PDA

View Full Version : Richard was right all along


TSequoia01
Mar 19th, 2007, 08:49 AM
He was right in taking both Venus and Serena out of juniors. He was right in his philosophical approach to tennis. Richard did not like the "play clean tennis approach" of accepted junior tennis. Richard taught Venus and Serena an aggressive lst strike approach that has led both to #1 status in their sports. Some call this ball bashing and brute tennis. But the main goal of tennis is to get the ball over the net and in between the lines in such a manner your opponent cannot successfully return the ball. Richard's point was and is, to do it as efficiently as possible. This has proven to the Sisters much more preferable than trying to make less errors than your opponent. They have been doing this since the early years and have gotten quite good at it. Of course they have ingrained point construction and net techniques with this lst strike capability but ending the point quickly is their main goal. Yes Richard was right.

Tennisation
Mar 19th, 2007, 08:53 AM
..........and what the heo is ur point?:weirdo:

TSequoia01
Mar 19th, 2007, 09:04 AM
..........and what the heo is ur point?:weirdo:

Richard was right?:scratch: :tape: :lol:

kiwifan
Mar 19th, 2007, 09:20 AM
What the hell has juniors done for American Tennis since J Cap and Lindsay's day? :shrug:

Slightly :topic: but I was on a flight this weekend with an "American" Div 1 college tennis team and most of the ladies were European...

...so I know why we aren't developing any pros out of the college ranks, too. :shrug:

schorsch
Mar 19th, 2007, 11:47 AM
see just hire richard. it works better apparently.

John.
Mar 19th, 2007, 11:53 AM
:confused: @ the point of this thread

Monica_Rules
Mar 19th, 2007, 12:16 PM
^ Who knows!

Reuchlin
Mar 19th, 2007, 12:23 PM
Well, while 99.999% of the tour was flying around the world, Venus and Serena were practicing.

TSequoia01
Mar 19th, 2007, 12:31 PM
:confused: @ the point of this thread

That maybe just maybe starting these young players in the juniors may not be right for every youngster. If Venus and Serena developed their games due to not playing maybe others can as well.

trivfun
Mar 19th, 2007, 01:27 PM
You see this in others sports as well like baseball, football, golf, basketball, and hockey in America with juniors. They play so many tournaments when they were young. Yes, they become better schooled but you can't adjust when the game changes on you. David Duval, Martina Hingis, is a prime example. Of course, the success is Roger Federer and Tiger Woods but they are willing to make adjustments that no one would dare do because you lose that winning edge.

Yes, I think Richard Williams understood his daughters' abilities of power and going for their shots. They worked hard. Andy Roddick talked about how he watched them practice and they would hit (hard shots for hours) to the point where he would cry. The juniors would only conform them to be passive and bitter.

Reuchlin
Mar 19th, 2007, 01:54 PM
You see this in others sports as well like baseball, football, golf, basketball, and hockey in America with juniors. They play so many tournaments when they were young. Yes, they become better schooled but you can't adjust when the game changes on you. David Duval, Martina Hingis, is a prime example. Of course, the success is Roger Federer and Tiger Woods but they are willing to make adjustments that no one would dare do because you lose that winning edge.

Yes, I think Richard Williams understood his daughters' abilities of power and going for their shots. They worked hard. Andy Roddick talked about how he watched them practice and they would hit (hard shots for hours) to the point where he would cry. The juniors would only conform them to be passive and bitter.

Agreed.
In order to make 2 athletes of exceptional quality you need to take a radical and different approach. The 'same old' really wouldnt do-- as the top 1000 is full of hard working players that took a 'conventional' approach to training, coaching etc.

Taking Serena and Venus out of juniors was radical, with the risks being huge. However, due to their gifts (physical, mental etc.) the sisters took the approach and ran.

trivfun
Mar 19th, 2007, 03:48 PM
I also think Richard did it because of costs to raise two champions. If you look at Evert family, Austin family, Agassi family, and others. They had better players than the one you see but because of costs, it created the pressure of who was going to be the one.

I think if Serena or Venus had to be the one, they wouldn't have suceeded. They really pushed and still push each other to win. They took the Nascar and the Kenyan runners approach at individual sports.

They help each other in scouting players. So in most cases, the opponents are really playing two sisters; one on the court and the other in spirit. In Nascar you call it "drafting" as well those Kenyan runners. Maria Sharapova comes to mind. Serena played like she was practicising with Venus.

I don't know if tennis parents or coach will get players into teams. But Richard Williams is probably the first crew chief in tennis.

Volcana
Mar 19th, 2007, 03:53 PM
I also think Richard did it because of costs to raise two champions. If you look at Evert family, Austin family, Agassi family, and others. They had better players than the one you see but because of costs, it created the pressure of who was going to be the one. I'm not sure about the Austins, but both the Everts and the Agassis had more than enough resources to raise more than one top-flight tennis player. In fact, Chris Evert's sister Jeannie was the prodigy who was supposed to be a top player.

starin
Mar 19th, 2007, 04:01 PM
I also think Richard did it because of costs to raise two champions. If you look at Evert family, Austin family, Agassi family, and others. They had better players than the one you see but because of costs, it created the pressure of who was going to be the one.

