Have a Question for Me?

[matchpoint7]

Hey John,

Was just wondering how you justify the myth of the wrist articles you show - particularly when you talk about Roger Federer. You show a shot of him in the Roger Federer forehand article which claims his wrist is laid back 90 degrees or more due to his straight arm hitting style. This is geometrically impossible given he hits the ball so far beside him (have a look at his forehand front on - he gives himself more space than any other player) This means his wrist is going to be on a shallower angle than someone who hits with the traditional triple bend.

The other thing is the rotational acceleration around the wrist on the same plane as the swing path (not the pronation of the arm) is faster than that of the arm coming through which would indicate use of the wrist.

Would be interested in what your response is.

Other than that it is a great site with a lot of great resources but I would like to see more geometry and physics come into it. It doesn't have to be specific maths but in a game where momentum comes into it, there is very little reference to it and the various ways momentum can be built.

Cheers

[johnyandell]

I don't think that you read what I am saying closely enough. My main point is that the players don't "snap" the wrist forward as a muscle action thru contact. Which is a widely advocated teaching point that I think is counterproductive.

The biomech studies Brian Gordon has done show that the wrist motion is a minor contributor to racket speed.

The amount of lay back can vary, it's not always 90 degrees at contact but if you look closely at the footage the wrist is laid back before during and after contact to some extent--lesser or greater. It's the same for Roger and there are plenty of examples of him around 90 degrees--and many where it is less.

So in some cases the wrist moves forward in the forward swing--others it doesn't, some it's actually more laid back after contact.
You see some netural wrist positions at contact but those are the small minority. The role of the wrist in my view is something like a passive hinge on the forehand.

[uspta4201423750]

Hey John,

My soon to be 7 year old Cannon is playing really well, playing and winning full court tennis matches against 9-13 year old kids in his ladder league. He is signed up to play a 10 and under level 3 in April and an 8 and under in early May at Little Mo in Mt. Kisco.

He does lessons with me, but I'm trying to come up with a summer plan for him.

What types of programs should I look to get him in?

What kids of opportunities are out there for kids his age/skill?

Is it time to bring him to an academy in Florida or elsewhere?

How can I find others his age for him to compete with and compare?

Thanks, Harry Kingsley

[johnyandell]

Harry,

I'm not really a developmental coach and I am the wrong person to try to answer those questions.

Start a thread and maybe Craig or Dave Halger or our other uspta guys can give you some input.

Regards,
John Yandell

[hyperwarrior]

Mr. Yandell,

I read your article and you explained that a Modified Eastern is a 3 1/2 / 3 and a Mild Semi-Western is a 4/3 while using the index knuckle and the heel pad.

I was wondering if it's possible to have a grip that is in between the Modified Eastern and the Mild Semi-Western like a 3 1/2 / 3 1/2 grip?

Thank you,

Albert

[johnyandell]

Absolutely! And those guides are just rough. You find the place with your hand size, grip size, grip shape, and type of stroke. One question is how far you have to shift one point or another to really make a difference. The slight shifts ( quarter of a bevel or whatever) may not be as important as how the racket feels in your hand.

[brett701]

Do you think that live chat could be an option on the site?

[johnyandell]

Based on the size of the traffic in the Forum, not yet.

[oliensis]

Sorry if I missed an earlier note. Any ETA on the April issue?

Thanks,

Oliensis

[tennisfan04]

John,

Have you done any studies that measure the speed and topspin of typical one handed backhands of the Federers/Gasquets and compared them to the typical speed and topspins of the best two handers?

If not, do you recall seeing any article or discussion on that topic? How big is the speed drop off in one handers and do they generate more spin?

Thanks for a terrific site.

Best

[johnyandell]

Good question but I have only a partial answer. We did develop a limited amount of spin data on Roger's backhand and found that he averaged about 2200rpm, with a rnag oe about 1400rpm to 3200rpm.

Interesting that's similar to Sampras.

I'd be careful about lumping Gasquet's backhand with Roger's. There is a significant difference in the grip and swing style and also probably most important, where they try to play in the court. Roger is up very tight on his backhand slide in many instances--Gasquet likes it way back there.

We hope to do a new analysis of ball speed. The forehand we know now are ranging 90mph and higher-backhands somewhat less. But not sure you can more speed with one or two-that's probably more a player by player deal.

In general all the shots are going to lose 50% plus of their speed between the rackets no matter how fast initially.

[hairrell]

Hello, just wondering if you would or have considered Almagro for the stroke archive. He is solid on both wings and someone I would really like to emulate, but I can't seem to find vids anywhere.
Thanks,
love the site

[johnyandell]

Definitely. We did get a chance to film part of one match this year and hope to do more in the future. When we have him covered we'll put him up.

[hairrell]

Now that is what I call service! You have quite the operation here. Its really awesome. Keep it up!

[jmhtennis]

Hi John,
I love your site and I look froward to it every month. I look and look and look, and then about the middle of the month it hits. Instead of having a monthly emag that does not get posted until the middle of each month, what about every 2 months with a large issue that gets to us on time? Just a suggestion.
Jeff

[johnyandell]

Glad you're looking! I usually post the pub date and we do send out an email. The May issue is up now!

[bobduplicki]

Hello John,

I'm trying to respond to you regarding my subscription. Whether I email you directly or use admin@tennisplayer.net, they're getting returned as undelivered. What is a working email address I can use?

Thanks,
Bob

[johnyandell]

videotennis@metricmail.com

I'll look into the problem!

[kvh2000]

great new issue john,

i especially like the kick serve article... and i always get something out of your stroke analysis of the subscribers. this time was no different as you focused in on the footwork.....great stuff.

i've always thought that vince spadea had very smooth ground strokes. pete fisher (sampras old coach) also coached spadea for a spell, and kinda molded his serve after sampras....i think spadea's serve is pretty nice looking as well..

any chance you might do a stroke archive page for spadea any time?

tx,

Kurt

[johnyandell]

Annthing's possible. We haven't filmed him in the past though and I've never even seen him play a match live. But I'll take a look next time I get a chance.

[ajaxphagura]

Hi John, I love your site it is truly very infomative . I was wondering if you give lessons to Juniors around SF Bay Area, recommend one..

Thx!!

-AJ

[johnyandell]

I don't. I only do video analysis consultations. There are a lot of goof junior coaches--what part of the Bay?

[ajaxphagura]

I read in number of your articles (bottom) saying you run a tennis school in sf, thats why I asked. Is it now run by your friend Kerry M?? If so can I have his coaching info, I can contact him.

Thx!!

-AJ

[johnyandell]

Kerry has retired and moved to Mexico! Steve Jackson has a new program at the Cal Club--they may take non-members, SFTC has some good coaches. If you are elsewhere in the bay area I can make suggestions.

[ajaxphagura]

We live in Castro Valley..so anybody around East Bay?? Thx!!:confused:

[johnyandell]

Michael Friedman at the Millennium Sports Club--he writes for us.
Or my friend Marc Moran at Club Sport Pleasanton--a big supporter of Tennisplayer.

[ajaxphagura]

Thx!! John for your help.:)

[emeralda]

John,

Linear momentum in the forehand is considered significant by some and also crops up in threads as you probably know. Do you have any views on this and are there any articles which support the 'linear plus angular' concept? Once the forehand is in motion I only see angular momentum and torque.

Don

[johnyandell]

You know those are mathematical concepts and to talk with any certainty about them goes beyond the scope of my work.

I glanced briefly at some of that debate on TW but I don't really see the point. If the pattern of the stroke is correct under the circumstances the momentum whatever it may be can take care of itself. I think it's a mistake to throw quantitative terms around without data.

[uspta146749877]

John,

Linear momentum in the forehand is considered significant by some and also crops up in threads as you probably know. Do you have any views on this and are there any articles which support the 'linear plus angular' concept? Once the forehand is in motion I only see angular momentum and torque.

Don

Please let me know whether it is OK to ask a question here.
Technically a post was addressed to John Yandell

[johnyandell]

Go ahead.

[uspta146749877]

John,

Linear momentum in the forehand is considered significant by some and also crops up in threads as you probably know. Do you have any views on this and are there any articles which support the 'linear plus angular' concept? Once the forehand is in motion I only see angular momentum and torque.

Don
Hi,
could you define "once the forehand is in motion "?
Is it:
1.at the beginning of a backswing
or
2. after a contact point

I assume the answer is #1

[emeralda]

Ground force starts the fh in motion and this appears to be 'converted' into an unwinding action. This appears to happen independent of the direction that the player is moving. It is not easy to find articles showing and if and when linear momentum fits in here and yet I often see the ambiguous terms 'put weight or transfer weight into the ball'

I do not intend to open a 'can of worms' on any issue here. I just wonder why it is not easy to find literature clarifying issues like this and I can't see how we can ever make enough measurements to developed clear conclusions using data from biomechanists. Tennis wisdom seems to be a patchwork good practical ideas and the curious mathematical side of me is looking for more unifiying theories and conclusions.

[uspta146749877]

Ground force starts the fh in motion and this appears to be 'converted' into an unwinding action. This appears to happen independent of the direction that the player is moving. It is not easy to find articles showing and if and when linear momentum fits in here and yet I often see the ambiguous terms 'put weight or transfer weight into the ball'

I do not intend to open a 'can of worms' on any issue here. I just wonder why it is not easy to find literature clarifying issues like this and I can't see how we can ever make enough measurements to developed clear conclusions using data from biomechanists. Tennis wisdom seems to be a patchwork good practical ideas and the curious mathematical side of me is looking for more unifiying theories and conclusions.

Hi,
1.a linear momentum can be defined
a product of a mass of a player's body
multiplied by a speed of a player-
see reference of item #7 below

2.For a modern OPEN STANCE forehand a linear momentum is very often small- Please note the phrase open stance above.
There are some exceptions here: a forehand return of serve AND a forehand on a run

3.For a classic forehand coached ,say,25 years ago,a linear momentum
is much larger comparing to an open stance modern forehand.
Therefore a size of linear momentum differentiates between
a classic forehand and modern forehand.

4.A size of linear momentum depends on a size of a step foward ( step-in)

5.An USPTA certification manual could be of some help
if available to you

6.There is some info in an USTA High Performance Manual
but this manual is NOT widely available.

7."ITF Biomechanics of Advanced Tennis" could be of help
how data are collected and how terms are defined.

8.Please see as well Pages 83 and 84 of "Biomechanical Principles
of Tennis Technique" by Duane Knudson.

9.The related subject of Linear and Angular Kinematics
is discussed in Chapter 5 of "Fundamentals of Biomechanics"
by Duane Knudson.

