I felt the writing was disjointed, skipping from one partially-finished topic to another and then, occasionally, back again. What I did find of value was bringing the reader from the "old era" up to date with explanations about the change of the game from the strokes to the surfaces. A more in-depth discussion of these subjects would have been of great interest to me and others who were taught the way Tony Palafox, Patrick, thousands/millions ever since the last previous western forehand known to man, that of William Johnston, Tilden's rival in the 1920's. Hitting winning groundies off the rear foot deliberately and the shift in teaching would be an example of how greater depth of treatment would have been helpful. One thing I did not understand, eiether on the part of Patrick or his collaborator, was the necessity for the f-bombs. What's the deal? Does this help sell books these days? Is this a requirement of the publisher? I can understand a direct quote from Andy Roddick containing the f-word calling for literal accuracy, but why does the reader need it from the authors? Why do they need it?
John Amis, Richardson, Texas