I think if Serena or Venus had to be the one, they wouldn't have suceeded. They really pushed and still push each other to win. They took the Nascar and the Kenyan runners approach at individual sports.

They help each other in scouting players. So in most cases, the opponents are really playing two sisters; one on the court and the other in spirit. In Nascar you call it "drafting" as well those Kenyan runners. Maria Sharapova comes to mind. Serena played like she was practicising with Venus.

I don't know if tennis parents or coach will get players into teams. But Richard Williams is probably the first crew chief in tennis.

Agreed. I think that its not a coincidence that both sisters succed and fail at the same times. That's why when Serena won the AO this year I became very hopeful for Venus' year. They always seem to push it other to do better and conversely bring each other down when they're struggling.

Rocketta
Mar 19th, 2007, 04:15 PM
Well Richard has been right about a lot of things. :worship:

and :lol: at the people trying to be negative and simple. :lol:

LUIS9
Mar 19th, 2007, 04:37 PM
Agreed.
In order to make 2 athletes of exceptional quality you need to take a radical and different approach. The 'same old' really wouldnt do-- as the top 1000 is full of hard working players that took a 'conventional' approach to training, coaching etc.

Taking Serena and Venus out of juniors was radical, with the risks being huge. However, due to their gifts (physical, mental etc.) the sisters took the approach and ran.

Precisely he knew what was right for his daughters. However, I wouldn't be so sure this would work for all aspiring professional tennis students. Going through the juniors is actually beneficial for many, firstly you learn and acquire match toughness and learn about being pressured to perform at the big stages and what not. You can't learn this or acquire these skills unless you go through similar circumstances and the juniors while not at the same level as the pro tour are the closest thing to getting that competitive experience.

TSequoia01
Mar 19th, 2007, 05:06 PM
Precisely he knew what was right for his daughters. However, I wouldn't be so sure this would work for all aspiring professional tennis students. Going through the juniors is actually beneficial for many, firstly you learn and acquire match toughness and learn about being pressured to perform at the big stages and what not. You can't learn this or acquire these skills unless you go through similar circumstances and the juniors while not at the same level as the pro tour are the closest thing to getting that competitive experience.

You see that was Richard's main point, juniors puts winning above developing your game. Serena and Venus most probably would have lost many matches due to ue's amd maybe cut back at their famous first strike games. But not having those pressures allowed them to continue to develop the styles we now enjoy today.

DOUBLEFIST
Mar 19th, 2007, 06:02 PM
You see that was Richard's main point, juniors puts winning above developing your game. Serena and Venus most probably would have lost many matches due to ue's amd maybe cut back at their famous first strike games. But not having those pressures allowed them to continue to develop the styles we now enjoy today.

Exactly. Great thread by the way.

The very fact that Richard was/is right is being manifested, not only by the success of his daughters but, by the LACK OF SUCCESS of the junior tennis system here in America.

Richard being right has led to an indictment of the whole approach in building young champions. And that's why he was/is so vehemently attacked by American pundits, off the record USTA officials and "experts." You see, these people make their living off the established system. USTA beaurecrats, coaches and those that have derived and pinned their "expertise" from and on the traditional approach have come to see Richard as a threat.

This is largely why you would often see the harshest criticism of Vee and Serena's technique come from the proponents of the "traditional" American approach to player development. They were simply trying to DEFEND their livelyhood. Richard, in developing his champions, had rendered much of the so called experts expertise irrelevant.

He came "STRAIGHT OUTA COMPTON ;) " and made them look a little foolish.

Yes indeed. Richard was right all along, and if things were fair he should go down as one of the great tennis coaches of ALL TIME. He should have HALL OF FAME status!

Frode
Mar 19th, 2007, 06:05 PM
And the winner of todays most pointless Williams thread is.................

Wannabeknowitall
Mar 19th, 2007, 06:10 PM
You see this in others sports as well like baseball, football, golf, basketball, and hockey in America with juniors. They play so many tournaments when they were young. Yes, they become better schooled but you can't adjust when the game changes on you. David Duval, Martina Hingis, is a prime example. Of course, the success is Roger Federer and Tiger Woods but they are willing to make adjustments that no one would dare do because you lose that winning edge.



So explain to me the concept of Amy Frazier.
Here's a player who played moonball tennis during her junior years and in the year she became a pro changed it up.
She never made any adjustments to her game for the 18 years she came on the tour and she stayed in the top 100 for 18 consecutive years.
The game changed on her 4 or 5 times and she continued to have the same success.

TSequoia01
Mar 19th, 2007, 06:48 PM
So explain to me the concept of Amy Frazier.
Here's a player who played moonball tennis during her junior years and in the year she became a pro changed it up.
She never made any adjustments to her game for the 18 years she came on the tour and she stayed in the top 100 for 18 consecutive years.
The game changed on her 4 or 5 times and she continued to have the same success.