10.Transfer of weight is related to a speed of center of mass

11.A bit different definition of a linear momentum
a linear momentum can be defined as follows:
say that you have a ball coming perpendicularly
to a baseline.
It is possible to measure a component of a momentum ( of a center
of gravity),specifically a component parallel to ground/surface of a court.
This component is would be called a linear momentum.
This defintion is NOT widely accepted



Please let me which one of points above was NOT clearly outlined.
Please let me know whether you disagree with some statements
regards,
julian usptapro 27873

[emeralda]

Thanks. First I need to check those references from the ITF book. Regards, Don

[uspta146749877]

Thanks. First I need to check those references from the ITF book. Regards, Don

There is a full chapter ( 3 ?) on this subject


There are 3 possible issues to address:

1.a choice between an open stance and square stance for
modern forehand

2.a decomposition of forehand into
a) linear movement
b) angular movement
c) brushing/lifting movement

3.conversion of energy between LINEAR MOVEMENT and
ANGULAR MOVEMENT

See as well
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?p=2504965#post2504965

[uspta146749877]

John,

Linear momentum in the forehand is considered significant by some and also crops up in threads as you probably know. Do you have any views on this and are there any articles which support the 'linear plus angular' concept? Once the forehand is in motion I only see angular momentum and torque.

Don

There is brushing/lifting movement as well -see Nadal

[kvh2000]

John... I think it would be fascinating if you were to review coria's current strokes versus how he was hitting before he became, in his own words, "lost on the wrong road....without a map".

Perhaps an analysis of his serve by you would even get the magician back on track!

kurt

[johnyandell]

Haven't seen him play much less filmed him since before that French Open final. I suspect though that you wouldn't see technical problems. I think the issues are probably mainly emotional for him. If he makes it in front of the camera somewhere where we are filming I'll take a look.

[kvh2000]

yeah John, I agree that it is probably a mental more than a technical thing, but in his latest match (on clay vs. schwank in stuttgart) he double faulted 19 times! (scores were 0-6,6-1,6-2).....there must be something technically wrong there as well....

kurt

[johnyandell]

Like I said I wouldn't necessarily agree. The mind can easily have that type of effect. If he comes across a court where we're filming we can check.

[uspta146749877]

Thanks. First I need to check those references from the ITF book. Regards, Don

Any luck with a getting a reference text?

[emeralda]

Thanks for the additional comments. 'Biomechanical Principles of Tennis Technique' and the ITF book are accessible but I don't have yet.

[uspta146749877]

Thanks for the additional comments. 'Biomechanical Principles of Tennis Technique' and the ITF book are accessible but I don't have yet.
Please stay in touch

[emeralda]

From the ITF book.
"...forward linear momentum is crucial in the development of racquet head speed"
"forward movement of the trunk increases the linear velocity of the shoulder and also helps in pre-stretching the shoulder musculature."
"...it appears square stance stokes can create slightly higher racquet head speeds" (about 1 m/s for professionals, 21.2m/s to 22.3m/s)

So forward linear momentum is crucial yet the increase in the racquet head speed is minimal and the authors do not make a definitive commitment to open or square stance.

[uspta146749877]

From the ITF book.
"...forward linear momentum is crucial in the development of racquet head speed"
"forward movement of the trunk increases the linear velocity of the shoulder and also helps in pre-stretching the shoulder musculature."
"...it appears square stance stokes can create slightly higher racquet head speeds" (about 1 m/s for professionals, 21.2m/s to 22.3m/s)

So forward linear momentum is crucial yet the increase in the racquet head speed is minimal and the authors do not make a definitive commitment to open or square stance.
Don,
please see
a very simple quotation from Page 66 of the same book-
"Open stance forehands have been shown to have court coverage and other
tactical advantages"
I believe that recovery time for open stance is smaller.
See
http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/footwork/michael_friedman/michael_friedman_hitting_stance_images/michael_friedman_hitting_stance.html
See as well
http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/biomechanics/John_Yandell/Comparing_Open_Closed_Stances/Comparing_Open_Closed_Stances.html

See as well the middle part of Page 68 for comments related to your post
regards,
julian usptapro 27873

[emeralda]

Don,
please see
a very simple quotation from Page 66 of the same book-
"Open stance forehands have been shown to have court coverage and other
tactical advantages"
I believe that recovery time for open stance is smaller.
See
http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/footwork/michael_friedman/michael_friedman_hitting_stance_images/michael_friedman_hitting_stance.html
See as well
http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/biomechanics/John_Yandell/Comparing_Open_Closed_Stances/Comparing_Open_Closed_Stances.html
Speed numbers quoted above are twice higher than in the ITF book-
hard to understand why.Maybe JY knows why
See as well the middle part of Page 68 for comments related to your post
regards,
julian usptapro 27873

Julian,
Quotes from
http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/...d_Stances.html

"For the professional players, the actual racquet head velocity for the open stance was about 47mph. For the closed stance it was about 50mph"

"These are relatively small differences, about 5%. They were less than the error factor in the measurements..."

My enquiry may be unrealistic as I was considering a 'standard' topspin FH with time not a factor and then comparing stances from a purely technical perspective. Is there a preferred stance?
You have shown forward linear momentum is defined and described but if the racquet head speeds are as stated then the benefits of forward linear momentum may be over-stated.
Regards,
Don

[uspta146749877]

Julian,
Quotes from
http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/...d_Stances.html

"For the professional players, the actual racquet head velocity for the open stance was about 47mph. For the closed stance it was about 50mph"

"These are relatively small differences, about 5%. They were less than the error factor in the measurements..."

My enquiry may be unrealistic as I was considering a 'standard' topspin FH with time not a factor and then comparing stances from a purely technical perspective. Is there a preferred stance?
You have shown forward linear momentum is defined and described but if the racquet head speeds are as stated then the benefits of forward linear momentum may be over-stated.
Regards,
Don
Don,
Open stance is PREFERABLE for me because a QUICKER RECOVERY time
regards,
julian

[emeralda]

Don,
Open stance is PREFERABLE for me because a QUICKER RECOVERY time
regards,
julian

OK, fair enough. Thanks also for all the references. I've been curious about this subject since my junior days where I survived with a less than average FH.

[uspta146749877]

OK, fair enough. Thanks also for all the references. I've been curious about this subject since my junior days where I survived with a less than average FH.

Sorry that you are disappointed by my answers

[emeralda]

Sorry that you are disappointed by my answers

You have been helpful. In fact, I have now looked further around the WEB and I don't think anyone can clearly show why forward linear momentum is so important. It is just that young players hear "transfer your weight into the ball" from TV and elswhere and this motivates me to dig deeper. And as I do I find it is more complex than I first suspected.

[uspta146749877]

You have been helpful. In fact, I have now looked further around the WEB and I don't think anyone can clearly show why forward linear momentum is so important. It is just that young players hear "transfer your weight into the ball" from TV and elswhere and this motivates me to dig deeper. And as I do I find it is more complex than I first suspected.
Just to clarify:'
1."transfer of weight" can be linear or ANGULAR ( CIRCULAR)"
2.Open stance is promoted heavy by clay coaches/player.
One of reasons is that recovery is more important there than speed of a ball
3.In the case of faster surfaces players do use BOTH stances
depending how quick an incoming ball is
4.Robert Lansdorp teaches a square stance FIRST-
I will give u a link later

[emeralda]

Just to clarify:'
1."transfer of weight" can be linear or ANGULAR ( CIRCULAR)"
2.Open stance is promoted heavy by clay coaches/player.
One of reasons is that recovery is more important there than speed of a ball
3.In the case of faster surfaces players do use BOTH stances
depending how quick an incoming ball is
4.Robert Lansdorp teaches a square stance FIRST-
I will give u a link later

Thanks for 1,2 and 3. I'm not so sure about square stance first. I think that is a relic of the past. But I wont say too much more on that, it may be a whole new can of worms!

[uspta146749877]

Thanks for 1,2 and 3. I'm not so sure about square stance first. I think that is a relic of the past. But I wont say too much more on that, it may be a whole new can of worms!

Don,
just to make sure that my info about Robert Lansdorp
was understood correctly. u may browse

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/..._forehand.html
regards,
julian

PS From some reasons I cannot reach this article by myself

[uspta4201423750]

Hey John,
What's your philosophy on the open stance? It seems to me that pros rarely hit anything but open stance on the forehand. Why not the backhand? Tennis channel showed an old Williams sister match and I watched their feet for 3 games and saw nothing but open stance on both forehands and backhands. Is there any benefit to hitting a closed or forward stance on either shot? Thanks, Harry Kingsley

[johnyandell]

Definitely. If you look at the stances you can see how the closed stance increases the amount of shoulder turn on both the 1 hander and two hander.
Because there is less total rotation compared to the forehand, gaining this turn must be an advantage--or they wouldn't all do it.

That's discussed in articles in the Advanced Tennis section in detail.

If like Venus you truly have a left-handed forehand for a backhand, then the open stance logic applies more.

[kwaconsult]

hey john,
in a couple of the newsletters long past you advised using quick time pro and downloading samples from your site to compare with our own strokes. i'm afraid i haven't been able to find the info you gave on that. could you please direct me to the newsletters in question.
thanks,
keith

[johnyandell]

Go to Teaching Systems and read the two articles there on Using the Resources of Tennisplayer. It's all there.

[kwaconsult]

thanks, john--great articles. which dart fish is the product to get?
keith

[johnyandell]

Not sure--there are several I'll be writing more about that hopefully later. You could email warren pretorious off the dartfish site and drop my name and get some advice...

[kwaconsult]

will do, john,
thanks

[nabrug]

Hi John,

I love your website. It helped me a lot.

I am also interested in doubles tennis. I would like to read about advanced tactics in doubles. I saw the doubles final men of Wimbledon. I would like to read a good analysis of that match.

Nico Mol

[johnyandell]

Well I won't be doing that. But we do have a series in progress with Louis Cayer who is the premier doubles coach, probably, in the world. The first article is in strategy and there are also two great doubles articles from Allen Fox.

[hyperwarrior]

Mr. Yandell,

Thank you so much for your new video on the forehand preparation from the september issue. I love it when you dissect all the details concerning the role of the left arm and the left hand.

When I started to play, I've learned the so called standard tips; that you should point the ball with your left hand and take the racquet back early and I agree that the unit turn is not fully complete.

Theoretically, I understand the right tip about the unit turn, the left arm...for a while now by reading many articles and by watching a lot of the videos in Stroke Archive from the website.

The problem with me is when I step on the court, I have a natural tendency to go back to the standard tips I've learned back in the days. It's like my comfort zone and I'm trying really hard to get away from it it by using the right technique, but I'm not doing it consistently.
It's so easy to understand the proper forehand preparation and I can do shadow swing without problems but once I'm on the court to hit for real, there's a mental block...why?:confused: Is it normal that I have to go through this when you're trying to get rid your standard tips from your muscles memories?

Brief, thank you again and I look forward for your next video on the backswing:D

P.S: By the way, I think there's an audio problems in the video because I only hear the sound from the left and there's another osmosis video with the same problem.

[fwright]

John, I have been a member for sometime now and the voice over video is a great presentation method and giant step forward. You really need to do more of this. It makes a huge difference when trying to obsorb the information you have about specific tennis techniques.
Thanks,
Frank

[johnyandell]

Well we've all heard the saying you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.

If a player is unwilling or unable to discipline himself then really there isn't anything the coach can do--because players play tennis not coaches. So I think the idea that you are somehow powerless when you go on the court is weak and misleading.

If you really want it you will make the change.

