How to Whip your forehand for more speed by One Minute Tennis Coach

This video by Stephen Bourne ("One Minute Tennis Coach") offers a way to increase the whip of the forehand. As usual, Bourne provides a different take on tennis technique and with a clear explanation. In this video he shows that the professionals hit their forehands with more power than us amateurs because they're rotating around the left shoulder (if they're right-handed), not their right shoulder. He shows how they tuck their left (non-racket) hand in a way that causes their body to pivot around the left shoulder, not the right, thus increasing the length of the swing. (I don't know if this is the same reason mechanically but I've noticed that many professional football quarterbacks make the same motion with their non-throwing hand when they throw the ball.)

I recommend Bourne's YouTube channel. Many of his tips provide a unique -- and useful -- perspective.

Doubles Strategy: On Which Side Should the Stronger Player Play?

One of the topics that comes up on tennis forums and in coaching videos is this: where should the stronger doubles partner play? One theory recommends putting the stronger player on the ad side because four of the six game ending scores occurs on the ad side: 40-0, 0-40, 40-30 and 30-40. Only two occur on the deuce side: 40-15 and 15-40. So the idea is that the stronger player can either close out the game if his or her team have a lead or can prevent losing the game if they're behind in the game. Having the stronger player on the ad side also puts their overhead and forehand in the middle (if they're right-handed).

Recently I've experimented with playing on the deuce side if I'm the stronger player. I've noticed that one advantage means my team has a better chance of being ahead in the score (15-0, 30-15, 40-0 or 40-30) because I'm more likely to control the point. I have a better backhand return of serve than some of my partners and therefore can handle the opposing server if they consistently serve up the center on the deuce side.

I know this puts the weaker player on the ad side but it also puts their forehand in the center; most players have a stronger forehand than backhand. Having them on the ad side put their backhand on the outer quarter of the court rather than in the middle.

I'm not saying this is a hard-and-fast rule. Sometimes I play the ad court depending on the strengths of my partner and how we match up with the opposing team. For instance, I'll play the ad side when faced with a left-handed player who is able to hit a severe slice serve that breaks to the returner's left and pulls them off the court. Because I've worked hard on having a solid backhand I can handle this serve.

Change in Scope - Again

When I started this blog way back in 2007 it focused on soccer because I was coaching it at the time. In 2014 I changed and expanded the scope to cover other sports. I did this because there are lessons we can learn things like mental toughness and how to overcome challenges by studying how champions in other sports perform.

The main focus moving forward will be on tennis, primarily because I'm currently playing every day (sometimes twice). I also coached a local boys high school varsity team for six years. When I'm not reading related to my other blog, Thinking Objectively, I'm reading about tennis and watch the Tennis Channel almost all of the time. My goal is to continuously improve my game.

My goal with this blog is to share ideas that I come across in YouTube or books. Occasionally I'll share an insight that is all my own!

The Power of Unlearning: Serena Williams' Story

The Power of Unlearning: Serena Williams' Story

Here is a key paragraph.

Unlearning is the process of letting go, reframing, and moving away from once-useful mindsets and acquired behaviors. It’s not forgetting, removing, or discarding knowledge or experience; it’s a conscious act of letting go of outdated information and actively taking in new information to inform effective decision-making and action.

I have some experience with this from surgeries. In 2012 I had rotator cuff surgery then double knee replacements in June of 2018. In both cases I was unable to play tennis for several months. When I returned to practicing I used this as an opportunity to work on aspects of my game. I think it worked because people commented on how my tennis had improved from the last time they played with me.

Tennis Reminders (Updated)

In an earlier post, Can I? versus I Can!, I shared results of research on how people performed when they asked themselves the question “Can I do this?” versus coaxing themselves with “I can do this!” I mentioned that I apply this by asking myself “Can I play well today?” then answering “Yes!”

At the end of that post I also mentioned that I also use the acronym LIFE³ as part of my pre-match routine to remind why I’m playing: to Learn, Improve, have Fun and to Express myself, to Explore my capabilities and to Exercise.

The final pre-match self-talk covers key reminders on the techniques I want to use. I use two phrases, one for groundstrokes and one for serving. For groundstrokes I say, “Watch me Catch Butt.” This actually contains three reminders in one. Watch: reminds me to watch the shadow of the ball. Why the shadow? To narrow my focus to something specific on the ball, not the ball itself. (I actually don’t watch the ball over its entire flight. More on that in a later post. Hint: has to do with something called saccadic eye movements.) Catch: reminds me that on my forehand I’m holding my left arm across my body and basically parallel to the baseline as if I’m going to catch the ball. This forces me to turn my upper body, which sets up the coil needed to generate power. On the backhand I pretend I’m going to catch the ball with the butt of my racket. On volleys Catch reminds me to set up my racket as if I’m catching the ball with it. Butt: reminds me to pull the racket through contact to help generate racket speed.