While I love Amy, lived not too far from her in Rochester, Mi difficult to compare her career to the Sisters. My point was not to say you can't be successful following traditional methods but that the pressures of winning in the juniors may stunt individual growth as first described by Richard Williams. Game development takes a backseat to winning which often takes the form of not making errors. Can you make individual changes at a latter time...of course but it may not be as effective as growing up in a system the suits one's talents.

Wannabeknowitall
Mar 19th, 2007, 07:08 PM
While I love Amy, lived not too far from her in Rochester, Mi difficult to compare her career to the Sisters. My point was not to say you can't be successful following traditional methods but that the pressures of winning in the juniors may stunt individual growth as first described by Richard Williams. Game development takes a backseat to winning which often takes the form of not making errors. Can you make individual changes at a latter time...of course but it may not be as effective as growing up in a system the suits one's talents.

The pressures of just skipping the juniors may also stunt individual growth so I don't really see the reason of this thread.

You see this in others sports as well like baseball, football, golf, basketball, and hockey in America with juniors. They play so many tournaments when they were young. Yes, they become better schooled but you can't adjust when the game changes on you.

Look at someone like Kevin Durant and Greg Oden.
In the case of Kevin Durant, I think it was very important for him to have a year of college instead of going right to the pros.

Before he came to Texas, he played little to no defense.
He's still very slight for his position.
He had a better chance of hurting himself in the pros, trying to defend someone like Ron Artest.
Also small forwards probably utilize defense more than any position in the NBA.

Greg Oden looks like a 40 year old man but while in college he is having a chance to develop more offensively.

I just feel it's a bogus thing to say that Richard was right generally.
He's right when it comes to his daughters.

But for every Kobe Bryant, there's a Michael Jordan.
For every LeBron James, there's a Dwayne Wade.

And I don't feel you're recognizing that at all.

TSequoia01
Mar 19th, 2007, 07:17 PM
The pressures of just skipping the juniors may also stunt individual growth so I don't really see the reason of this thread.



Look at someone like Kevin Durant and Greg Oden.
In the case of Kevin Durant, I think it was very important for him to have a year of college instead of going right to the pros.

Before he came to Texas, he played little to no defense.
He's still very slight for his position.
He had a better chance of hurting himself in the pros, trying to defend someone like Ron Artest.
Also small forwards probably utilize defense more than any position in the NBA.

Greg Oden looks like a 40 year old man but while in college he is having a chance to develop more offensively.

I just feel it's a bogus thing to say that Richard was right generally.
He's right when it comes to his daughters.

But for every Kobe Bryant, there's a Michael Jordan.
For every LeBron James, there's a Dwayne Wade.

And I don't feel you're recognizing that at all.

Basketball players may not be a good analogy because their games are made on the playgrounds. By the time they get to college 90 percent of their game is already formed. But look at the state of American junior tennis, who is in line to take the place of Lindsay, Jennifer, Venus and Serena? I, like Richard believe that a new approach is needed especially in the USA. There will always be the traditional routes, but a more informal route which costs less money may be what is needed to root out future tennis champions.

tennisbum79
Mar 19th, 2007, 07:26 PM
You see that was Richard's main point, juniors puts winning above developing your game. Serena and Venus most probably would have lost many matches due to ue's amd maybe cut back at their famous first strike games. But not having those pressures allowed them to continue to develop the styles we now enjoy today.

One rpime example of that is Andy Roddick.
He relied so much on his serve, taht he neglected ( or his coach did ) to tell
him to develop an all around or all court game.

He was humiliated this year by Federer.
Once Federer block the serve back and put the ball in play, Roddick seem very unsure of himself, not knwoing how to constuct a point to get Federer out of position.

To some extent, Anna K. was also hurt by the junior game plan. Although for
her, it was more emphasis on her look.

tennisbum79
Mar 19th, 2007, 07:30 PM
Another thing Richard seems right about but I refused to admit for a long time
- and I am not alone in this - is that Serena Williams would be the better of his daughters.
And boy, he got a lot of flack from American announcers, particularly the venerable Dick Enberg and Mary Carrilo for being a "bad" father.
Read hurting Venus feelings and her self-esteem

Wannabeknowitall
Mar 19th, 2007, 07:44 PM
[/B]

Basketball players may not be a good analogy because their games are made on the playgrounds. By the time they get to college 90 percent of their game is already formed. But look at the state of American junior tennis, who is in line to take the place of Lindsay, Jennifer, Venus and Serena? I, like Richard believe that a new approach is needed especially in the USA. There will always be the traditional routes, but a more informal route which costs less money may be what is needed to root out future tennis champions.

Then perhaps you need to respond to trivfun who made that generalization which I am disagreeing on.

I disagree with you anyway because there's a whole different style from playground basketball and high school, college, and pro basketball.