[johnyandell]

Frank,

I don't think I need to do anything actually--no one does--only what they wish and desire. But we will do more of the voice over--the response has been tremendous.

[uspta4201423750]

Hey John,

My 7 year old is developing into a very good player (he's getting close to winning a level 3-10 and under). However, he plays it too safely (just like me) and doesn't really hit the ball as hard as he can. It's a mental barrier only because he does sometimes (when forced), and it still goes in. How do I change his philosophy and make him more aggressive. How do I get him to go for it? Thanks, Harry Kingsley

[johnyandell]

Age 7?? You're kidding right? I think age 7 is a little early to worry about this too much. You can definitely create some negative mental currents by being too concerned about anything that happens on the court at that age.

Some players win by being more conservative and building their confidence. As confidence grows they will naturally want to become more agressive. Apparently Sampras was a consistent backcourt player in his early junior career. Some players, maybe Becker is an example just always went for it no matter what which was why he wasn't considered a great prospect in Germany.

In any case playing style will evolve over time and be in large part a function of the player's personality and confidence level, not what a coach or parent thinks the kid should do.

[mdhubert]

Hi John,

I love your site and learn a lot through it, but I've observed lately that you tend to publish articles that were already online (i.e. inside out FH, Eliot Teltscher's shot tolerance). Am I wrong or is it so ? If it is the case, could you precise which are new articles and which are not in order to avoid re-reading them, even if they are interesting.

Thanks and keep on the good work,

Mat

[johnyandell]

Uh, that's why it says Tennisplayer CLASSIC Lesson. I get so many questions that are addressed in detail in various articles and we have so many good ones, we note a classic one each month on top of the new material.

[uspta1704381969]

I was in the zone. Attacking the net. Didn't care about my errors. Hot day. Shadowy court, lots of sweat. Attacked down the line with my forehand to my opponent's back hand corner, righty. Played this guy a lot, so I knew his game. All of a sudden, my field of vision wavered. I was now looking at me, seeing me come in through his eyes and feeling his body move, and deciding where to hit the ball, cross court passing shot. Then I came back into my own body, knowing exactly where the pass was going to be hit. I pivoted to the spot and crushed a back hand volley inside out, at about 85 mph.

Anyone else ever had a similar experience?

[johnyandell]

85 mph is big!

[vespasianvs]

Hi, John,

I have three questions: first about racquet, second about backhand slice and third about topspin backhand on high balls

1. I have been playing tennis for a half year but never feel uncomfortable with my stroke. When I hit the ball (especially the new ones), I can not hear the crisp "Pang" sound as I hear on tennis TV or your videos. Instead, I hear a muffled sound of strings rubbing each other even when hitting on the sweet zone:(. The ball also does not spin well as I feel it should. The racquet I am using now is a Head ExtremePro Min Plus given by a friend. It is my first one and all set up when I got it (I don't know its strings and tension). I am thinking about making some adjustment to it. Could you give some recommendation, especially on the stringing?

2. What is the ensentials to hit a backhand slice flat and deep instead of high and shallow?

3. Does one-handed backhanders always have to slice when the ball that jumps high around shoulders on their backhand? Is there any effective way to hit topspin one-handed backhander on high balls? Which professional players can do it excellently?
Thanks

Hongchao

[johnyandell]

On the racket I really have very little idea! Sounds like the strings could be too loose. This is not a question to answer over the internet but more one to figure out through experimenting. When I went to poly hybrid strings I tried about 5 combinations of strings and tensions before finding the right one.

On the slice, go to the archive and watch Don Budge hit the slice drive and also read Trey Waltke's article in classic lessons. Depth comes from extension on the swing and also a flatter swing plane.

Unless you go to an extreme backhand grip it's very difficult to drive a high one-hander. That's not really recommended for recreational players.

[vespasianvs]

Thanks, John.

I just found Scott Murphy's The High Backhand in the Classic Lessons quite helpful. It is a very detailed especially with those video demonstration. :)

As for the slice, I can't find that Don Budge article. Could you specify the location or give me the link?

I love this website.

[vespasianvs]

Hi, John

You suggest experimenting the string tensions to find out the right one. My racquet's tension range is 52 lbs to 62 lbs.

1. Should I start from the higher end, lower end or the middle?

2. How many pounds should I change every time I experiment a new tension?

3. Should the crosses be strung 2 lbs less than the main?

Thanks

Hongchao

[johnyandell]

Don's in the stroke archive. I'd start in the middle. The only difference in tension would be if you went poly on one and syn gut on the other. Really though I'm out of my element here--maybe someone else can jump or just talk to an experienced stringer.

[vespasianvs]

Thanks, John.

I found the video and the your article about it in Your Strokes.

I am gonna try it out when I got my re-strung racquet.

Hongchao

[airforce1]

Hi, John

You suggest experimenting the string tensions to find out the right one. My racquet's tension range is 52 lbs to 62 lbs.

1. Should I start from the higher end, lower end or the middle?

2. How many pounds should I change every time I experiment a new tension?

3. Should the crosses be strung 2 lbs less than the main?

Thanks Hongchao

I think
#1 yes, start in middle, unless you Know you prefer tighter strings, then 2-3 lbs from the top.
*also you "may" like 2-4 lbs less tension in cold weather

#2 change 2 lbs each time till you get real close on tension

#3 yes to crosses 2lbs lighter,
except if hybrid with poly mains

[vespasianvs]

Thanks, Airforce1

I'll try 57lbs in mains and 55lbs in crosses this time(I use the same set of strings for both mains and crosses). Is that what you recommend?

But how to determine to move up in tension range or move down in tension range?

Thanks

Honchao

[airforce1]

Must admit, it's a tough balancing act, especially for some. The more powerful your swing (including serves) the more "tighter" strings aid accuracy, particularly if you employ lots of spin.

And of course, Tight is a very relative term.

Then on the other hand, tighter strings can sap power, requiring you to need to swing harder, which compounds the other problem with tighter strings. They are more harsh on the hand, arm and shoulder.

For me the key is to match the tension to your normal swing. To try to find a tension where the ball does not tramp much and then mostly keep your swing closer to this speed, even when you feel the need to hit big- try not to up swing speed too much. You can see so many misses like this where a club player really loads up on one, only to miss. Have you done this?
Often what has happened to this normally consistent player is that the extra power they add has pushed the string into a major tramp, and the ball is launched long.

If you have a first serve that is way bigger than your groundies, then you can go flatter on the first serve (what most do) and save the big spin for the second serve where the swing speed is often lower or the brush is such that the strings still don't deform too much and tramp. Since I like to hit with a power serve, but lots of spin as well, this forces me to string tighter than I would like for my groundies or the serve control really suffers.

New 3rd gen polys have helped me, as they are more accurate than other types of strings, but these softer polys are not so harsh on the arm, even when strung about the same tensions as a multi. I usually go about 2-3 lbs less than what would be good with a multi.

So to answer, you must go up or down based on how your arm feels first and control as a close second. down in tension to ease up on the arm and up in tension to get more control for your power spin shots.

Hopefully your arm will tolerate a tension that give you excellent control of your strokes.

[airforce1]

Thanks, Airforce1
I'll try 57lbs in mains and 55lbs in crosses this time(I use the same set of strings for both mains and crosses). Is that what you recommend?

But how to determine to move up in tension range or move down in tension range?
Thanks
Honchao

You are welcome. The tensions you mention sound very reasonable. At least a good starting point. Understand that after 2 -3 weeks the strings will be much looser, so some string a little tighter at the beginning to have the string stay playable longer. Just depends on your arm and how often you intend to go between stringings or string breaks.

[vespasianvs]

I am suffering from a huge blister on the heel pad of my right hand -- I am using eastern gripped single backhand.

How to treat it?

And how to avoid it?

PS: I got my restrung racquet. It feels great.

Thanks

[airforce1]

If the blister is open, you can put white athletic tape right on the cleaned area as a second skin. There used to be some reaction from the tape and affected area that caused it to heal quicker. Not sure if the same chemicals are used but we have continued success with this.

Need a better overwrap like wilson Pro Overgrip or something, along with hitting the ball cleanly. Mishits causes most blisters.

Glad you liked your string tension. Looks like you got it right or close on first try!

[vespasianvs]

Does the chalk (Magnesium Carbonate) which used in gynastics and climbing help preventing blister?

[vespasianvs]

Hi, John and Airforce1,

I am planning to do some upper body training in the gym to help me hit better and more powerful single-handed backhand and avoid injuries because of it.( I am using 1/1 grip on backhand.)

Please give some advice on this physical training.

Thanks

Hongchao

[oliensis]

See Pat Etcheberry's upper body training at:

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/physicaltraining/pat%20_etcheberry/Etcheberry_PSCT_Weighs_Upper_Body_1_images/Etcheberry_PSCT_Weighs_Upper_Body_1.html

[johnyandell]

Ditto and also the work in the same section by Paul Roetert.

[vespasianvs]

Hi, everybody,

I have two questions from my recent games,

1. How to hit a fast and powerful forehand without making the ball go over the baseline? (I am expecting some tennis physics here)
Will stringing the racquet in higher tensions help?

2. What is the best way to start learning serve? I find it hard and frustrating to start by imitating the full motions of the pros.:o Is there any simple version of serve that I can start with?

Thanks

Hongchao

[johnyandell]

There are dozens of forehand articles on the site. It's less a matter of physics than swing technique. There is no point in recapitulating the site here in a post.
Scott Murphys' for example:
http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/classiclessons/scott_murphy/scott_murphy_forehand_preparation_images/scott_murphy_forehand_preparation.html
Or Welby's:
http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/teaching_systems/welby_vanhorn/true_master_forehand_balance_checkpoints/true_master_forehand_balance_checkpoints.html

When it comes to your stroke, though unless we have video of your forehand it's impossible to tell what the problem might be. So you can post a clip.

Sometimes tighter strings help with control, but again that can be more or less irrelevant if you have basic technical flaws.

On the serve I would say the same thing. Look at some of the basic articles, for example, Scott Murphy's article in classic lessons or Welby's in teaching systems. The racket drop position in Chris Lewit's kick serve articles can be a great position to work from for all serves.

[vespasianvs]

Chris Lewit rocks. :D

Thanks, John.

[airforce1]

1. How to hit a fast and powerful forehand without making the ball go over the baseline? (I am expecting some tennis physics here)
Will stringing the racquet in higher tensions help?

2. What is the best way to start learning serve? I find it hard and frustrating to start by imitating the full motions of the pros.:o Is there any simple version of serve that I can start with? Hongchao

For your goals I would work on driving topspin, with the emphasis on the TS first. My idea on the FH is to pick a height over the net ( I call a window) that will insure great consistency for not putting my shots into the net. I pair the objectives of blasting the ball thru that window, but with as much topspin (to get the ball down as quick as possible) as I can get without sacrificing most of my power.

#2- serving sock drill. put 2 tennis balls in a sock and hold the top of the sock as the handle to do a serving motion. You practice the serving motion with trying to keep the sock extended, with no slack. If you get a slack or floppy during the motion, it shows you where you are losing the motion in several respects.