Finally, when serving, I use the word UP to remind myself that I’m hitting Up on the ball and to Pronate.

By the way, in case you were wondering, here is a little background on my tennis playing ability and experience. When I’ve taken tennis lessons in the past couple years I’ve asked the four different instructors how they’d rate me on the NTRP (National Tennis Rating Program) scale. All of them say I’m at least a 4.0, maybe a little higher. Of course, all of them say this is based on what they see during lessons and that the rating could change depending on how I play in actual matches.

I constantly study the game by watching YouTube videos, reading many books and subscribing to a bunch of email newsletters of pros and instructors such as Wil Hamilton, Clay Ballard, Brent Abel, Peter Freeman, Ramon Osa, Jorge Capestany, and Ian Westermann. For the last three years I also have kept a tennis journal in which I rate myself whether I made incremental improvement in technique, tactics and my mental/emotional state. The journal also records observations on areas that need to be worked on for the next match.

I also use the Babolat POP wrist sensor to track my strokes. The POP collects average and maximum speeds of groundstrokes and serves, the kinds of groundstrokes (top spin, slice or flat) and gives an overall rating based on spin, speed and style. (I record this information in a spreadsheet to look for trends.)

All of this information aims to show that even though I might not be a 4.5 or higher rated player my constant study has resulted in my game continuing to advance. I believe I’m playing better now at the age of 67 than I have ever played before in the 50+ years that I’ve played this sport. And I’m not done!

UPDATED 1/2/2019

Since writing this a year ago I've tweaked and added to my pre-match routine. The UP reminder for serving now is PUPSS which stands for Point at the toss, hit Up, Pronate, start the serve take back Slowly and try to keep my body Sideways longer. I added these to my pre-serve reminder because I was finding myself starting the take back too fast then stopping or slowing down and my body was opening to the court too early which I think caused my first serve to go into the net too often.

The following might sound hokey but I also ask why am I playing. The answer is LIFES. This stands for to Learn more about the game and myself, to Improve, to have Fun, to Explore, get Exercise, have Excitement and Express myself with Style. The Style reminder is to get me to focus on playing smoothly and on the process of hitting the ball rather than the results. I got this idea after reading Gabriele Wulf’s Attention and Motor Skill Learning in which she describes the results of her research on the difference between having an external focus rather than an internal focus in performing athletic skills.

Here is how Amazon summarizes her book. “Attention and Motor Skill Learning challenges traditional views that the method of learning a motor skill involves focusing attention on each part of the skill and internalizing proper execution. Instead, author Gabriele Wulf argues that the learning of new motor skills suffers when attentional focus is on the coordination of movements. When attention is directed to the desired movement effect, however, performance levels rise. Not only is a higher level of performance often achieved faster with an external rather than an internal attention focus, but the skill is retained better.”

Her book discusses experiments she conducted with people doing a variety of skills such as standing on a balance bar and trying to keep it steady. The internal group was told to try to keep their feet as steady as possible while the external group was told to try to keep two lights that were on the balance beam as steady as possible. The external group consistently did better than the internal group and maintained this advantage when tested days or weeks later.

You could argue that my emphasis on making my shots with style actually is an internal focus but I would say it’s more of an external focus. By thinking about making my strokes with smooth style I’m thinking about the result, not on the mechanics of how to play with style. And I’m thinking mostly about how the forehand, backhand or serve look when they’re completed rather than the whole stroke. Bottom line: I think it works, at least for me!

What Separates Champions From ‘Almost Champions’? -- Science of Us

What Separates Champions From ‘Almost Champions’? -- Science of Us

I’m going to start of with a long series of quotes from an article in The Cut titled “What Separates Champions From ‘Almost Champions’?

It’s the perennial million-dollar question of nature versus nurture, sure. But the difference between the greats and the almost-greats (which, by the way, applies well beyond sports) also appears to be at least partially driven by one specific thing — how each group responds to adversity. The greats rise to the challenge and put in persistent effort; the almost-greats lose steam and regress.  

For a recent study published in the journal Frontiers in Psychology, talent development researchers Dave Collins, Aine MacNamara, and Neil McCarthy examined the differences between athletes who overcame adversity and went on to become world-class (what they call super champions) and those who struggled in the face of hardship (the hearthbreakingly named “almost champions”) . Whereas super champions were playing in premier leagues and/or competing on national teams (think: Olympics), almost champions had achieved well at the youth level but were playing in the less prestigious leagues as adults. 