Maybe you should go to Harlem or the court around W 4th St in NYC but the development of the two are entirely separate usually.
There's a reason why there are playground legends.
Either would have difficulty playing in the others arena except maybe a few like Stephon Marbury.

So there's noone in line to take over a generation that has 19 grand slam titles in singles.
So what. It happens.
America has to get off their high horse and understand that we're no better than other countries who have had superior times in sport and didn't have a group of players to back up that generation.

It's wrong for Anke Huber and Anna Lena Groenefeld to be compared to Steffi Graf.
It's wrong for Tommy Haas to be compared to Boris Becker.
It happens though and it shouldn't.

The American men's generation right now should not be compared to the previous one of Chang, Agassi, Sampras, and Courier.
Neither should this generation have to deal with that.
In the end that usually hurts players more than anything.

That's one luxury Capriati, Davenport, Serena, and Venus never had to deal with on a consistent basis.
They were never expected to win as much as Chrissie and Martina and the comparisons never came on a consistent basis.

The players of this new generation have different gamestyles than Capriati, Davenport, Serena, and Venus.
They shouldn't be expected to reach the higher echelons of tennis to the degree the previous generation has.

Wannabeknowitall
Mar 19th, 2007, 07:55 PM
He was humiliated this year by Federer.
Once Federer block the serve back and put the ball in play, Roddick seem very unsure of himself, not knwoing how to constuct a point to get Federer out of position.


I'm going to have to disagree with you there.
The reasons Andy had issues in that match was because of his new coach Jimmy Connors.
He might have helped for Andy to believe he actually had a chance against Federer with a better backhand and better volleys at the Australian Open.

Well that kinda played into Federer's game more because he just lured him into net with that shallow slice backhand of his and Andy fell for it almost every time.

And once that happened Federer was like a boy in a candy store.

Andy probably had a better chance against Federer playing his previous one dimensional game and trying to overpower him from the baseline than what he did that day.

Andy did the same thing against Nadal on Saturday.
I feel bad for the boy because he didn't learn from the Federer whipping.
Coming in at net even on your terms is a dumb thing to do against Nadal unless you happen to be Roger Federer or Mikhail Youzny.

The poor boy is developing but hasn't gotten the hint that even if he was the best volleyer on tour, it wouldn't matter to Nadal or Federer.

DOUBLEFIST
Mar 19th, 2007, 08:07 PM
So explain to me the concept of Amy Frazier.
Here's a player who played moonball tennis during her junior years and in the year she became a pro changed it up.

Your quote above illustrates the point of this thread.

The Junior style that Amy used was ill suited for longevity in the pro game. In addition, the style she adapted was more in line with where the game was going and closer to the style that Richard advocated in his daughters.

Drake1980
Mar 19th, 2007, 08:10 PM
:confused:

tennisbum79
Mar 19th, 2007, 08:14 PM
I'm going to have to disagree with you there.
The reasons Andy had issues in that match was because of his new coach Jimmy Connors.
He might have helped for Andy to believe he actually had a chance against Federer with a better backhand and better volleys at the Australian Open.

Well that kinda played into Federer's game more because he just lured him into net with that shallow slice backhand of his and Andy fell for it almost every time.

And once that happened Federer was like a boy in a candy store.

Andy probably had a better chance against Federer playing his previous one dimensional game and trying to overpower him from the baseline than what he did that day.

Andy did the same thing against Nadal on Saturday.
I feel bad for the boy because he didn't learn from the Federer whipping.
Coming in at net even on your terms is a dumb thing to do against Nadal unless you happen to be Roger Federer or Mikhail Youzny.

The poor boy is developing but hasn't gotten the hint that even if he was the best volleyer on tour, it wouldn't matter to Nadal or Federer.


I do not see a noticeable disagreement there on the main point: Roddick has not chance against Federer as long as he relied on his serve alone.

Having said, I have a minor disagremment with your last statement.
I do not think he is developping or anybody for that matter is asking him to develop his game: not Pat McEncroe or Davis Cup team, not Jimmy Connor his current coach.

The have convinced themselves that Andy has sound techniques, they just need to twesk his game or make some little adjustment here and there.
They are all in denial.

Wannabeknowitall
Mar 19th, 2007, 08:17 PM
The Junior style that Amy used was ill suited for longevity in the pro game. In addition, the style she adapted was more in line with where the game was going and closer to the style that Richard advocated in his daughters.

Riight. Amanda Coetzer played moonball tennis and has had longevity in the pro game.
She became a pro in 1988 and didn't retire until 2004.
Anna Smashnova plays a similar gamestyle to Coetzer.
She became a pro in 1991 and she isn't retiring until after Wimbledon this year.
So it's not like Amy Frazier's game couldn't have been suited for longevity in the game if she stayed with that gamestyle.

Wannabeknowitall
Mar 19th, 2007, 08:35 PM
I do not see a noticeable disagreement there on the main point: Roddick has not chance against Federer as long as he relied on his serve alone.