[uspta3577514567]

John, I hear a tennis pro friend of mine say the reason why Fed hits so big on the forehand is because he's moving into the forehand (towards the net) when he hits it. However, it also appears that he hits some huge inside-out forehands moving literally sideways along the baseline towards the alley. He is certainly not moving "foreward" towards the net in these cases, yet still hits huge. What is creating the huge shot in those cases? Is it the rotational force? Any thoughts?

[johnyandell]

Because he is Roger Federer and because he has that complex combination of technical elements--classic/extreme that I talk about in the Advanced Tennis section articles on his forehand.

[airforce1]

John, I hear a tennis pro friend of mine say the reason why Fed hits so big on the forehand is because he's moving into the forehand (towards the net) when he hits it. However, it also appears that he hits some huge inside-out forehands moving literally sideways along the baseline towards the alley. He is certainly not moving "foreward" towards the net in these cases, yet still hits huge. What is creating the huge shot in those cases? Is it the rotational force? Any thoughts?

It's just so close to a full on slap shot that stepping would just create too much power to control.

[oliensis]

In the optimal scenario like in this archived stroke, Federer does manage to get his weight moving into the shot:

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/strokearchive/pro_men/rogerfederer/rogerfederer_forehand/rogerfederer_fh_inside_out/rogerfederer_fh_inside_out.html?FedererFHInsideOut Front3.mov

However, when the incoming shot is more forcing, then he doesn't always manage to get his weight moving forward. But what he does do is manage to convert angular momentum (from the unit turn and the take-back of the racket) into linear momentum, and transfers it to the ball via the speed of the racket head. Like in this one: http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/strokearchive/pro_men/rogerfederer/rogerfederer_forehand/rogerfederer_fh_inside_out/rogerfederer_fh_inside_out.html?FedererFHInsideOut Front2.mov

I think the former is preferable when possible, but it's not always possible. The ability to play offensively from a sub-optimal position is partially a function of being able to hit out when optimal weight transfer is not possible...but when only angular momentum is converted to linear momentum.

[airforce1]

is it accepted in tennis to use the term angular momentum anytime there is curve in the racket path?

My understanding of the science definition of angular Mo is that it must be working in a circle as from a radius sweeping extended from a fixed center (like a tire swing). Also that otherwise, the momentum would be a form of linear momentum, even though the path may not be straight.

My point here is that if my understanding of these terms is near correct, then we never have true angular momentum in a swing of the stick. It would all be a form of linear momentum, although on some type of curved path. So at what point in "tennis terms" do we decide to refer to it as angular momentum?

Maybe Julian can help with the definitions from each perspective, given his tennis and scientific backgrounds?

[johnyandell]

Not my area of knowledge! I could make something up but it would be just something I made up.

[airforce1]

Your frankness is always refreshing. Guess this should have been in another thread, but thought this could be something I missed at the last world conference or something. LoL.

[oliensis]

From dictionary.com:
angular momentum 

–noun Physics. the product of the moment of inertia of a body about an axis and its angular velocity with respect to the same axis.

Also called moment of momentum.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Origin:
1865–70

My point was that there's power generated from torque and there's power generated from weight transfer forward into the line of the oncoming ball. And the former is more like pure angular momentum than it is like forward weight transfer. (E.g. Jack Kramer's forehand has more forward weight transfer and the 2nd Federer link in the post above has more torque (angular momentum) operating.) While there's rarely anything perfect in the real world, there are methods of abstracting these 2 different ideas in a tennis stroke and analyzing how power can be generated even when falling away from the line of he oncoming ball.

[julian]

is it accepted in tennis to use the term angular momentum anytime there is curve in the racket path?

My understanding of the science definition of angular Mo is that it must be working in a circle as from a radius sweeping extended from a fixed center (like a tire swing). Also that otherwise, the momentum would be a form of linear momentum, even though the path may not be straight.

My point here is that if my understanding of these terms is near correct, then we never have true angular momentum in a swing of the stick. It would all be a form of linear momentum, although on some type of curved path. So at what point in "tennis terms" do we decide to refer to it as angular momentum?

Maybe Julian can help with the definitions from each perspective, given his tennis and scientific backgrounds?

Generally speaking we apply a notion of angular momentum in tennis
to a body of a player PLUS a racket,
NOT to a racket itself.

If we agree on this one :
for open stance an angular momentum is MORE important
for neutral stance a linear momentum is MORE important

[airforce1]

I thank each of you for your comments on this, but seems to me that our definitions of angular Mo and linear Mo are very loose, which seems fine for discussing tennis swings, till we get down to talking about this or that swing having more of something. When we get to measurements I expect we will find that we will measure a different aspect or term, rendering our discussions moot or needing to transpose words to make sense of them.
Does that make sense?
I'm working on it if anyone cares, and will get back with what I can find. Mentioning here is part of my search for info.

[uspta146749877]

I thank each of you for your comments on this, but seems to me that our definitions of angular Mo and linear Mo are very loose, which seems fine for discussing tennis swings, till we get down to talking about this or that swing having more of something. When we get to measurements I expect we will find that we will measure a different aspect or term, rendering our discussions moot or needing to transpose words to make sense of them.
Does that make sense?
I'm working on it if anyone cares, and will get back with what I can find. Mentioning here is part of my search for info.
Please go to
http://www.tennisplayer.net/bulletin/showthread.php?t=2&page=29
and read posts by emeralda and me.
I have to look for some Scotch.
Maybe some posts by julian as well :)

[normand_trempe]

Hello John! I wanted to tell you that i love the site in general, it's incredible. I really like the oldies videos and the famous coaches section. Also the Bill tilden excerpts are excellent. If i would had something would be some clips of Olivier Rochus, Michael Chang, Arnaud Clément. There are not enough references for small players like me, to see what his possible for small players on the pro tour and what secrets they have to be able to compete against giants. They'r movement has to be different, they'r mental attitude also and they'r tactics. Now my question for you. Have you ever seen a player who has a one handed slice he uses regurlarly to upset the rythm of another player ? And do you think it could be useful at the pro level ? Thanks a lot.
Also, i was just curious if you taught tennis for a living or if you do this website full time or what exactly you do :-) ? Tovarich

[johnyandell]

Thanks for the comments. Doubt though you'd see any categorical technical differences in the players you mention.

We know that slice thing can work at most levels. You see a crazy person like Santoro use it in the pros (two handed usually), but if it was really effective I think you would see more players use it. The one possible question I have is what if Roger hit that hard low cc slice to nadal's forehand more?

Tennisplayer is (more than) full time...but I also work with Advanced Tennis, the foundation that does the high speed filming. I do some technical consulting for players. Spend way too much time on it, but also coach girls' high school tennis in San Francisco--lot of fun and free entertainment. In fact I'll be putting up our team video in December--captures I think the fun we should all have with tennis.

[10splayer]

Dear John,

First of all, love the site, and recommend it to all my students. Just wondering if Kerry Mitchell is still writing for you, haven't seen any of his work of late. I always thought his "true alignment" and "what is open stance" articles were priceless.

Thanks,

Chico9166

[johnyandell]

Yeah those were great articles!

Kerry taught and coached with me for 15 years in San Francisco. He and his partner moved to Canada (and Mexico--what a life style) a couple of years ago and that has slowed things down.

I'll tell him though that there are requests for more....

[10splayer]

Yeah those were great articles!

Kerry taught and coached with me for 15 years in San Francisco. He and his partner moved to Canada (and Mexico--what a life style) a couple of years ago and that has slowed things down.

I'll tell him though that there are requests for more....

Thanks for your time, best of wishes in this holiday season.

[normand_trempe]

Thanks for the comments. Doubt though you'd see any categorical technical differences in the players you mention.

We know that slice thing can work at most levels. You see a crazy person like Santoro use it in the pros (two handed usually), but if it was really effective I think you would see more players use it. The one possible question I have is what if Roger hit that hard low cc slice to nadal's forehand more?

Tennisplayer is (more than) full time...but I also work with Advanced Tennis, the foundation that does the high speed filming. I do some technical consulting for players. Spend way too much time on it, but also coach girls' high school tennis in San Francisco--lot of fun and free entertainment. In fact I'll be putting up our team video in December--captures I think the fun we should all have with tennis.

Thanks for your time. I agree that Fed should hit it there more, even come up to the net behind thos short ones when nadal is way far behind. I've been interested in the fh slice and will try to study it more, since there really isn't a technical prototype to teach it. The way the body is made, i think it has to be really different from the one h bh slice technique.
I thought It'd be fun to teach if there is a new style of player like a modern Santoro coming up at the club hehe. I'll be interested in seeing your video of highschool coaching since i just started coaching a college team in my hometown.
On another note, i think it would be great as a teaching tool to have montages of pro players doing different patterns of play. I say that because i realise that the visual element is so important in the learning of strokes and a lot of recreational players, even good ones, don't watch any tennis on tv and so don't have a model to imitate. It can take so long to get a feeling through to them but i think if they would just watch an image they often could learn so much quicker. Have you ever made one yourself ?
Last question, do you have any full matches where the camera angle is behind a player about at court height ? I feel watching tennis from the high angles doesnt really relate the speed of the game at wich it is played, the athleticism of the players and height they hit the balls over the net. I would love to get my hands on matches like that to show to my students.

I would love to have your job with this website and all! Thanks!Tovarich

[normand_trempe]

Thanks for the comments. Doubt though you'd see any categorical technical differences in the players you mention.

I think the main difference would be the footwork. I just read that the Chang's after Michael's win in the 1989 Roland Garros set out to work and build him a new footwork. It seems it worked well for him. Also, the players that are 5 feet 5 like rochus, or 5 feet 9 like Chang or Clement they have to do so many more steps to reach the ball then big players like a Sampras or a Federer, that they don't have as much time to get in solide balance for theyr shots. I feel they have to hit so many more balls in active balance as opposed to static balance ?? It would be interesting to see all those shots they make while on the run etc. ;-) They do something miraculous, i am shure of that! And i would love to study that. I would be curious to know how many players in the top 100 are under 5 feet 9... Tovarich

[johnyandell]

well, we'll continue to put players up as we film them but not from the past as sadly the footage doesn't really exist. Not sure I agree that the shorter players take "many" more steps--most shots are 2 3 steps at most and the stride length is only slightly less.

My own opinion is that we often look for magic bullets in the strokes/patterns of certain players when these things are always commonalities.

[normand_trempe]

well, we'll continue to put players up as we film them but not from the past as sadly the footage doesn't really exist. Not sure I agree that the shorter players take "many" more steps--most shots are 2 3 steps at most and the stride length is only slightly less.

My own opinion is that we often look for magic bullets in the strokes/patterns of certain players when these things are always commonalities.

thanks! maybe you are right about the magic bullets.

[uspta4201423750]

Hey John,

When reading the ready position article, I was hoping to find some info about the hands in respect to the grip. What's the difference between serve return ready hands like Davydenko, Nalbandian, Djokovic where the raquet is equally ready for both backhands and forehands (the right palm faces the left side fence), or a ready grip like Sharapova with the strings/ raquet face facing the ground and the raquet more ready for a forehand with the right palm facing the ground. Which ready position is superior and why?
Thanks, Harry Kingsley

[johnyandell]

Harry this isn't really a question for me. Post it for Michael as a new thread--let him respond.