The researchers found that super champions were characterized “by an almost fanatical reaction to challenge.” They viewed challenges in a positive light — as opportunities to grow — and overcame them thanks to a “never satisfied” attitude. This runs in contrast to almost champions, who blamed setbacks on external causes, became negative, and lost motivation.
.... 

Super champions were driven from within. Their primary concern was self-improvement. They held themselves to high standards, but judged themselves against prior versions of themselves, not against others.
Almost champions, however, were focused on external benchmarks, like national rankings or how they compared to rivals, a mind-set the researchers speculate why almost champions got discouraged during rough patches.  

....... 

World-class performers, then, don’t rely on either nature or nurture, but on a combination of the two — and they are really good at nurturing their nature. All of which suggests the recipe that gives rise to super champions is worth emulating: Individuals who demonstrate persistent effort follow their interests; practice foremost to get better, not to outdo others; derive satisfaction from within; and feel constantly supported, but not pressured, in their journey toward achievement. If these criteria are in place, experiencing failure doesn’t weaken motivation — it bolsters it. In the words of Michael Joyner, an expert on human performance at Mayo Clinic, “With enough persistent effort, most people can get pretty good at anything.”

These results touch on a number of topics I’ve covered in previous posts: having a growth mindset versus a fixed mindset, focusing on the process rather than results, focusing inwardly on how you’re performing per your own standards instead of worrying about how you’re being perceived externally by your opponent or your friends, engaging in deliberate practice to improve, not just repeating what you already do well and not pushing yourself in practice and having grit as a personal quality. The Cut article doesn’t specifically touch on all of these points while I think they’re all implicitly involved.

I figure someone reading all of this might ask how studying world-class performers applies to us. How many of us really fall into that category? I know it will sound arrogant or obnoxious but I like to think I applied these ideas when designing and delivering presentations when I was working, in my tennis game and in other areas of my life such as relationships, etc. While I’ll probably never climb to the A level of players at the clubs where I play I do know my game has continually improved thanks to my constant investment into getting better. I like to think I’m now a B+ player! ;-) That’s why I believe the quote at the end of the article is key, which is why I’m repeating it below.

In the words of Michael Joyner, an expert on human performance at Mayo Clinic, “With enough persistent effort, most people can get pretty good at anything.”

Amen!

Can I? versus I Can!

Having read many self-help books over the years I’ve constantly encountered the idea of using positive self-talk and affirmation statements to help improve your chances of achieving your goals. Many of these books tell you to write positive “affirmation” statements. Examples would be:

• I have plenty of creativity for this project.
• I am successful.
• I complete tasks and projects on time.
• I expect to be successful in all of my endeavors. Success is my natural state.

A tennis example could be, "I always play my best" or "I love competition and do well."

When I read these books years ago and tried affirmations I believe they helped put me in a more positive frame of mind. However, as I wrote in my April 23, 2017 post “Moving Beyond Positive Thinking”, research has shown that if we vividly visualize our goals our mind doesn’t know the difference between the imagined outcome and the actual results! We can end up having less motivation not more. In this post I referred to work done by Gabriele Oettingen, professor of psychology at New York University and the University of Hamburg and covered in her book Rethinking Positive Thinking: Inside the New Science of Motivation.

Daniel Pink, author of books such as Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us and To Sell Is Human: The Surprising Truth About Moving Others, reports on research that says we can be more productive by asking if we can do something then answering with a “yes” rather than declaring “I can do it.” Pink describes research done on a method used by Bob the Builder, an “overall-clad, stop-motion animated construction executive – who debuted on CBBC in 1999 and whose television programme now reaches children in 240 territories and 45 languages – is a management radical. His approach to directing projects, people and himself runs counter to the prevailing wisdom about business performance.”

Most of us believe in positive self-talk. "I can achieve anything," we mouth to the mirror in the morning. "Nobody can stop me," we tell ourselves before walking into a big meeting. We believe we'll do better if we banish doubts about our ability or our strategy and instead muster an inner voice that affirms our awesomeness.

But not Bob. Instead of puffing up himself and his team, he first wonders whether they can actually achieve their goal. In asking his signature question – Can we fix it? – he introduces some doubt.