Having said, I have a minor disagremment with your last statement.
I do not think he is developping or anybody for that matter is asking him to develop his game: not Pat McEncroe or Davis Cup team, not Jimmy Connor his current coach.

The have convinced themselves that Andy has sound techniques, they just need to twesk his game or make some little adjustment here and there.
They are all in denial.

Roddick has never relied on his serve alone.
No top player has ever relied on their serve alone.

Roddick has relied on his serve and his forehand.

The style Roddick play is similar to Maria Sharapova.

Serve
Hit a powerful forehand, if that doesn't work.
Hit another powerful forehand, if that doesn't work.
Hit another powerful forehand, if that doesn't work.
Hit another powerful forehand...

Yes if they're serve is an issue they're vulnerable but not really any more vulnerable than other players.
Roger Federer had a bad serving day against Andy Murray in Cincy last year and he lost.
Roger Federer had a bad forehand day against Canas in Indian Wells and he lost.

There's a significant change in his backhand compared to what it was.
I would say it's around the same change as Kim Clijsters and her backhand.
IN both cases, that's more than just a slight adjustment.
To be able to hit winners on a side where usually winners would only come on a mishit is not just a slight adjustment.

miffedmax
Mar 19th, 2007, 08:37 PM
Richard's approach certainly worked for the sisters, so it's hard to argue with his results.

And the US junior system hasn't produced any great female talent since Davenport.

So the question to me becomes is it an issue of what Richard did right (were his methods more productive) or what the system is doing wrong (all Richard did was keep his kids from getting caught up in a bad situation)?

There's a flip side--had Serena come up in the juniors system, would she have become an even more domininat player, a la Chris Evert or Steffi Graf?

I think part of the problem is that, although they do a lot of outreach and that's good, the USTA has a little bit of the same problem that USSoccer does--because of expense, scouting resources, etc., they are largely limited to developing upper middle class talent.

Not that upper middle class kids can't be good athletes. But if you're not able to find and train say, a black kid from the inner city, a Hispanic kid from the border town or a white kid growing up in rural Appalachia (kinda stereotyped, I know) you're losing out on a large talent pool.

Basketball and football are different, because kids start getting good coaching through public schools at a young age. But soccer, tennis and a lot of other less pervasive sports still rely on clubs, academies, and private lessons for training players. A lot of talented kids can't afford to go that route.

I seem to be meandering a bit, but those are my thoughts.

DOUBLEFIST
Mar 19th, 2007, 08:47 PM
So it's not like Amy Frazier's game couldn't have been suited for longevity in the game if she stayed with that gamestyle.

But could she have competed as well as she did if she had stayed in that style. I do make the point that Amy's adjustment was more in line with where the game was going. I do concede "longevity" was a inadequate choice of term, though.

I simply mean the ability to compete for a long time AT THE ELITE LEVELS.

And, while Amy is a fine athlete, both Amanda and Ana retrieved MUCH better than Amy did- much of their game is based on that. And that skill alone kept them competetive as journey-women on the tour. It's certainly safe to say that that style has been all but outmoded at the elite levels of the game.

winone23
Mar 19th, 2007, 08:52 PM
One rpime example of that is Andy Roddick.
He relied so much on his serve, taht he neglected ( or his coach did ) to tell
him to develop an all around or all court game.

He was humiliated this year by Federer.
Once Federer block the serve back and put the ball in play, Roddick seem very unsure of himself, not knwoing how to constuct a point to get Federer out of position.

To some extent, Anna K. was also hurt by the junior game plan. Although for
her, it was more emphasis on her look.

He was just humiliated by Nadal 3 days ago too. I love Roddick, but you made a good example.

Wannabeknowitall
Mar 19th, 2007, 09:02 PM
Richard's approach certainly worked for the sisters, so it's hard to argue with his results.

And the US junior system hasn't produced any great female talent since Davenport.

So the question to me becomes is it an issue of what Richard did right (were his methods more productive) or what the system is doing wrong (all Richard did was keep his kids from getting caught up in a bad situation)?

There's a flip side--had Serena come up in the juniors system, would she have become an even more domininat player, a la Chris Evert or Steffi Graf?

I think part of the problem is that, although they do a lot of outreach and that's good, the USTA has a little bit of the same problem that USSoccer does--because of expense, scouting resources, etc., they are largely limited to developing upper middle class talent.

Not that upper middle class kids can't be good athletes. But if you're not able to find and train say, a black kid from the inner city, a Hispanic kid from the border town or a white kid growing up in rural Appalachia (kinda stereotyped, I know) you're losing out on a large talent pool.

Basketball and football are different, because kids start getting good coaching through public schools at a young age. But soccer, tennis and a lot of other less pervasive sports still rely on clubs, academies, and private lessons for training players. A lot of talented kids can't afford to go that route.

I seem to be meandering a bit, but those are my thoughts.