[uspta146749877]

Harry,
there are scenarios when Sharapova is using a grip close to eastern
forehand grip when ready for a serve.A face of a racket is NOT facing ground.
Please see links below
julian

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/strokearchive/pro_woman/maria_sharapova/ms_forehand_return/ms_1st_serve_deuce/ms_1st_serve_deuce.html?MSFHRet1stSDeuceFront1.mov

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/strokearchive/pro_woman/maria_sharapova/ms_forehand_return/ms_1st_serve_deuce/ms_1st_serve_deuce.html?MSFHRet1stSDeuceFront2.mov

[uspta4201423750]

Yeah, but there is still a slight tilt towards the forehand side, making it easier for her forehand return and tougher on her backhand, which I can't understand. Why do that? Nadal is probably a better example; he is way more ready for a forehand than a backhand. Check him out. HArry Kingsley

[uspta4201423750]

John,

Who is Michael and how do I contact him?

Harry Kingsley

[johnyandell]

He wrote the article you referred to, and as I said, if you start a thread and post your question there I'll ask him to respond.

[uspta146749877]

Yeah, but there is still a slight tilt towards the forehand side, making it easier for her forehand return and tougher on her backhand, which I can't understand. Why do that? Nadal is probably a better example; he is way more ready for a forehand than a backhand. Check him out. HArry Kingsley


Harry,
I understand your question.
Let me give you one extra reference.
The last part of
http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/tour_strokes/bobby_bernstein/the_%20pro_return/the_%20pro_return.html
maybe of interest for this exchange of thoughts.
It addresses the issue of grips for a return of serve.
You may see
http://www.tennisplayer.net/bulletin/showthread.php?t=776&highlight=return+serve

Some of my students ask the same question you do,very suprising :)
One of possible answers is that one hits a forehand return of serve MORE FREQUENTLY.

regards,
julian uspta 27873
juliantennis@comcast.net

PS
A Hamlet clip of Djokovic is interesting as well
http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/high_speed_archive/pro_men/HD/Novak_Djokovic/Serve_Returns_Net/Serve_Returns_Net.html?djokovic_fh_return_1stS_deu ce_front.mov
The phrase Hamlet should be self-explanatory.

A part of an answer to the question why Nadal does what he does starts from the fact that his primary surface
has been red clay which allows for a bit different coaching approach in cases of
very gifted players.

Nadal moves back on some returns of serve-it allows him to have more time for a grip change
if necessary.Please see that other players like Murray move FOREWARD.


You may see
http://www.tennisplayer.net/bulletin/showthread.php?t=776&highlight=return+serve

[uspta4201423750]

Thanks Julian,

I agree with the Djokovic style (for 2 handers), as well as the article you linked for me; I'm just trying to figure out my son's pro that he is working with right now who wants to change him to a Nadal style preparation. Is there any benefit to doing that? Harry Kingsley

[uspta146749877]

Thanks Julian,

I agree with the Djokovic style (for 2 handers), as well as the article you linked for me; I'm just trying to figure out my son's pro that he is working with right now who wants to change him to a Nadal style preparation. Is there any benefit to doing that? Harry Kingsley

Harry,
I teach the way your son's pro teaches.
So you have one vote in his favor.
I would suggest to wait ans see a bit.
I will expand this post as well.
julian

[uspta4201423750]

why? What's the advantage? harry

[uspta146749877]

why? What's the advantage? harry

Harry,
one of possible answers is that one hits a forehand return of serve MORE FREQUENTLY.Therefore a grip is chosen for RETURNS which do happen
MORE FREQUENTLY IS "BETTER".

It is NOT obvious to me how detailed response is expected from me.
However I will try to provide a more detailed answer below.

A more expanded answer looks as follows:

Seven additional factors are involved as well:

1.whether a player moves backwards or forward on a return of serve.
This factor is discussed in
http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/tour_strokes/bobby_bernstein/the_%20pro_return/the_%20pro_return.html
Moving backwards allows for more time to switch a grip if necessary.

2.whether a player moves laterally ( related to item #1 above)

3.how quickly a switch of grip can be accomplished.It is very player dependent
but it could be drilled to make it quicker.

4.do we switch from western grip to eastern backhand grip
if necessary? or do we go from semi-western to continental ( double fisted
backhand) ?

5.does a player avoid backhand return of serve?
(related to some extent to #1 and #2 above)

6.What is a starting court position of a player?

7.What is a position of a player at a contact point?
i.e how far away from a baseline

Moving laterally,as you probably know, limits placement of return.
julian

[uspta4201423750]

I'm sure most people would rather hit a forehand return than a backhand return, but I doubt statistics would support the claim that professional players hit more forehand serve returns than backhand returns. If you're playing me and you (like the majority of players at all levels) have a better forehand than backhand, you won't see too many forehands all match. I'll have to watch a match and count what percent serves go where, but I doubt anybody at the pro level is trying to serve to avoid people's backhands. What do you think? Harry

[uspta146749877]

why? What's the advantage? harry

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/classiclessons/scott_murphy/scott_murphy_return_serve_images/scott_murphy_return_serve.html

[uspta146749877]

I'm sure most people would rather hit a forehand return than a backhand return, but I doubt statistics would support the claim that professional players hit more forehand serve returns than backhand returns. If you're playing me and you (like the majority of players at all levels) have a better forehand than backhand, you won't see too many forehands all match. I'll have to watch a match and count what percent serves go where, but I doubt anybody at the pro level is trying to serve to avoid people's backhands. What do you think? Harry

John is a better person to answer your question.

[johnyandell]

I don't have any statistics on that--other than I think in the SA that backhand returns out number forehand returns. Why don't you guys take this discussion to a new link--not this section which is really designed for people to ask me stuff--AND watch some matches and do some counting.

[uspta4201423750]

John, What is the "SA"? And how do I start a new thread? I'm not a computer person. I just wish someone could tell me, realizing that hitting backhands is least as common if not more frequent than hitting forehands, why someone would want to have a serve-ready position which leaves one more ready to hit a forehand than a backhand? Thanks, Harry

[uspta2448519013]

John, What is the "SA"? And how do I start a new thread? I'm not a computer person. I just wish someone could tell me, realizing that hitting backhands is least as common if not more frequent than hitting forehands, why someone would want to have a serve-ready position which leaves one more ready to hit a forehand than a backhand? Thanks, Harry

The SA is the (stroke archive) I believe.


Jason Frausto

[johnyandell]

Glad you like the series. The problem as you point out is that Rios retired before we started filming. So sadly as with players Edberg or Steffi Graf or Michael Stitch there will never be a comprehensive portrait of their games.

[johnyandell]

Harry when you login into the forum just click on the New Thread link near the top and start typing.

[johnyandell]

Now regarding the return of serve grip. You guys have an incorrect assumption here that the players are all starting with a forehand grip. Not true.

Federer for example waits with something close to a mild continental. He can shift either way for a forehand or a backhand, and also hit a slice on either side. All with slightly different grips, which may also differ from his regular groundstroke grip. On his forehand return he goes only to an eastern, slightly less underneath than his regular forehand. So it's not just forehand/backhand here.

But there is another point. Grip shifts should br about as natural as breathing. Even with 120mph serves you have 3/4s of a second or so to execute the return. If you can turn your body and swing during this interval surely you can rotate your hand on the racket a quarter of a turn in the same interval.

I think a lot of this is just habit or preference. But the middle grip may also make sense because it's a shorter distance to all the other grips from there.

[uspta4201423750]

I never said I think everyone starts with a forehand grip. I noted that Nadal, Sharapova and others do, and I'm just trying to find out if there is some advantage to doing this and why pros like julian teach this. From the articles I've read from your site and those linked to me by Julian, it seems to me to be a disadvantage if you don't have lightning fast reflexes. I will continue to teach a Nalbandian/Davydenko return style (for two handers) with the right hand in the correct forehand grip and the left hand in the correct backhand grip unless someone can tell me a great reason to do otherwise.

P.S. I noticed Lansdorp started a thread. Holy Moly, does he respond to posts or is there a way to pick his brain through email?

Thanks, for your help and Merry Christmas, Ramadan, Festivus and all the rest

[johnyandell]

It's less where you start than if you get to where you need to be...there are several grip options.

As for Robert, no he isn't available for individual dialogue in the Forum. Those are his exact words, but he didn't hit "New Thread" that's for sure...

[zakito]

Hi John. I think this site is gorgeous; only thing I'd suggest it's a section with video of drills on court.

[johnyandell]

Good suggestion. We've made efforts before in that direction, but so far have failed to deliver. ..Eventually we'll get there.

[10splayer]

John,

Another great edition. Particularly liked Friedman's thoughts on"finding postion on the ball." As you've mentioned many times, there are a lot of ways to get the job done. Different backswings, grips, degrees of shoulder rotation etc,,,,, but all good players find leverage and positions of strength against the ball at impact, both on the horizontal and vertical plane. And I think the tracking, footwork, and alignment issues associated with achieving this ideal impact position are often times neglected in favor of the never ending search for the "perfect swing"

Anyway, please pass on my compliments, and keep up the fine work.

Chico

[uspta1976603328]

This is a fantastic site! I'm a relatively new teaching pro, just recently having moved from teaching on a part time basis to moving next month to a full time position. The material presented here gives me a great deal of confidence in working with all ages and levels, knowing if it can't be found there are people willing to share.

I am especially interested in teaching strategies and ideas in regard to the student under ten. This of course is an area of emphasis in getting more people involved with tennis and hearing ideas on all phases of working with this age group would be wonderful. I don't want to discount what is already posted, because it is fantastic.

Thanks!

[uspta1976603328]

I was saddened by the unfortunate lack of film of these great players. Is it extremely difficult to find footage anywhere that permissions are given to use on such a site as this???



Glad you like the series. The problem as you point out is that Rios retired before we started filming. So sadly as with players Edberg or Steffi Graf or Michael Stitch there will never be a comprehensive portrait of their games.

[johnyandell]

Virtually all our footage we shoot for ourselves. The networks don't save their close up footage--and if they did the cost would be ridiculous. Having said that I may have a few surprises in upcoming months.

[lgvargas]

John,
Any future articles on the serve from Chris Lewitt? His article on the "kick serve" was one of the best articles I have ever read on the serve in general-outstanding!

Also, what are your thoughts on us tournament adult amatuers charting some of our matches-are we missing a valuable tool? Only hear about charting for pro's, but seldom for adult players. Perhaps , a Tennisplayer.net article for a future issue?

[johnyandell]

Yeah when I go to New York in May I hope to get with Chris again.

As for the charting--check out the articles I wrote on that in the Strategy section. There is one about Going Inside Your Matches that applies.

[nbaron]

Your sight and insight are excellent. Myth series outstanding for a parent that observes the game the players and realizes most teaching pros speak without observing students or pros. keep the articles coming

[johnyandell]

Thanks and will do! Remind your friends who are coaches they can study this stuff for themselves if they are USPTA members.

