Tara Iyer thread

[jaydeep]

Nice interview of Tara in Hindu ... As per comments in Hindu, she get a wild card for the Sunfeast Open ... And as per her plan she is going to play a series of $25K Challengers in Australia and Europe to try and improve the quality of her game.

Focus on improving my game, says Tara Iyer

[sameerph]

That schedule also means she is not going back to college in near future. That is good news. Hopefully she will start making news at challanger level soon & springs a odd surprise at Sunfeast open.

[k ajay kumar]

Tara has the capacity  to  beat big girls.  MB has done the right thing by announcing her wild card, which she richly  deserve.

    I am  glad that she is not going back to college.  She should focus on pro tennis now  and make some big noise at  SUNFEAST.

[jayakris]

Nice to see Tara getting soe good coverage -
Tara confident of making the transition

“I am happy with my fitness now, and the ability to bounce back from tight situations against quality opponents, to win key matches .. "I am also happy with my inclination to go for the shots in tough moments without resorting to safe play. That, I think, has been the key to my success in the last couple of months. Of course, I need to work on improving every aspect of my game,” said Tara

I love that!

Jay

[jaydeep]

Sukhwant Basra' comments on Tara's Sunfeat Open match ...

Tara is bit small in options

Tara Iyer has it all big — serve, groundstrokes and the hunger — but as of now she is a bit small on options.

Match against Flavia Pennetta where she chose to self-destruct spraying a slew of hard groundstrokes all over the sidelines when what she really needed was a bit more prudence.

This girl hits hard and serves with rare venom for an Indian woman player. She will make for interesting court times in the years to come.

“She is on the thresh hold of the big league. But needs to learn to manoeuvre the ball a bit more. I feel that a clay court season will do her a lot of good as there she will have to construct her points. Clay does not allow easy winners.”

[jayakris]

I guess the "think" crowd has started hounding Tara like they did Sania.   I hope she stays strong and does it HER WAY like sania has

Hit the cover off the ball, Tara.  The rest will come later.

Jay

[v george]

I have to completely agree with Jay. The only tactic she should use is the raw power from her strokes.

[Atithee]

I guess the "think" crowd has started hounding Tara like they did Sania.   I hope she stays strong and does it HER WAY like sania has

Hit the cover off the ball, Tara.  The rest will come later.

Jay

Not just for Tara, but can you define later?  Do you not care if later never comes?  "No think" may take a player from being a relative unknown starter to someone known and recognized (even respected) but it will not make them a top player.  The rankings are somewhat deceptive anyway because you can choose to play in tournaments where you can get "easy" points (as is frequently suggested here for many players) and gain in ranks without being able to beat the players you somehow are never able to beat (e.g. Sania vs. Chakvetadze).  It maybe sufficient to pacify a nation hungry for idols, but not make you a "Top 10" player.  BTW, do you think Chakvetadze or Sharapova are able to beat Sania without "thinking"?  Or have they  not developed in the "unique" way that Sania has so the theory doesn't apply to them?  What is your prediction for Sania to break the stranglehold of the players she can't seem to find a way to beat with the "no think"?  Ever?

The "no think" was good for banter for a while but it is getting out of hand now.

[10nis_ace]

'No Think' doesn't work unless backed by a superior shotmaking ability.

When coaches say a player needs to 'think' on court or 'construct a point', what is implied is that the player doesn't have the ability yet to pull off the shots they are going/aiming for. This is reflected in the inconsistent execution they would see on those shots. What is apparent is that the 'no think' game is a low percentage game for the player, given the ability level.

That's actually a challenge, which every player who plays the game would love to take. Given a chance every player would like play 'no think', because that's what will help them attain the ultimate nirvana on the court. When the body is just executing without the mind intefering and the player feels that he/she is simply floating on some stratospheric level and not on the ground. However, that state is not easily attainable and it's even harder to sustain. Some players attain that for brief periods but to sustain that for a prolonged fruitful period requires uber talent and superior hard work.

So far I haven't seen an example of anybody attaining that level except the mighty Federer, who pulls the lowest of the low percentage shots with such ease, like an accomplished magician pulls his magic tricks.

A point to ponder: Federer with his style as most people know is very averse to extending any point beyond necessary and loves to finish/win the point as quickly as possible, the ultimate example of a 'no-think' (i.e aggressive, go for your shots) type of player on court. It's a testimony to his shot-making that nobody not even the greats who have played the game at the highest level ever said he needs to 'think' on the court or 'construct' his points. Because his ablity and shot-making level is very very high (that even the low percentage shots are high percentage for him) and was clearly evident.

In contrast take an example of a Fernando Gonzales (or James Blake), who when he/they burst on the circuit was known for his super aggressive, 'no-think' ways of playing. That took them pretty high, on the verge of top-15/20 but not beyond. A lot of experts prescribed a thoughful approach to his game (maybe because they correctly figured out that he does not have a sustained ability to play his high-risk, 'no think' tennis). It's only when Gonzales worked with Larry Spepanski and inculcated some 'thoughts' in his game that he made into top 5 and reached the final of a grand slam. Story of Blake goes on the similar lines. He couldn't get into top 10 and 5 until he built some 'defense' in his game.