…

In a nifty set of experiments, three social scientists explored the differences between what they call "declarative" self-talk (I will fix it!) and "interrogative" self-talk (Can I fix it?). They began by presenting a group of participants with some anagrams to solve (for example, rearranging the letters in "sauce" to spell "cause".) But before the participants tackled the problem, the researchers asked one half of them to take a minute to ask themselves whether they would complete the task – and the other half to tell themselves that they would complete the task.

The results?

The self-questioning group solved significantly more anagrams than the self-affirming group.

…

By asking "Can we fix it?", Bob widens the possibilities. Only then – once he's explored the options and examined his assumptions – does he elicit a rousing "Yes, we can" from his team and everyone gets to work.

So the next time you're feeding your inner self a heady brew of confident declarations and bold affirmations, toss in a handful of interrogatives with a few sprinkles of humility and doubt.

The research that Pink reports relates somewhat to Oettingen’s WOOP process. WOOP stands for Wish, Outcome, Obstacle, and Plan. You define what you wish [W] to accomplish, determine the outcome [O], identify the likely obstacles [O] then design a plan [P] to overcome those obstacles.

Am I saying not to use positive affirmations? No! I think they have a place. For an interesting perspective see Scott Adams’ How to Fail at Almost Everything and Still Win Big: Kind of the Story of My Life. Adams in hardly a raving advocate of positive mental attitude but he admits to have tried positive affirmations. I think the key take away is not to expect affirmations to have magical powers that will make things happen without work or without accounting for obstacles that could derail your efforts. We need to have a positive idea where we want to go while also asking ourselves what could go wrong and what can we do to deal with it.

-->

By now you’re probably wondering, “How does this apply to tennis or other sports?” Here’s how it applies for me. When I step onto the court I ask myself a version of Bob the Builder’s question: “Can I play well today? … Yes!” (I also use the acronym LIFE³ to remind why I’m playing: to Learn, Improve, have Fun and to Express myself, to Explore my capabilities and to Exercise.)

Continual Improvement Journaling

A couple years ago I read a tennis book that recommended using a journal to rate yourself after each match on how much incremental improvement you made while playing. (Unfortunately I don't remember the book.) It suggested rating yourself on a scale of 1 for low to 5 for high in how much incremental improvement you made in the areas of technique, tactics, mental/emotional, and adjustments. It also asks what you did well and what you could improve. The idea behind this is that we usually don’t drastically improve our games. It’s more a process of continual improvement, often with the quality of our play declining a bit because we’re trying to change things. (This is a common occurrence when people take lessons.)

After doing this for about two years I can say that keeping this journal has been helpful. For one thing, I’ve noticed trends that help me know what to work on, such as I’m not tossing the ball forward enough when serving or I’m hitting overheads long. It’s also been helpful seeing progress as my self-ratings in the categories have increased over time. It probably sounds like bragging but I have to think more about what needs to be improved because I’m making fewer errors or clusters of mistakes in one area.

As part of this, I’ve also started to record the results from my Babolat POP sensor where it tells me what strokes have improved or declined based on today’s results versus the most recent six matches. The POP sensor, which is worn on the wrist, measures a variety of things related to tennis: maximum and average speeds of swing, number of strokes, and kind of strokes (forehand, backhand, serve, volley and overhead as well as topspin, slice and flat for the groundstrokes). The POP summarizes your performance in a match or practice by showing which two categories improved and one area where the quality has dropped. Adding this information to the self-evaluation ratings in the journal has helped me focus on the areas I need to improve the next time I play.

Overall I believe this journaling exercise has been worthwhile.

Blog: Change in Scope (Again)

This blog originally started out sharing my experiences in coaching youth soccer at the recreational and club level. It morphed a bit when I gave up coaching to focus just on refereeing. However the scope of this blog will change once again. Due to issues with my knees I chose to take a year off from refereeing (and might not resume in 2018). On January 1, 2017 I also retired from my full time job of 43 years, which means I’m playing tennis more than ever. Six to seven times a week! So the scope of this blog has changed with my life changes. While earlier entries talked about coaching soccer or refereeing, going forward it will share what I’ve learned and observed about playing and coaching tennis or how the mental/psychological aspects can be applied to playing other sports.

I say “coaching tennis” in the above paragraph because in the spring of 2017 I got to coach the junior varsity boys’ tennis team for a local private high school. It was a rewarding and interesting experience! And it allowed me to share what I’ve learned both in technique and tactics from playing tennis for more than 40 years. (!) While my NTRP (National Tennis Ratings Program) rating is 4.0 based on input from coaches when I’ve taken lessons and I might never reach the 4.5 level due to my age and other limitations, I believe my understanding of tennis is more advanced than the people with whom I play. Being an analytical engineer helps!

