Bill Tilden - ahead of his time?

There was a tennis book written by Bill Tilden in 1925 called "Match play and the spin of the ball". Tilden won 10 slams (15 major titles if you include pro titles) and is widely considered amongst the greatest players of the game.




What is striking about this book is that most of the information given is as relevant now as it was then. The critical all court aspects of Tilden's approach to the game are very reminiscent of players like Sampras and Federer. Here are some astute observations and points from the book.

======================================================================

- It is my honest belief that no man is defeated until his game is crushed, or at least weakened. Nothing so upsets a man's mental and physical poise as to be continually led into error. That is why so many players are said to be "off their game" against me. I set out to put them "off their game".

- Every player who wishes to attain championship heights must understand the value of spin on the ball. Spin means control. Knowledge of how to use it assures a player of versatile defense and attack.

- The question arises as to spin from the baseline when both players remain in the back court. Here is where the under-cut shot (slice), with it's tantalizing hesitation of bound, advances to almost equal footing with the top spin. The top spin will win outright more often than the slice, owing to it's greater speed and severity, but I am of the opinion that the slice shot is more apt to force your opponent into error. The ideal combination is a mixture of the two, using the slice shot to mix pace, speed, and depth

- Do not hit a ball blindly, merely for the sake of hitting it somewhere. Have a clear-cut idea of what will be the effect of that shot. Ask yourself what you would do in your opponent's place and prepare to meet the reply. Anticipation in tennis is nothing more or less than outguessing, or at least, equi-guessing, your opponent.

- I can say that my matches are an example of sound defensive tennis , while holding an attacking mental viewpoint. That, to my mind, is the ideal type of tennis, ready to attack yet sound in defense.

- There are 3 general lines of attack in the singles game:

1. Run your opponent until you break him physically. This requires a baseline driving game that will have as it's foundation, corner to corner drives.

2. The crushing attack. Hit hard off the ground and follow to the net to volley or smash for a kill. A most effective method if all your shots are working just right and your opponent allows you a chance to make your shots.

3. Break up your opponent's game. This is the most subtle of all tactics and requires the greatest skill, because it calls for a combination of controlled speed and a mastery of spin and pace that few players possess. This is the all-court game at it's highest development.

- If I were to define the all-court game tersely, I should call it 'consistent-inconsistency'. In other words, you must be able to vary your game at will, both as to direction and depth, speed and spin.

- What is the future of tennis ? Have we reached the ultimate development of the game ? I would say we have not. But, where then do I see progress to be made ? It's not from the backcourt, and it's not from the net. It is rather in the use of the forecourt for sharply-angled cross-court passing shots, in the use of the volley as a baseline stroke from the mid-court as against the volley from near the net, the half-volley and hitting off the rise of the ball, that future progress lies.

======================================================================

It's amazing how many of these near 100 year old principles fit our modern game and many of the points above fit a number of current, near-current players. Point 3 about the use of slice is particularly striking given how effective it can still be and more players are rediscovering the value of this shot, particularly vs heavy Western grip guys like Djokovic.

The points also serve to remind us how tennis was intended to be played - lest we forget that. Bill Tilden clearly knew the future direction of the game and its psychology, in my opinion these "basic" principles would still be well read by any aspiring player.

Very much echoed in The Education of A Tennis Player.

I need to find a copy of that book! Thanks for posting

Good article Lyd

carrieg4 wrote:I need to find a copy of that book! Thanks for posting

May I?

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Education-Tennis-Player-Rod-Laver/dp/0942257626/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1365334991&sr=8-1&keywords=education+of+a+tennis+player

Thanks LF

Have just downloaded it to my Kindle

LF, does Laver refer to the Tilden book/method in his book also?
Nice one carrieg, let me know if its a good read

Will do Lydian

Great find, great book. Very apt - the game is not so different fundamentally today than it was then. Of course it's different, but in my opinion, more similar than different.

lydian wrote:LF, does Laver refer to the Tilden book/method in his book also?

In the book there are these 1-2 page Lessons. Lesson 11 is about Serve and Spin. Lesson 12 is Forehand and Topspin.

I will try and extract some parts when I have the book in hand. Very striking parallels with Tilden's mindset and approach.

If you didnt read the title, you could pretty safely assume this could have been a quote from Toni Nadal. I think Borg & Laver would have said similar things. Its amazing how in sports, no matter how many times you change the formula, you always get back to the original answer.

kingraf wrote:If you didnt read the title, you could pretty safely assume this could have been a quote from Toni Nadal. I think Borg & Laver would have said similar things. Its amazing how in sports, no matter how many times you change the formula, you always get back to the original answer.

Quite so...

Borg...

It's all possible because of my "crazy" western forehand grip and wristy two-handed backhand, both of which force me to hit with exaggerated overspin. Violent top spin is my trademark, and I hadn't had the courage to improvise when I was young, and shatter the conventional beliefs about grips and depth, I might still be struggling through the qualifying rounds at Wimbledon rather than shooting for a string of successive titles.

http://tennis.quickfound.net/training/bjorn_borg.html

I really like this part...

The point is that tennis is a highly personalized game. You should do what seems to work for you, rather than be regimented into a lock-step stroke that may be safe and easy to teach, but does not allow your possibly unique talent to emerge.

Federer's FH, Nadal's topspin, Murray's CC DHBH, Djokovic's serve return, are some wonderful shots to savour.

@Lydian... the story of an SHBH teaching in a nutshell. Coaches need to recognise your possibly unique talent to [help it] emerge.

Love those quotes LF, thanks for providing them

Yes that 2nd Borg quote perfectly sums up what I've been saying is wrong with today's tennis and its teaching. Lazy coaches using lazy methods to drill kids into using ubiquitous identikit DHBHs. How many new Federer's are being suppressed this way? We see Tsonga often play SHBHs under time pressure...we can also see he's a flair player, he was likely drilled into DHBH play but could he have been an even better as a SHBH player? We'll never know. But I suspect Borg would have made a great coach with that individualistic mindset...if he'd had the passion to do it.

Borg was a trail-blazer, moving away from the Eastern/conti grips to use Western ones. He focused on differentiation, not current text book. Indeed, all the truly best players bring something unique to the game. This is where I struggle to see what Djokovic and Murray are bringing that is new? I do not believe they are raising the bar in any way. Because I dont see the technical bar going in a different direction I also believe this interestingly enough makes them vulnerable to someone new, someone different who can beat them using approaches they're not as comfortable with, e.g. Dimitrov with his allcourt power and flashes of variety. He's already showed he COULD do it by having chance to serve out 1st sets against both, just needs the cojones upstairs. But he shows it can be done.

I really hope that Dimitrov is successful to show SHBHs are the way forwards and that coaches can teach them without fear of them not being successful. I think they will become so again, because I think surfaces will speed up a little as well. When you have variety in the game, the SHBH shot is the best placed to handle variety, and at its purest level its actually a more powerful shot than the DHBH anyway as Gasquet's 103mph winner vs Murray showed. It just needs someone to be bold and pursue differentiation, not similarity.