Following my first-round loss at this year's French Open, I was in the locker room icing down my elbow. The scene was fairly typical. Several players were in the training room getting massages or icing after their matches or practice. Others were getting stretched out before their day's labor. Still more players were in the small workout facility, which adjoins the locker room, getting their juices flowing by either hopping on the stationary bike, taking a run on the treadmill, using workout bands, or in the case of Paradorn Srichaphan, shadow boxing for 10 minutes (the guy looked like he could go the distance with "Marvelous" Marvin Hagler).
Finally, there was the one constant you can always count on -- Nicolas Massu standing in front of a mirror combing his Fabio-esque hair. (I swear he is auditioning to be Danielle Steel's next cover-boy).
Just about the time Nico seemed satisfied with the straightness of his coiff, I was approached by Brad Stine. Stine, a highly successful, intelligent, diligent coach from Fresno, Calif., has helped guide the careers of Jim Courier and Mardy Fish, among others. He is bilingual and it is his proficiency in French that helped him land his current job of coaching Frenchman Sebastien Grosjean. Grosjean had already advanced earlier in the day and was now scheduled to play against the opponent, Martin Vassallo Arguello, to whom I had just lost. Stine had only scarcely seen Vassallo Arguello play and asked me for a brief scouting report. We spoke for about five minutes and I gave him my thoughts.
When he walked away, I got to thinking, "Is tennis a little behind the times in terms of scouting and player analysis?" Here was a coach who I clearly respect; responsible for a player ranked in the top 30 in the world playing at his most important event of the year, and his scouting preparation amounted to a five minute pow-wow with me?
Even my high school JV football team, the Sidwell Friends Quakers, would review film of opponents before a game, and twice a year that opponent was the Baltimore Friends Quakers. Needless to say, we are not talking high-level football here.
Not only do Major League Baseball teams employ advance scouts to watch games against teams that they have coming up on the schedule, but they also utilize video analysis during games. St. Louis Cardinals slugger Albert Pujols reviews footage of his plate appearances BETWEEN at-bats. He cranks a 440-foot blast, slips into a well-rehearshed trot around the bases, slaps some teammate's high-fives as he walks through the dugout en route to the clubhouse and analyzes his swing from 90 seconds before to make sure his motion wasn't a fluke.
I don't want to be misleading. It is standard practice for a tennis coach to watch the match from which a winner will emerge to face his pupil. Further, I know of several players and coaches who have used video analysis to a certain degree. However, it is definitely not used to the extent in which it is consistently employed in other sports. The question then begs, "Is tennis stuck in the dark ages when it comes to scouting and technical analysis?"
In my view, the answer is twofold.
Yes, I believe that professional tennis players and their coaches could do a better job of utilizing modern technology to facilitate development. Earlier this year, I began using video analysis to help me with my serve. I found the exercise to be quite helpful and have noticed an improvement as a result of the work I did using the camera. The experience led me to believe that there is, without question, a place for such analysis in professional tennis.
However, because of the dynamics of the game, I don't think tennis will ever, nor should ever, use advance scouting and video analysis to the same extent that it is used in other sports.
Tennis is played continuously, without the benefit of halftimes, timeouts or coaching. While it is relatively easy to tell how an individual likes to play, you really have to react to the way the match is progressing rather than rely on any sort of set-play mentality to add much value.
A successful football coach calls virtually every play based on advance scouting and his observations from the sideline. Bill Belichick or Mike Holmgren places their imprint on every play and the outcome of a football game is significantly influenced by the X's and O's chess match between coaches.
Conversely, a successful tennis coach helps his charge understand how to impose the strengths of his game on his opponent so he has the confidence to make adjustments throughout the match. A coach would, in fact, cripple his pupil if he made him too dependent on external input because the player ultimately has to figure things out for himself during competition.
I also believe that most other sports are simply more conducive to benefiting from technical analysis using video technology. While I agree with Ted Williams that hitting a baseball may be the hardest thing to do in sports, the plate is a relatively small amount of area to cover. Every swing is therefore going to be nearly identical. Using video feedback to perfect that swing is logical.
One only had to watch a few points of the James Blake-Gael Monfils showdown at Roland Garros to notice that tennis players cover a large amount of space and hit a dizzying variety of shots; including topspin forehands and backhands, slices, drop shots, lobs, volleys, overheads -- all from different contact points. One might argue that, excluding the serve, no two tennis shots are ever alike.
That's what makes the game so great.