For me studying tennis is almost a full time job. (Ask my wife!) This study consists of reading books, analyzing slow motion replays of the strokes and strategies of professional players, taking lessons every year, buying courses such as Craig O’Shannessy’s Brain Game tennis or the Bryan brothers videos on playing doubles, visiting instruction forums and subscribing to many instruction newsletters. I’ve found that no one source provides everything you need to know about this fantastic and almost infinitely deep sport. To capture this information I’ve filled notebooks with handwritten notes, scanned key pages of books and articles and keep a spreadsheet with tips. When the TV is on 90% of the time it’s set to the Tennis Channel.

I like to think that this study has paid off. Why? Because I’m playing better tennis now at the age of 67 than I have ever played. People with whom I play comment on how my game continues to improve. I think becoming a better and smarter player has helped me compensate for the affects of aging (and somewhat arthritic knees).

Resilence and Choking: Federer vs. Cilic Wimbledon Match

Yesterday Roger Federer narrowly avoided being eliminated from Wimbledon at the hands of Marin Cilic. He was down two sets to none and even had a couple match points against him. Yet he prevailed. We think that Roger has nerves of steel and therefore never chokes but he did shank several balls, revealing that, yes, even Roger is human. In fact, I read a book on Federer recently that reveals he was very temperamental as a junior player. He had temper tantrums that made John McEnroe look mild. If he lost a match he would cry and pout for a while afterwards. Roger made a conscious decision to change his ways and become more Stoic.

This post by Allen Fox talks about how Roger handled choking by not panicking.

I should add that if there was anything to learn from this match it was that you can choke and still win as long as you don’t get rattled about it. And the topic of “courage” comes up when people think about choking. In my opinion, it doesn’t show courage to not be nervous and make the big shot on the big point. It takes courage to choke on the big point, not get upset about it; fight your way to another big point; and finally come through, either by making a good shot or your opponent missing.

Fox's point can apply to other situations beyond sports. That it's OK to tighten up under pressure as long as you recognize it and keep trying to do your best.
 

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! ;-)

Change in Scope - Change in Name

Anyone who has visited this blog can see that I haven’t posted anything for a couple years. That’s because after 13 years of coaching youth soccer I “retired” and shifted my focus to refereeing. While my daughters ended their soccer career in 2006 when they graduated from high school I continued coaching at a club and with a friend whose son played in the town’s recreational program. I enjoyed it but the demands of business travel and family commitments won out. Rather than pull the plug on this blog I decided to expand it’s scope to include other sports, primarily tennis and skiing. I thought about rolling this into my blog on flourishing but some of the things I’d like to talk about have to do with technique lessons I’ve learned.

Getting back to soccer, I started to referee because I blew out my knee playing soccer in a men’s pick up game in 2002. (The same year I got a kidney stone so I call 2002 the Year of Pain.)  Torn ACL, PCL and MCL plus a detached hamstring and the muscle bundle at the top of the fibula. Had to have two cadaver ligaments installed and the surgeon needed to sever my quad to make a repair behind it then reattach the quad. The surgery took 6 hours while the rehab took 7 months. I now have to wear an ACL brace to give my leg lateral stability because the replacement MCL isn’t as tight as the factory installed MCL. When I asked the surgeon (whose specialty is knee and shoulder repairs) how my injury rated on a scale of 1 (minor injury) to 10 (major injury) he said it was a 9 for a sports-related injury. (!) Still, I was actually thinking of playing again! That was until my wife threatened to divorce me if I stepped foot onto the pitch again. My compromise was to get a referee license so that I could still be out on the field even though I’m not passing or shooting the ball.

It was a good decision. I was still coaching during the first five years of refereeing so I think seeing things from the player’s perspective helped me see things differently than standing on the sidelines. You also hear the players grumbling about what their coaches and parents are yelling at them. Refereeing gave me the workout I’m looking for but there was something else: the camaraderie with my fellow referees. I have chosen to referee just the games in my town’s recreational program where there is a small pool of referees. And each game typically has three referees assigned: a center and two assistant referees. As a result we get to know each other. It’s similar to the camaraderie that I experienced playing in the pick up games.

So what does this have to do with the change in the blog? Good question! I guess it’s my final installment on a purely soccer-related subject. In future posts I’ll share my experience trying techniques that don’t fall into the traditional advice that people are given when they want to learn to play tennis, ski or even run. As a preview I’ve worked on applying the ideas of the late Mark Papas at Revolutionary Tennis, Harald Harb’s “phantom move” in skiing and Danny Dreyer’s chi running which I use when refereeing. Stay tuned!