No the junior system wouldn't have worked for Serena.
She was on a higher mental and physical wavelength than most of the girls at her age.
Lebron James looked like a 25 year old man at 18.
Serena looked like an 18 year old at 12.
I still think Serena still has a chance to be up there with Chris Evert and Steffi Graf.
I don't see why Serena doesn't have 11 slams in here at the age of 24.

Fidello
Mar 19th, 2007, 09:07 PM
Hail Richard!
Praise Richard!

Wannabeknowitall
Mar 19th, 2007, 09:10 PM
But could she have competed as well as she did if she had stayed in that style. I do make the point that Amy's adjustment was more in line with where the game was going. I do concede "longevity" was a inadequate choice of term, though.

I simply mean the ability to compete for a long time AT THE ELITE LEVELS.

And, while Amy is a fine athlete, both Amanda and Ana retrieved MUCH better than Amy did- much of their game is based on that. And that skill alone kept them competetive as journey-women on the tour. It's certainly safe to say that that style has been all but outmoded at the elite levels of the game.

She could have competed as well as she did.
Mary Joe Fernandez has mentioned that Amy's moonballs and her retrieving annoyed her during the juniors a couple of times when Amy was on TV.

Maybe you could look at a quote in my signature for the ability to compete for a long time at the elite levels. :devil:

trivfun
Mar 19th, 2007, 09:55 PM
The pressures of just skipping the juniors may also stunt individual growth so I don't really see the reason of this thread.



Look at someone like Kevin Durant and Greg Oden.
In the case of Kevin Durant, I think it was very important for him to have a year of college instead of going right to the pros.

Before he came to Texas, he played little to no defense.
He's still very slight for his position.
He had a better chance of hurting himself in the pros, trying to defend someone like Ron Artest.
Also small forwards probably utilize defense more than any position in the NBA.

Greg Oden looks like a 40 year old man but while in college he is having a chance to develop more offensively.

I just feel it's a bogus thing to say that Richard was right generally.
He's right when it comes to his daughters.

But for every Kobe Bryant, there's a Michael Jordan.
For every LeBron James, there's a Dwayne Wade.

And I don't feel you're recognizing that at all.


Did D.Wade and Michael Jordan play a lot of A.A.U basketball or the Nike League like Tyler Hansborough did? From what I gathered, they played in their backyards or in parks, local leagues, then in high school and then college. They didn't travel to different places like Tyler did. I may be wrong.

It is incredible how many leagues these kids play in before they even reach 8th grade. LeBron seemed to be a pro-player in the 8th grade with the leagues that he played in before entering the draft. Kobe was that way as well. They were junior pros.

I'm against LeBron and others of playing so many tournaments when they were young. The college coaches main complaint is not kids going to the NBA after high school but playing too many tournaments and leagues at developmental stages like from 11 years to 15 years. When they get to college or pros, they get weary. LeBron and Kobe are the exceptions!

Black Mamba.
Mar 19th, 2007, 10:19 PM
Did D.Wade and Michael Jordan play a lot of A.A.U basketball or the Nike League like Tyler Hansborough did? From what I gathered, they played in their backyards or in parks, local leagues, then in high school and then college. They didn't travel to different places like Tyler did. I may be wrong.

It is incredible how many leagues these kids play in before they even reach 8th grade. LeBron seemed to be a pro-player in the 8th grade with the leagues that he played in before entering the draft. Kobe was that way as well. They were junior pros.

I'm against LeBron and others of playing so many tournaments when they were young. The college coaches main complaint is not kids going to the NBA after high school but playing too many tournaments and leagues at developmental stages like from 11 years to 15 years. When they get to college or pros, they get weary. LeBron and Kobe are the exceptions!

These AAU coaches are essentially using these ball players for college coaching positions at the expense of the player. I remember when I was in high school back in 1998 there were AAU and summer teams but now players play at the Adidas ABCD camp, the Reebok camp, the Nike camps, and the Jordan Camp. Not to mention the truly elite ball players get scholarships to these private academies to play basketball( Oak Hill Academy). That's why I'm so impressed by Durant because it seems to me that his AAU coach taught him the fundamentals of the game which is why he didn't need to go to college. The only thing going to college did for KD was give him more exposure which = more $$$ in his pocket. His skill set, he understanding of the game, his talent, and fundamentals are far superior to any 18 year old I've seen.

Wannabeknowitall
Mar 19th, 2007, 10:26 PM
Did D.Wade and Michael Jordan play a lot of A.A.U basketball or the Nike League like Tyler Hansborough did? From what I gathered, they played in their backyards or in parks, local leagues, then in high school and then college. They didn't travel to different places like Tyler did. I may be wrong.

It is incredible how many leagues these kids play in before they even reach 8th grade. LeBron seemed to be a pro-player in the 8th grade with the leagues that he played in before entering the draft. Kobe was that way as well. They were junior pros.

I'm against LeBron and others of playing so many tournaments when they were young. The college coaches main complaint is not kids going to the NBA after high school but playing too many tournaments and leagues at developmental stages like from 11 years to 15 years. When they get to college or pros, they get weary. LeBron and Kobe are the exceptions!