[rosheem]

Hi John,

Thanks for creating such a wonderful resource. I've been playing for two years and have been really frustrated with the lack of quality instruction available to new adult players.
I struggled with my forehand and had hit thousands of balls the wrong way. I always rotated out of my shot by initiating my forward stroke with a pull and rotation from the left hip.
I tried to correct this by improving my shoulder turn and extending the left arm across, but I still found that I rotated too early, opened up too much, and my swing pulled across the ball and off the line of the shot.
Your analysis of Federer's double coil is what finally fixed my problem.
Now I realize the importance of starting from a strong athletic base with a low center of gravity. This allows the coiling of the torso against the hip. If the weight is too far right and beyond the right knee, or if the left leg is straight and not involved, then the turn is just a turn and not a coil.
The coil enables the inside out pull of the racquet and forward drive of the shoulder and racquet through the line of the shot. It seems to help keep the swing on the right side before the elbow breaks and the rotation naturally wraps left. It's amazing.
My question is: do you have any tips on managing the explosiveness of this uncoiling on balls that are coming in with less pace? I feel like I am early sometimes, which leaves me reaching for the ball. A good example is on weak 2nd serves. I should be able to go inside in on that weak 2nd serve to the as side and just crush that ball down the line, but once I go into the coil, there's no slowing it down. Any advice?

[johnyandell]

Thanks for the great feedback.

The ball says it all. I don't think the problem you're describing is technical. Remember the speed of the ball is constantly changing in the air and both speed and spin change radically at the bounce. You have to feel this. Try looking hard for the direction and amount of spin at the top of the bounce--see the blurr of the spinning seams. You'll probably improve your timing and this could cure the difficulty.

[vespasianvs]

Mr. Yandell,

I am fascinated by Carla Suarez Navarro's playing style. How such a girl can generate such powerful strokes! I am trying to figure out the forehand and backhand grip she uses and how she changes her grips.

So to your opinion, what grip does she use in forehand and backhand according to your grip system (such as Roger Federer's 3 1/2 / 3 forehand and 1/1 backhand)? How does she change it?

Thanks

Ves

[johnyandell]

Excellent questions, but I don't have the answers. Haven't filmed her or, to be completely honest, even really seen her play! Maybe we'll film her this year at Inidan Wells. Anyone else got an opinion on this?

[oliensis]

Just youtubed Navarro:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Ffv14MsJ4g
That's part 1 of 8 from Oz against Venus.

I've noticed her backhand, and that it looks impressive. On this youtube clip her serve looks excellent at first glance. Great knee-bend and good torso rotation as she "chambers" racket (heads for trophy position). Her knee-bend on the serve is reminiscent of Tim Henman's in terms of depth and timing.

But her backhand is the most eye-catching one-hander by a woman that I've seen, maybe as good or better than Hennin or Mauresmo in that she seems to take it on the rise well and hit through the ball...actually looks like Dimitrov's backhand, which seems modeled on Federer's, but may end up being bigger.

I, for one, would love to see her filmed for this site. I would love to go through it frame by frame.

Best,
ao

[vespasianvs]

Thanks for your answers.

I downloaded her Aussie Open game against Venus Williams and watched it several times. The most interesting thing is that she most times does not change her grip from forehand to backhand, which might indicates that she uses a 4 1/2 / 4 on forehand and a 8 1/2 / 8 on backhand, hence having no need of change grips. However, I am not very positive on this, because some times I do see her switches her grip.

I am a short guy on tennis court. I am really interested in how those small men and women make themselves look tall on the end the court. Henin is one of them. Navarro looks even taller when she produces those strong backhand, even though she is even shorter than Henin.

I just could not wait to see her filmed on this website. I hope she will go beyond quarterfinal in Roland Garros. :)

Thanks

[wicky10s]

Hi John,
I have avidly subscribed to tennisplayer.net for several years. Thank goodness I found it because without your articles and stroke archive I would not be as happy today.
I am an adult trained tennis player and I have taken private lessons for years. I play at the 4.5 level.
The reason I am writing to you now is to share a perspective that I have on the modern forehand in hopes that what I have experienced and recently learned might help another club level player like me.
I have a pretty reliable forehand but occasionally it would break down under pressure. I started with an Eastern grip but several years ago moved that to a conservative semi western grip.
When I started to switch to this grip,the pro I was working with at the time told me to hold on to the racquet with the non dominant hand until the ball bounced and then swing fast. His rational was that by doing this the swing would stay compact and simple and not much could go wrong with it.The sad fact is I was chronically late on many forehands. I can't believe I paid money for this and that it left me without any understanding of one of the most important parts of the modern forehand which is the preparation leading up to the swing.
(In the meantime I worked with a trainer for several years to develop better footwork, agility, core strength and rotational skills that are so necessary when hitting the modern forehand. All of which does very little good if you never get set up properly to rotate into the ball in the first place !)
Anyway for years everywhere I went on occasions, teaching pros would say time and time again that I had been late on my forehand. They would say.."Get your racquet back early" ,"turn your shoulders"or "you're late!" This is the most confusing thing to tell a player when they have no concept of the set up phase or how to correct what ever it is that makes the swing late in the first place.
Do you know what I mean? It's incomprehensible. Not to mention frustrating!
It may seem simple to you and the world of teaching pros but no one explained it in a way that I could understand. I was totally confused by the word "timing".
I finally figured it out more or less, on my own after a conversation with a pro that I now work with who said that" the preparation for the forehand ground stroke has to be completed before the ball bounces on your side of the court."
ca ching..ca ching. Finally a clue. I still wasn't clear on exactly what preparation meant but it was a start.
He didn't exactly explain it to me at that time either. He just, once again ,talked about being late and timing. This one comment about the bounce did spark my curiosity because it at least put the preparation phase into a time frame. It happens between the time that the opponent hits the ball and the time it bounces on my side of the court.So now that I knew when the stroke was breaking down, I decided to go to Tennisplayer.net to see for myself just exactly what this segment of the swing preparation is all about.
You have a ton of information about all the segments and I have read everything.;) The article on preparation has put it all into perspective for me.In fact I am amazed at how much it has clarified for me.
I understand that the entire forehand stroke is indeed seamless and that only with still photography can one see the multitude of segments that make up a shot. I also realize that everything leading up to hitting the ball is preparation and it happens very fast. But there was obviously a middle part to my forehand that was missing (or just late) and I just didn't understand that part. After seeing that video and listening to your explanation several times I finally get it!
The only way I could get it was to see it. I then went searching through the videos of the pros to find forehand shots that show the ball at or before the bounce and the player set up at the same time in the same frame. Most of these videos are taken from behind the player, the rear shots, and sadly not too many videos show the bounce of the ball at all . All of the videos that show the bounce and the player together also show a common position of arms and legs at that moment. A commonality that you point out. The arms are about shoulder height and shoulder width apart and the weight is beginning to be transferred on to the back foot. It's been remarkable to see just this segment of the forehand. It transformed the concept of timing for me simply because I now have a very clear mental picture of the position I need to get into before the ball bounces.
When I get into that position on time I have plenty of time to make adjustments and even change the direction of the ball. It transferred immediately on the court! I had remarkable results. The footwork fell into place and I was rotating naturally and effortlessly into the shot.It was amazing! I was also hitting the ball early and sometimes I was off the ground! You can't do that if you set up and swing late.
I already knew about the split step,the unit turn and where to recover on the court. I just didn't get this part.
Why was this so difficult for me to understand? You mention in the preparation article that it is widely misunderstood. Is it simply because this pro told me to hold on to the racquet too long and I had a very bad habit? Or is it because everything happens so fast that it is too complicated to explain?
It's not that difficult to comprehend for sure once you see it. It's very clear to me now.
Anyway,if anyone out there is having trouble comprehending this concept of timing,I suggest they definitely listen to the preparation article and then take a close look at a still photo of the position of a pro like Agassi, Henin or Federer just before the ball bounces and you will see why they all make it look so easy. They look pretty similar at this point and so do most of the other top players.
I have just one last observation to make. I have also heard pros say to students .. "turn the shoulders and take the racquet back while stretching the front arm across the body." as if there are 1,2,3. separate steps involved.
When I look at the videos and listen to your preparation article,I see a unit turn with the hands together and low and then a lifting and separating of the arms (as you point out) almost in unison. It looks like the arms are almost at shoulder height and width apart for balance at this stage.
Maybe that's why it gets confusing. It is not explained as a synchronized move contiguous with the unit turn.It gets broken down into separate individual parts when it is actually one smooth symmetrical move.
I think of figure skaters whose arms are always up and synchronized for balance.
It's been a revelation to me ,so thanks John! I certainly have gotten my money's worth out of this resource.
I hope that you will continue to add new videos that show the ball bounce in the same frame with the pro since seeing this part of the preparation has been so helpful to me!

Thanks
here are some of the videos that show the bounce.
http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/strokearchive/pro_men/rogerfederer/rogerfederer_forehand/rogerfederer_fh_wide/rogerfederer_fh_wide.html?FedererFHWideNeutralStan ceRear.mov


http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/strokearchive/pro_men/andreagassi/aa_forehand/aa_fh_center/aa_fh_center.html?AAFHCenterNeutralStanceRear.mov


http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/strokearchive/pro_woman/justine_heninhardenne/jhh_forehand/jhh_fh_center/jhh_fh_center.html?JHHFHCenterRear.mov

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/strokearchive/pro_men/andreagassi/aa_forehand/aa_fh_center/aa_fh_center.html?AAFHCenterOpenStanceRear2.mov


http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/strokearchive/pro_woman/justine_heninhardenne/jhh_forehand/jhh_fh_center/jhh_fh_center.html?JHHFHCenterDowntheLineCourtLeve lRear.mov

[vespasianvs]

Hi, Everybody.

I am suffering from severe wrist pain and forearm pain now, which prevents me from tennis training. So I have several questions below:

1. Does switching to less extreme grip help relieve and avoid wrist and forearm injury?

2. How to treat wrist and forearm pain after you contract them?

3. Is there any physical training to help develop a stronger wrist and forearm to avoid their injuries?

4. Is there any warm-up that you can use before play tennis to reduce pain and avoid wrist and forearm injuries?

5. How to use tape to secure wrist just like player securing their ankles?

6. How to pick up recquet,strings, tension to avoid wrist and forearm pain?

7. Finally, how to build up a swing that will reduce the wrist and arm injury?

Sorry to post up so many questions here. I just want to get back to court as soon as possible. :o

Thanks

Vespasianvs

[johnyandell]

Wicky,

Thanks for the great post, and the great feedback, and I agree we could definitely post more video showing this relationship between the preparation and the ball bounce. It's one of the first things I look at whne I film people, and if you know to look for it, you'll notice how many players (sadly) don't even start the preparation til the ball bounces on their side.

Sounds like you really love the game of tennis and congrats on all the work you've put in. As time goes on I think (or hope) we'll see a lot less misleading coaching information because as younger players grow up with computers and video, it will become natural for them to document or check what they believe against film.

John Yandell

[johnyandell]

Ves,

Sorry to hear about your injuries. I'm not a doctor or a physical therapist and those are the people you really need to consult about your condition and how to get better asap.

