February 2007 -- Recently, for one reason or another, there have been several questions about "What is the Modern Game anyway?"
The beauty of belonging to USPTA is that it is the only tennis-teaching organization that recognizes there are many ways to teach and play tennis. We are not burdened by having to promote any one style of teaching. However, we are, as the world’s foremost tennis-education association, obligated to expose our members to the comprehensive knowledge of all levels and styles of play, whether they are some of the most successful foundational methods of Bill Tilden and Pauline Betz-Addie, to the evolved modern shots of Andy Roddick, Roger Federer or Venus Williams. So what is the "USPTA way"? USPTA has always and will continue to be the association that believes all members are capable of and entitled to developing a teaching style to meet your beliefs and your students’ needs.
In fact, we invite the world’s most renowned speakers to participate in education programs to allow members to be exposed to varying ideas, ranging from specific tennis technique to best practices in teaching someone else the game. Members always have the option to accept or reject the ideas upon further review and in many cases after trying them for themselves. It also produces healthy dialogue and some incredible analysis, which is usually the truest form of learning. One only needs to attend a division or national conference to witness firsthand the discussions on a particular seminar during lunch or dinner.
USPTA’s Player Development Program has devoted several pages in this magazine to identifying, analyzing and, ultimately, explaining the
"modern game," which actually is a misnomer for the
"current game." The World Conference has also devoted some of its seminar time to this endeavor in between seminars on facility management, business skills and sport science. We’ve fielded lots of questions asking for definitions of the modern game and the foundational (or traditional) game. I’ve previously answered that I hope everyone agrees that tennis does not include two different "games," styles or points of view, or a choice between a
foundational game and a
modern game. What we really have is the "current" game that every teaching professional or player may choose to implement to whatever degree he or she sees fit. No one should be forced to teach or play one way, but every pro should have knowledge about all shots and aspects of tennis in case he determines a need to teach them to a particular student. That’s the USPTA way.
USPTA has stated that the modern game has only resulted in a few "changes" to the vast arsenal of tennis shots. In retrospect, we should have been stating that modern tennis has evolved and made "a few additions" to the vast arsenal of tennis shots that have and continue to exist. These additions include (on the technical side) a modern loaded forehand to the "foundational" game, a loaded open-stance two-handed backhand and the swing volley. It’s even hard to say modern tennis involves an open-stance forehand since Borg and some players even further back to my days hit open forehands, but ours were definitely more linear in nature and certainly not loaded.
Tactically (for better or worse), play has evolved in most cases to an aggressive baseline style mostly due to the added speed and power generated from modern equipment and athletic strength, which is being dictated in all areas of life by the fitness craze. Aside from that, the vast majority of the game remains unchanged and still requires foundational shots as circumstances dictate.
There is little doubt that during this evolution, the predominant grip has also changed. On the forehand side, the semiwestern grip is now the predominant choice among more developed players. Is this a by-product of more spin, bouncier balls or harder courts? Even Wimbledon’s recent results will tell you grass no longer produces that low skidding bounce on a regular basis that made the continental grip such a necessity.
For older beginners, most teaching professionals may prefer to teach the grip that is most comfortable for the players, which on the forehand side is often the eastern (in some cases the semiwestern grip). For the backhand, many pros teach younger and/or weaker players to use the two-handed grip with eastern (dominant hand)/eastern (nondominant hand). However, at the pro’s discretion, grips may be varied slightly to get the best results and control over the racquet head. The pro should also decide if a student is better served being taught a one- or two-handed backhand. However, every player with a two-handed backhand invariably hits a one-handed slice backhand even if it is only in emergencies, and so should be taught how to correctly execute it. It becomes even more necessary as players reach competitive levels. Also, many people will agree that even the most traditional one-handed backhand has undergone some changes in recent years.
The serve, volley and overhead are still played with the continental grip, which, depending on the level of player and the pro’s judgment, may make a progression from an eastern toward a final continental grip as a player improves. While the swing volley may produce more errors when compared to the foundational volley, it has evolved from baseline players needing to take advantage of a weak shot and not wanting to give their opponents time by letting it bounce and hitting an approach shot. Since any shot can be a high percentage choice if executed by someone with the skills at the proper time and place, you should decide when or if to teach it to your players.
I can’t see how anyone would disagree that the game includes much the same shots it’s always had with the addition of the three I explained above - the loaded forehand, the open loaded backhand and the swing volley. Whether you choose to teach these shots is up to you, but I’m sure you would like to have them in your teaching arsenal if a player you teach would benefit from them. That’s the USPTA way.
Regardless, if your players reach a higher competitive level, they’ll use these shots out of
necessity or by
example, because they saw Nadal do it. Shouldn’t you rather teach them those shots than have them experimenting?
The ball is still and always will be in the teaching professional’s court. In my personal (teaching) opinion, tennis-teaching professionals should be watching the top players on television to expand their teaching progressions to include all levels of play. Please do not let our devotion to providing education in the area of technique in the current game through our detailed magazine inserts be misrepresented as trying to impose the "modern game" on our members.
I hope this adequately communicates that USPTA’s way has and will continue to respect the opinions of each and every teaching professional to teach as he or she sees fit. The game of tennis is continuously evolving for a myriad of reasons. I’m not always sure of what they are, but I would love to be in on the discussion.
