign players and USC only had one player from out of the country.  More than half the players on the Arizona, Oregon, California, Washington, and WSU teams were from foreign countries.

For a similar analysis on men’s tennis go to the post “Are There Too Many Hired Guns in Men’s College Tennis?“