There are quite a few tennis specific strengthening exercises involving the lower arm in the Roetert series in Physical Training, but again someone who has actually seen your injuries should really prescribe your rehab, not me. Tape though is not going to be the solution. You need to get healthy and stay healthy although an arm strap can be used protectively as you come back.

As for technique and injuries, you see people with horrible strokes who never get hurt and vice versa. So hard to make direct corelations there, but it's not a conincidence that pro players can hit 100mph forehands and rarely have the same injuries you are talking about.

Obviously I've never seen you play, but if you submit some video of your strokes when you are back in action, I can post them or possibly use them in Your Strokes.

As for rackets, ultra light, head heavy (like the hammer concept) stiff rackets are definitely much harder on your arm, as are tighter, stiffer strings.
I think conventional medium weight even balanced rackets with soft synthetic gut are the way to go not only because they are easier on the body but because they produce the best tennis when you have good technique.

John Yandell

[4180]

John,

Great article! Although I am sure the "feed and tip" tennis teaching methodology has provided successful careers for many a teaching pro, I believe it is past time for the teaching world to evolve to the "visual and feel" method.

I see this process as identifying the base stroke model a student is trying to imitate, such as viewing a video tape of a pro's strokes, video taping the students strokes, making an off court verbal/written comparison of the two, followed by court time to implement the perceived adjustments based on the analysis. This should all be followed by more video taping and comparative analysis.

Although the cost would be higher up front, I believe in the long run the cost would be lower because, if it all works as we think, the learning curve would be much shorter. Beyond all that, I believe people would flock to a pro that was set up to do these things because the students would be raving about how quickly they progressed. What better way to build your business than the ravings of happy student tennis players.

I love it! Keep up the great work,

Joe

[johnyandell]

Joe,

Basically you nailed it on the head of the nail.

John Yandell

[vespasianvs]

Hi, Coach Yandell,

I think this question might be weird. I am using a 3.5/ 3 grip. But I am hitting a lot of loops right now. I want to hit some more flat drive winners like those of Federer's. Which article in this website deals best with flat drive winners?

Thanks

[johnyandell]

Assuming your preparation is sound, look at the Extension and Rotation article in Advanced Tennis--the extended finish is associated with deeper harder balls.

[vespasianvs]

Hi, Coach Yandell:

Does proportional stringing, which strings each main and crosses at the tension according to their lengths, really work?

It is said to offer a larger sweetspot.

What is your opinion on it?

[johnyandell]

Absoultely no idea. Anyone else?

[uspta4201423750]

Hey John, I had a player ask me about having energy let down in the second set. I saw a bag check on tennischannel where one player showed an energy bar for her similar situation in matches. Is there an energy booster you recommend? Is there one most pro's use? Thanks, Harry Kingsley

[leis]

John: I was coiling so much on my unit turn on both the forehand and backhand, that I noticed that I did not allow for a last second further stretch of the torso before uncoiling in the shortening cycle. Although the timing was tricky, it produced tremendous power. Is this observation accurate? If so, can you direct me to video footage that you feel best reveals this movement as it is hard to see

[johnyandell]

Guys,
I appreciate you faith that I have all the answers but I know nothing about energy bars. And, as for what you are saying Leis...huh? Why don't you look and post a clip for us that demonstrates what you are feeling.
John Yandell

[hyperwarrior]

Mr. Yandell,

What is your thought about Max Mirnyi's forehand?
Do you think his forehand is a better model to emulate for most club players than the Federer or Verdasco's forehands?

[johnyandell]

I think it's more about the component's than anyone player. Suggest you read thru the various forehand articles in the Advanced Tennis section.

The individual players are great for feeling and seeing the elements but it's more about creating your own forehand out of the parts and assembling them in a way that works for you.

[jperedo]

John out of curiosity have you ever measured topspin rates for recreational players?

[johnyandell]

Not really.

When we did the first spin study in 1997, some of my pals who were senior players (35s and 45s) helped with the camera tests. We never studied the numbers in detail but seems that on the ground the spin was around or over a thousand. I remember Scott Murphy (who writes for us) hit a kick serve that I think was over 4000rpm. But my memory is a little sketchy at this point.

[neaot]

Hello John,
First, I want to say that you have done a terrific job on this site. I hope you will continue to educate us the way you have done here. Great!!!

My question-
For the last two years I have been teaching my 10 year old daughter the serve, no spin for now, just flat, focusing on technique. The technique is similar to what you see from Sharapova. Our major issue has been the backswing, and she says that it feels unnatural to take the racquet back in a circular motion, and as a result makes her serve less consistent. Lately we tried to minimize (abbreviate) the backswing, sort of like J.Henin's and P. Rafter's. The consistency immediately improved, and the speed of the forward swing got much better (faster swing). I also noticed that the abbreviated backswing makes her rotate the shoulders back more than when she does the traditional circular take back motion, where shoulders don't rotate, they just remain close to perpendicular to the net. My daughter says that this abbreviate swing feels more natural. All the other parts of the serve- the toss, the back foot forward move, the jump up and landing on the left leg remain the same. Only the take back has changed. I've read that some coaches think that this abbreviated backswing can result in shoulder injury. Do you believe this to be the case today? Should I force her to focus on the traditional serve, hoping that once she gets older this issue will resolve itself, or let her do what she feels is more natural to her? Obviously, the priority is to prevent any future injury. Please try to respond as best as you can.
Sincerely,
L

[johnyandell]

Not sure how abbreviated you mean by abbreviated. I think that it is really hard to draw straight lines between technique and injury--some players never get injured with supposedly dangerous technique. I've heard it both ways about the alleged stress of the abbreviated take back, whatever that may mean.

Sampras was abbreviated compared to Mac or Fed. Andy's abbreviated motion creates a new power position to the side. What I would be concerned about is achieving the racket drop and also a contact point near the front edge of the body. You are videoing her, right?

Thanks for the great words about Tennisplayer.

[llll]

john although there are already good articles on the slice backhand could you do one one of these days?

[johnyandell]

Probably not in the immediate future. Go luck at Don Budge in the archive though--that's the model--similar to Rosewall that most club players should use. The pros have to swing much more radically downward due to the speed of the incoming ball and that makes it float.

[uspta1863382890]

John,

I have a simple technical question: It looks to me, having looked at a number of the strokes in the archive, that pros toss the ball just as far out in front on their second serves as on their first (although they do appear to move the toss slightly left for right-handers) - is this your impression as well?

[johnyandell]

Basically yes. The contact point amy at times be slightly further back, but the biggest difference is the left ball position. You might enjoy reading the article on Pete's second serve that goes into this in more detail.

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/tour_strokes/john_yandell/sampras_serve/sampras_serve_second_serve_part8_images/sampras_serve_second_serve_part8.html

[uspta990770809]

Basically yes. The contact point amy at times be slightly further back, but the biggest difference is the left ball position. You might enjoy reading the article on Pete's second serve that goes into this in more detail.

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/tour_strokes/john_yandell/sampras_serve/sampras_serve_second_serve_part8_images/sampras_serve_second_serve_part8.html

When a student is learning the second serve, they need to toss the ball further back. I like to tell them: " Behind the right ear" to exaggerate. But this is just to learn the wrist action and get the feel of hitting up on the ball. If you actually hit the ball like this, it will appear to have a big move and spin, but it reality it will be sitting too short and any good player will attack it.

As the motion becomes familiar, the good players move the toss forward so that they can get penetration to go along with the spin. This is the way most of the pros hit their second serves, at least among the men.

But when your students are trying to learn the action, they need to keep the toss behind them and to the left to get the feel of hitting up and across the ball.

don

[uspta1863382890]

John,

I have a simple technical question: It looks to me, having looked at a number of the strokes in the archive, that pros toss the ball just as far out in front on their second serves as on their first (although they do appear to move the toss slightly left for right-handers) - is this your impression as well?

[johnyandell]

Uh, answered above. Not sure I fully agree with Don's strategy but understand it. The potential problem is a permanent contact point that is too far back. In fact you see a lot of juniors with this problem. It's an interesting issue. Some people are very aggressive about teaching the kick like our friend Chris Lewitt who wrote two great articles about it. Others like Nick Saviano would delay this til later.

[uspta4201423750]

Hey John,

My 7 year old has a nice motion but his toss is so low that he doesn't have time to really see the ball and get full knee bend. I have a 17 year old on my team with the same problem. Do you have any tricks/techniques for breaking the bad habit? If not, my Joe Dinofor has some gadget that helps toss height (although I don't think I've seen it). Thanks, Harry Kingsley

[uspta1863382890]

John,

I have a simple technical question: It looks to me, having looked at a number of the strokes in the archive, that pros toss the ball just as far out in front on their second serves as on their first (although they do appear to move the toss slightly left for right-handers) - is this your impression as well?

By the way, this is the third time in the past two days I've attempted to post this. Twice before it has appeared to have been submitted, but has subsequently not appeared.

Brandon Ferris

[johnyandell]

uh, it's there with a few responses.

[uspta2801398569]

Hey John

You hear a lot of coaches talk about (for a righty) using their left hand as the dominant hand in the backhand stroke.. I don't know how much that holds true? or also I think does it/or depend on how strong your bottom hand? I could see if you used more of a eastern forehand with the right hand.
But using a Continental or eastern backhand with the right hand causes the right arm starighter through inpact causing less use of the left hand????
I have used a two handed backhand for the most part of my playing days.. I also can hit a great left handed forehand. Which means I should have a monster of a backhand according to many pro's who say
(it's the be all end all to having a great backhand!!)
Your thoughts
Adam

[johnyandell]

The grips and the hitting arms are two different issues. Grips don't cause hitting arm positions, certain hitting arm positions require certain grips. They call it a two-handed backhand for a reason and all the variations make use of both arms in some combination. There doesn't appear to be a better or worse version--great players have used them all.

I'd read the articles over on the two-hander in the advanced tennis section.

Film yourself and figure out which configuration you are naturally. Then you can check your grips and compare yourself to players of the same type. You could be bent/bent, but that doesn't mean you wouldn't benefit from a continental grip with the bottom hand.

[uspta2801398569]

I read your advanced backhand articles.. they were good
Besides just finding what feels natural.. In your opinion do you think one set of grips or another might have advantages over one another? Can one drive the ball more?,spin more? handle different types of shots better? or is one better for certain hitting stances?
Hitting arm positions
When I hold eastern/eastern my hitting arm as far as what i can seems to be altered. My impact seems to be a bit more comfortable closer to the body. and when using more of a continental (bottom hand) contact seems more comfortable when further in front. Almost like a one handed backhand position
Your Thoughts

[johnyandell]

I think it's difficult to draw straight line conclusions here. Agassi played Straight/Straight and stood in and took everything early. Nadal is Straight/Straight and plays back. Like I said it appears to be more a natural tendency than a decision.

I would definitely suggest though that you get to that continental. If you are bent/straight with an eastern like Roddick you've got problems. Article on that is coming in April.

Even if you are Bent/Bent you are heading toward Venus Williams ville--meaning it has to be more back arm. She truly hits it like a forehand with totally open stance.