:lol:
You used Hansborough. :haha:
Hansborough did what he had to do to get where he wanted.

At this moment in time you do know that pro basketball is a black dominated sport? :confused:
If Tyler wanted to be where is he he had to go above and beyond everyone else to get there.
It's like expecting a white athlete to be a favorite in the 100 M at the 2008 Beijing Olympics without some major dedication, more than the other athletes.

Considering how the Americans continue to struggle against international teams in basketball, I don't think a little more dedication is going to hurt when it comes to these leagues.

Marcus Jordan
Mar 19th, 2007, 10:32 PM
You see this in others sports as well like baseball, football, golf, basketball, and hockey in America with juniors. They play so many tournaments when they were young. Yes, they become better schooled but you can't adjust when the game changes on you. David Duval, Martina Hingis, is a prime example. Of course, the success is Roger Federer and Tiger Woods but they are willing to make adjustments that no one would dare do because you lose that winning edge.

Yes, I think Richard Williams understood his daughters' abilities of power and going for their shots. They worked hard. Andy Roddick talked about how he watched them practice and they would hit (hard shots for hours) to the point where he would cry. The juniors would only conform them to be passive and bitter.

Who would cry? Andy? Richard? Or Williams sisters?:confused: :confused: :confused:

Poova
Mar 19th, 2007, 10:33 PM
Erm ok then. Thanks for that.

trivfun
Mar 19th, 2007, 10:37 PM
These AAU coaches are essentially using these ball players for college coaching positions at the expense of the player. I remember when I was in high school back in 1998 there were AAU and summer teams but now players play at the Adidas ABCD camp, the Reebok camp, the Nike camps, and the Jordan Camp. Not to mention the truly elite ball players get scholarships to these private academies to play basketball( Oak Hill Academy). That's why I'm so impressed by Durant because it seems to me that his AAU coach taught him the fundamentals of the game which is why he didn't need to go to college. The only thing going to college did for KD was give him more exposure which = more $$$ in his pocket. His skill set, he understanding of the game, his talent, and fundamentals are far superior to any 18 year old I've seen.

How about coaches's sons who are in these academies? My question to you being a Tar Heel, when you look at a Tyler Hansborough do you think he has stopped hitting his growth spurt as a player because it looks like he has played way too much basketball for his body to take or does he look he is about to hit his stride?

trivfun
Mar 19th, 2007, 10:39 PM
Who would cry? Andy? Richard? Or Williams sisters?:confused: :confused: :confused:

Andy said he did because they would do these hard-hitting drills without let up.

Wannabeknowitall
Mar 19th, 2007, 10:50 PM
My question to you being a Tar Heel, when you look at a Tyler Hansborough do you think he has stopped hitting his growth spurt as a player because it looks like he has played way too much basketball for his body to take or does he look he is about to hit his stride?

I might not be a Tar Heel but to me he looks like he's a tough guy who is hitting his stride and might be the best white athlete coming out of college in more than 10 years.

Black Mamba.
Mar 19th, 2007, 10:52 PM
How about coaches's sons who are in these academies? My question to you being a Tar Heel, when you look at a Tyler Hansborough do you think he has stopped hitting his growth spurt as a player because it looks like he has played way too much basketball for his body to take or does he look he is about to hit his stride?

I think the Tyler we see is as good as he's going to get. He is already a very fundamentally sound player and he'll never have great athleticism.

trivfun
Mar 19th, 2007, 10:59 PM
:lol:
You used Hansborough. :haha:
Hansborough did what he had to do to get where he wanted.

At this moment in time you do know that pro basketball is a black dominated sport? :confused:
If Tyler wanted to be where is he he had to go above and beyond everyone else to get there.
It's like expecting a white athlete to be a favorite in the 100 M at the 2008 Beijing Olympics without some major dedication, more than the other athletes.

Considering how the Americans continue to struggle against international teams in basketball, I don't think a little more dedication is going to hurt when it comes to these leagues.


Had Tyler's dad not been an orthopedic surgeon, his career would have been over because he hurt his achilles and his ankles during his high school career. I'm not blaming Tyler for playing in Nike leagues in St. Louis because it was in those leagues, he got noticed by Roy Williams. If he had stuck to his hometown of Poplar Bluff, he would not have developed because the best competion in his state was St. Louis which produced players like Larry Hughes and Darius Miles from that Nike League. Give credit to his father Gene who was a high-jumper at Missouri. He has done unbelievable things for his son Tyler and Ben to succeed. They got genes from their mom as well whose dad played baseball for the Cardinals farm system and her brother was the long-drive golf ball champion. Here is the rest of the article when Tyler was a senior at Poplar Bluff.

http://www.riverfronttimes.com/2004-09-01/news/tallboys/1

Marcus Jordan
Mar 19th, 2007, 11:01 PM
Andy said he did because they would do these hard-hitting drills without let up.