[jayakris]

Atithee -- The "no-think" is basically banter.  It is only trying to convey something through an extreme characterization for effect.  If anybody takes it literally, that is going out of hand indeed.

Really nobody can just do "no-think" tennis.

10nis_ace -- All good points, but remember that the cases you mentioned, the true improvements came with the RIGHT COACHES, and that too AFTER one found out where they can get with their abilities and confidence (and certainly an error-prone game, which may be improving only slowly with slowly improving accuracy of the poorly selected shots).

In many Indian players' case, my opinion is that it is most important for them to get to the best confident, fearless, level and know where their own talent can take them (with obvious items corrected by coaches who you are sure know what they are talking about).  One also needs to worry about coaches who may not have really proven anything yet, restraining the player too much and making the payer think too much too early.  THAT is basically all I worry about.

Let Tara play freely for a while, experiment herself a bit, without being shackled down.  Heck, she has hardly played top-300 players yet! ..  The time will come, probably pretty soon, when what your are saying will be definitely true.

Notice how I have, for instance, said in no uncertain terms that Sania needs to sit down with a coach, to figure out what to do to beat MS and AC whom she has lost 12 of 13 sets to, meekly.  Her time for some thinking tennis has come, and she is really at a plateau against thise twi players and some similar others.  But she has gone quite far with a lot of instinctive tennis already.    Tara may realize such things along the way, at various levels. 

When one hits a plateau, you go to a coach and really add things that you start executing CONSCIOUSLY on court to make them instintive.

When I say the loose "no-think" crap, it is not to preclude coaching or anything.  All I am saying is that it is not that productive to just ask a freely playing girl who is not seeing that she has stagnated at a level, to just go and "start constructing points"  - because she will only start losing and nothing else will happen.    Of course she will need to do it to go up levels.    But you should do subtle changes, and continue playing freely till a plateau in performance becomes obvious and you plan properly for the next level where you add more "constructed items" of significance.

Take all the "no think" banter with a pinch of salt, please.

Jay

[BSharma]

I am slowly getting a feel of what Jay is saying about his "No Think" theory; however, the words "No Think" convey a wrong impression to the readers.  The practice sessions with the coach should be "Think" sessions and one should then play uninhibited ("NoThink") on the court.  I do agree with what Atithee and 10is_ace have to say.  Playing with a "No Think" strategy without proper coaching and honings the skills are recipe for disaster, just in the same way that players get all confused if they start thinking too much during a match if they should hit a drop shot or make the opponents run ragged from one side of the court to the other on the baseline.

[jayakris]

Bhushan - you are correct.  I have written countless times that practice sessions where a lot of "thinking tems" are drilled into a player are very important.  They are indeed "think" sessions, though even there I would prefer if the coach can find ways to make them do some things without even fully realizing all details of it.  That is tough, unless the player trusts the coach immensely.   Even otherwise, there is nothing wrong, and it is indeed needed, for a player to get quite analytical, know what she/he is trying on court in practice, try serious point construction, etc etc.   

Thinking too consciously of those things should be minimized at match-time, where enjoying the tennis point by point, having only enthusiasm and no fear of losing, having the focus to beat the other player come what may, staying aggressive (which does not necessarily mean aggressive-looking shots, but doing things confidently ad without worry), etc should be what the coach should preach.  Let it all hang out.

That's all I am saying.  Again, these are all things that I am just imagining, putting myself into the shoes of a player, without having played any tennis, and having hardly read books on tennis either.   Quintessential armchair pontification.  So, lots of pinches of salt recommended.

Jay

[Atithee]

After a "Morton" canister of salt, I am, ahem! able to digest some of the "No Think" theory.  Not that I have converted, but Jay is saying it in a different way now that seems reasonable.  Jay, you are one of the few people who readily admits your own limitations and sometime one-sided thinking (as rare as the need is) and acknowledges others' view.  I really admire that in a person.  I wish there were more of similar people in our forum.

[jayakris]

Thankyou thankyou .. I frequently admit limitations without thinking - and it even works sometimes in eliciting kind compliments .. You see, "no thinking" works all the time ..  Think about it!  ... well, no, don't think about it  .. come to think of it, I don't think I know what I am thinking .. I shouldn't think anyway .. TGIF !!!!!!!! ... I need some chianti .. Jay

[Atithee]

Thankyou thankyou .. I frequently admit limitations without thinking - and it even works sometimes in eliciting kind compliments .. You see, "no thinking" works all the time ..  Think about it!  ... well, no, don't think about it  .. come to think of it, I don't think I know what I am thinking .. I shouldn't think anyway .. TGIF !!!!!!!! ... I need some chianti .. Jay

Salut!  I will head for my Grey Goose in the tropics (i.e. Tropicana)!!!!