Late To The Ball: Tennis and Relationships

I just finished reading Late To The Ball by Gerald Marzorati, a former editor of the New York Times Magazine, in which he tells his story about taking up tennis in his early 60s and the lessons he learned, both in terms of technique/tactics and lessons about himself. I liked his book (and the clever title) very much. He started playing singles competitively but toward the end of the book he shifted to play doubles. He quotes an email from his wife on the differences between singles and doubles that I like.

“Singles is a fearsome struggle for independence at best; at worst it is a denial of the other’s humanity. But doubles is different. A devoted team can help each other grow so much. You’re talking about fellowship, and the delicate, intricate, wondrous balance between autonomy and dependency.”

I think her description of the dynamics of doubles actually applies to relationships in general whether it’s friendships, family or marriages.

I also think her depiction of singles is a bit harsh. I’m sure many people who play competitive singles do indeed want to impose their will on their opponent. I lean more toward Tim Gallwey’s idea that a goal of playing tennis, whether it’s singles or doubles, is to bring out the best in yourself. To do that you need the best from your opponent. Therefore playing ultimately is a cooperative exercise. I figure if you’re playing on the professional circuit your goal is strictly to win, rise in the rankings and make enough money to survive, without being concerned how your opponent feels about losing. The same for playing in USTA amateur leagues and tournaments. Yet, I noticed at the very top of the pro ranks (Djokovic, Nadal, Federer and Murray) there is mutual respect and appreciation for a well-played match. Even in the mixed doubles USTA matches I played this winter (for the first time in my tennis career at the age of 65!), there usually is mutual respect. Most of my opponents were fair and friendly. A few resorted to gamesmanship in an attempt to get into my head. (Good luck finding anything in there!) But overall all four of us on the court were looking for a competitive, well-fought match.

Getting back to Marzorati book, you could also take the title to mean arriving late to a ball as in a formal dance party. Whether or not this double meaning was intentional I’d say the second meaning of the “ball” is appropriate too. Playing tennis can be thought of as a dance.

Inner Game of Tennis - 40th Anniversary: Some Thoughts

Tennis magazine recently ran an article on the 40th anniversary of The Inner Game of Tennis. While I’ve been a big fan of Inner Tennis I have to admit that I still struggle knowing exactly how to apply Gallwey's ideas or if I’m even interpreting them correctly. I recall that he tells stories in his book how he helped beginners learn how to play by not doing what traditional coaches do. I know he believes traditional coaching has players over-focus on the details of the mechanics. I recall Gallwey had the student watch him execute, say, a forehand several times then had them do it. Or he has the student swing in front of a mirror. While I think Gallwey’s approach is valid I also think there is time when it is appropriate to be aware of the mechanics and work on them until they become automatized.

Here is a recent personal example. I’ve noticed that the many of the pros hit the ball on their groundstrokes with their racket tilted slightly forward by several degrees at impact. This produces a somewhat flatter shot but still with topspin. So I started trying it by consciously setting my racket with a slight forward tilt. Eventually I didn’t have to think about doing it; it became automatic.

In his second book on inner tennis Gallwey even mentions the idea of not consciously choosing targets but letting the Self 2 figure out where to put the ball. I do apply this especially on certain shots. The one that comes to mind is when I’m on the ad court in doubles and the cross court opponent is coming to the net. One of my favorite shots is to hit a short crosscourt ball that just clears the net then dips sharply and lands in the outside alley. Yet I can’t describe exactly what I’m doing different with my stroke to make the ball to that. I just know that’s what I want to do and let the rest happen. If I think about how to make that stroke I’m more likely to miss. Maybe that’s an application of Inner Tennis.

The compromise I’ve developed is when I’m trying a new tweak to a technique I’ll focus on it until it becomes automatic. If I’m not working on any technique in particular I then focus on weight transfer, the point of impact and trying to watch the ball hit the strings from behind the racket (i.e. looking at the impact point through the strings). My tendency is to let the ball come in too close. One of these days I’ll get it right! ;-)