Andy cried from watching? :eek: thats wierd

LUIS9
Mar 20th, 2007, 01:24 AM
[/b]

Basketball players may not be a good analogy because their games are made on the playgrounds. By the time they get to college 90 percent of their game is already formed. But look at the state of American junior tennis, who is in line to take the place of Lindsay, Jennifer, Venus and Serena? I, like Richard believe that a new approach is needed especially in the USA. There will always be the traditional routes, but a more informal route which costs less money may be what is needed to root out future tennis champions.

I mainly think it's an issue with the american junior system. When I said the juniors is a good thing for most rising and aspiring tennis students I was referring to the International junior system where they play level A tournies all over the world and play the junior slams.

Look at Russia and France for example with the likes of Gasquet and Monfils; Hingis, Mauresmo, Dementieva and Petrova were all top juniors and the success at the junior level translated to success at the Pro level. Not all got to that level as quickly or had as much success but they all pretty much confirmed why they were top juniors.

tennisbum79
Mar 20th, 2007, 02:10 AM
Richard's approach certainly worked for the sisters, so it's hard to argue with his results.

And the US junior system hasn't produced any great female talent since Davenport.

So the question to me becomes is it an issue of what Richard did right (were his methods more productive) or what the system is doing wrong (all Richard did was keep his kids from getting caught up in a bad situation)?

There's a flip side--had Serena come up in the juniors system, would she have become an even more domininat player, a la Chris Evert or Steffi Graf?

I think part of the problem is that, although they do a lot of outreach and that's good, the USTA has a little bit of the same problem that USSoccer does--because of expense, scouting resources, etc., they are largely limited to developing upper middle class talent.

Not that upper middle class kids can't be good athletes. But if you're not able to find and train say, a black kid from the inner city, a Hispanic kid from the border town or a white kid growing up in rural Appalachia (kinda stereotyped, I know) you're losing out on a large talent pool.

Basketball and football are different, because kids start getting good coaching through public schools at a young age. But soccer, tennis and a lot of other less pervasive sports still rely on clubs, academies, and private lessons for training players. A lot of talented kids can't afford to go that route.

I seem to be meandering a bit, but those are my thoughts.

More affluent kids rather pay to fill the expensive seats with their parent
than endure the daily grind of training.

When was the last time the US produced a champion in any sport from
afluent background?

miffedmax
Mar 20th, 2007, 02:32 AM
Peyton Manning just won a Super Bowl and an MVP.

A team sport, to be sure, but I don't think anyone questions his work ethic.

I suspect with a little research I could find more, but I'm too lazy due to my middle class background.

ico4498
Mar 20th, 2007, 03:06 AM
doesn't seem many disagree that RW made the correct choiice for his daughters. the remaining question; is this method a blueprint for future American success?

imo, yes and no.

is there athletic talent and hunger to succeed in inner cities? yup, everyone 'cept the USTA knows this is a fertile ground for possible future champions.

is there a history of parent coach viability? yup, in women's tennis its a given.

the real crux of RW's method is the availability for juniors. its an interesting aspect for me, and not for any of the previously mentioned reasons. RW had TWO world class competitors at home, in a world where its exceedingly rare for a family to produce one.

competition builds champs, guess the "no" part of RW's method for me is; how do you build champs in a vacuum (literary largesse, i know, wasn't exactly a vacuum) if their sister aint Venus or Serena?

zzachtan
Mar 20th, 2007, 04:19 AM
how do you build champs in a vacuum (literary largesse, i know, wasn't exactly a vacuum) if their sister aint Venus or Serena?

That hits the proverbial nail on the head. Should venus never have serena as a sister & vice versa, we could have another constant top 30 player or so, I reckon

darrinbaker00
Mar 20th, 2007, 06:14 AM
More affluent kids rather pay to fill the expensive seats with their parent
than endure the daily grind of training.

When was the last time the US produced a champion in any sport from
afluent background?
Lindsay Davenport's parents weren't exactly hurtin' for money.....

DOUBLEFIST
Mar 20th, 2007, 06:35 AM
Look, let's just be real with it.

If we're talking about cultivating talent from "urban Environments" (and we all know that's a euphemism), then we have to be willing to address one of, if not the, major obstacle.

Parental/Guardian/Dedicated Adult Support.

Even Venus and Serena had that.

Unfortunately, for a variety of horrible reasons, the parental/guardian structure in many of these environments is simply not there- certainly not to the level it takes to cultivate a tennis champion.

I'm certainly not saying this is the case for EVERY child coming up in an urban environment. But as a person who's been working with young people from South Central to Compton for the past ten years, rarely have I seen parental support for a child that is comparable to that of the average tennis Mom or Dad. Simply because the family structure is not there or Mom and Dad (in the rare case that their IS both Mom and Dad) are working so hard simply to make ends meet that there isn't TIME to actively participate in grooming a tennis star.

So I think if that delimma can be adequately addressed, then I think we'll begin to see wholesale change as to where American tennis stars come from.

esquímaux
Mar 21st, 2007, 07:49 AM
Allez Richard :p:p:P