I can't say I've studied it that way but that grip shift would likely push the contact forward. Makes sense if you use the bottom hand more like on a one.

Why not send in some video to Your Strokes? Very hard to say anything more without it and not even sure about this.

[uspta4201423750]

Hey Jon, any good tricks to get a player to get more knee bend and/or a higher toss on the serve? thanks, Harry Kingsley

[johnyandell]

Practice the components individually. Stand by the fence and note the height by measuring how high on the fence the toss goes. Extend and hold the tossing arm.

Find out how deeply the player really can bend by shifting the weight primarily to the front foot, then going down as far as possible without bending over at the torso.

Find a count of 1 2 3 that matches the rhythm of the motion when the knees go down. Start on one, toss on two, hit on three. The rhythm on the count should be even. If it's rushed between 2 and 3 the toss is too low and this can help the player feel it.

[timmytennis]

Hi John ,
What your perspective about balls taken on the rise in pro tennis. whats the percentage of balls hit on the rise?...at the pro level. only on groundstrokes , not approach shots. thanks for your time. really enjoy your site.


best wishes,
Timmy Tennis.

If you have something specific to ask me, this is the place! I will try to respond to all posts.

I want to know what you think of the site and what you think I should do more of, less of, or differently. If you really like it, I won't mind hearing that either. I get a lot of my best ideas by listening, so start talking...

If you have technical questions, you can ask and I'll do my best to help. BUT as it says in the overview of Your Strokes, I'm not sure that this type of detailed, purely verbal technical discussion is always productive. In fact, I'm concerned that pontificating at length in response to written questions is often--or even usually--counterproductive.

Why? Because I believe that seeing is the basis for understanding when it comes to tennis. So don't be too upset if I express my honest reluctance to answer at length when I'm not really sure what I am talking about. That's why we created Your Strokes in the first place--so myself and the rest of the staff can actually see what you guys are talking about.

We're starting off with one subscriber stroke a month in Your Strokes. If it really takes off, we can always expand that--we can also post images here in the Forum if people make them available in the right format and size.

I hope we'll get a lot of other knowledgable people commenting as well!

[uspta4201423750]

Thanks John; when in the 1,2,3 rythme should the bend come? I pictured 1,toss, 2 bend, 3 hit thanks harry

[johnyandell]

bend starts while arm is coming down. Finishes at about extension of tossing arm. Go use the resources of the site Harry. Look at Sampras and Fed in the stroke archive. You can figure a lot of this out for yourself.

[johnyandell]

Timmy,

Great question and I have no idea. There is a difference too in where you are standing and how far the ball has risen. So of those heavy topspin screamers are still rising at shoulder level, even with players 10 feet back. Fed stands in and takes some of those at waist level!!

As I said to Harry the resources are there on the site for you to answer the question for yourself. Go look at 10 or 30 forehands from Nadal, Federer, Djokoivc, Murray. Count 'em up and report back.

I'm flattered that you guys think I know everything but you have questions that I may not have thought of myself.

John

[uspta990770809]

bend starts while arm is coming down. Finishes at about extension of tossing arm. Go use the resources of the site Harry. Look at Sampras and Fed in the stroke archive. You can figure a lot of this out for yourself.

Be careful of that knee bend. Take a careful look at Sampras, Federer and even Roddick. It's really 1, 2, and a 3. 1 Hands down. 2 Hands up. anda-knees bend 3 hit. You don't want to be tossing the ball with your knees. If you look at Roger, Pete and Andy, the ball is out of their tossing hand when they really start to drop down. There is some bend before that, but that deep drop doesn't happen until the ball is out of their hands.

If you think you are really adding speed with the "leg spring", be sure the basic hitting action is perfect before you start to complicate things with this action of the legs. Take a really good look at Andy or Pete or Roger's head as the arm makes it's upward move in the final move to the ball on some high speed shots. You'll see that their head has stopped rising well before contact (couple of hundreths of a second). You'll see the legs may still be rising, but the head is not. Surprised me when I noticed this. The jump adds speed by getting the shoulder loaded a little more, but not by actually adding speed directly. Just think how hard it is to throw a hard jump pass. Or why do you kick on a jump overhead!?

Curious about your comments, John.
don brosseau

[johnyandell]

You know what, I stand corrected. Should have looked myself before responding from memory--isn't that why we created the archive? The bend really does start after the toss for the big three. Very different than Andy Murray--who I had been looking at for something else--who starts his bend much sooner and before the release. Or Amalgro in the Interactive Forum who does the same. Now someone is going to have to go through and look at every player and post the answer...then we can argue about what it means. C'mon you guys--do some counting for us.

[uspta1863382890]

Thank you - sorry for the triplication. Turned out to be a browser issue.

[johnyandell]

Yep, those pesky software programs.

[uspta1863382890]

Hi John,

You mentioned in an article or two that you'd eventually do an analysis of Pete's backhand and discuss what made it different from others - is that still in the works?

[johnyandell]

Didn't happen--probably the time has passed but who knows maybe I'll do it in your strokes eventually. The short answer is he tended to lead with his elbow and when this tendency was slightly more exaggerated, he tended to miss.

[timothyw]

John,

Do you think you could get an artcile from Paul Wardlow about The Wardlaw Directionals? I think everyone on this site could benefit from an article by him.

Thanks, Tim

[johnyandell]

I totally agree. I've known Paul for many years and pitched him a couple of times. For whatever reason, no luck so far. But maybe I'll try again.

[hyperwarrior]

Mr. Yandell,

It's a pretty basic question but based on your knownledge and experience when it comes to choosing a racquet, do you think we should respect the grip size guideline or it is something personal?

It says in the guideline that a too small or too big grips can lead to injuries... I'm not sure if that's accurate. For example, Federer is using a very small grip and Djokovic, a very large one. Yes, they are technically better than the average players but do you think that most of the injuries are a results of bad techniques than a not proper grip size?

I heard people saying that back in the days, we can use the largest grip we can hold for a racquet. Is it true? :confused:
If it is, I'm wondering if this tip is still valuable in today's game.

I'm simply asking you this because I think your saying is way more reliable than a friend or someone else on this matter...

[johnyandell]

I never heard about the injury theory and don't know what the grip guide is.
In the old days of wood rackets I played with small grips. So yeah I think the answer is, it's a matter of preference. Probably not a great idea to use a grip 3 sizes too big, but other than that if you can a difference that's a good reason.

[hyperwarrior]

I never heard about the injury theory and don't know what the grip guide is.
In the old days of wood rackets I played with small grips. So yeah I think the answer is, it's a matter of preference. Probably not a great idea to use a grip 3 sizes too big, but other than that if you can a difference that's a good reason.

Thank you and that is the guideline http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/LC/Gripsize/Gripsize.html that I was talking about.

[johnyandell]

Well the people at TW are great but not sure they can prove the assertion...

[uspta1863382890]

John,

I'm seeing a lot of instances of a common problem with the high schoolers I coach - they don't turn at all when hitting overheads, or don't remain turned long enough. The latter may be the bigger problem. Even if they turn when the lob goes up, they start creeping back toward the face-on position as they track and hit the ball.

Do you have a visual tennis approach to correcting this?

Thank you.

[johnyandell]

What I would do is make them work from the sideway racket drop position. They have to wind up and get a complete racket drop before you feed them.

So the move not only turned but with the racket dropped. Create a game where they have to hit 5 in a row without turning back. If they start to turn too soon go back to zero. Now the same game starting with the ready position.

[amycooper]

Hi, I am a new member. I enjoyed your new article on extension in the forehand but really didn't appreciate it until I went back to one of your earliest "your strokes" videos. (The Megan Matthews forehand which collapses across the body before she hits through the ball.) I'm realizing this is my problem as well, especially on high balls. And, it would seem many, many women who are stuck in 3.0-3.5 range have the same forehand. As there as so few female non-professional strokes on your website I am wondering: is this a common problem for women players who did not grow up playing tennis. Are there additional drills, mental exercises to help women get the full extension on the forehand?

Love the website, and am hopeful I can improve using it.

Thanks so much,
Acooper

[johnyandell]

Amy,

Welcome to Tennisplayer and tell your women friends! We need more women members. Feel free also to send in video of your forehand and I can give you a better answer to your questions.

Extension is a problem in women, and men, and kids...I'd suggest you work back through the previous forehand articles, particularly the ones on preparation and the backswing.

Without a full turn extension is impossible, and it's true that women even at the pro level tend to have less complete turns. What you need to do is physically model the key positions and then create a mental image of same. The turn, the hitting arm position, the extension.

And video feedback is critical to compare where you are to the models and your images of them. It's an incremental process over time. And yeah I think your hope about improving is reasonable.

John Yandell

[rosheem]

Hi John,

I love the site. People I play with find it extremely interesting and somewhat hard to believe that I am improving my game so quickly by watching slow motion videos and reading. You have done an excellent job.

I've been tackling pronation on the serve lately and I'm finally starting to get it. I believe that once you feel the correct motion and timing for yourself, the fun really starts.

I have the feel now, but I must admit that it was quite difficult to get to this point. It took many hours of watching videos, shadowing the stroke, hitting balls, going back to the video, etc.

The good thing about high speed video is being able to see the positions. At super slow-speed, however, it's hard to learn the timing and rhythm. More specifically...it's harder to translate the timing and rhythm from slow speed to real speed.

I thought it might be good to have an option on some videos where we could see it in real speed. Even better, it would be cool if you could record some kind of noise that helped people understand the speed of the racquet (or of any segment in the chain for that matter). Take Brian Gordon's data and record a tone that changes frequency along with change in speed of the racquet. Then just play the frequency along with the video and we would be able to hear AND see the tempo of the racquet through the stroke.

I'd be interested to hear if anyone has already done this.

Side note...that close-up high speed video of federers hand as he pronates through a serve (Part 1, page 2 of Fed Serve article) is amazing.

[johnyandell]

I you get Quick Time Pro, (a $30 online upgrade from Apple at www.apple.com/downloads (http://www.apple.com/downloads)) you can download the videos. This allows you to watch them remotely on the hard drive and also control the speed. Open the file in QT Pro and then look under Window and select AV Controller. So you can watch the stroke archive clips in real time or half speed. You can also speed up the high speed video clips.

You can also run them on a Loop, so they repeat over and over and can just be there on your desk top all day! Look under View.

As to the sound. On the clips in the stroke archive there is the sound of the ball and sometimes you can really tell the difference in the speed/spin balance by listening. High speed video though has no audio. It's an interesting idea, but not practical in the context of live matches--no way to get the right microphone to the right place.

Thanks for the great feedback about the site!

[uspta1863382890]

John,

I've obviously overlooked this for quite a long time, but I'm just discovering that my wrist hardly lays back at all on my forehand - what do I lose in my stroke because of this?


Brandon Ferris

[johnyandell]

Uh, power, spin, control...If your wrist isn't ladi back most likely your contact point will be late. If you have a continental grip or a true eastern though the layback isn't always as extreme--not everyone is Federer.

But it's really hard to say without seeing the stroke. Why not send in some video for Your Strokes?

[privas]

Dear John,

I am a recent subscriber. I have been experimenting with the Sampras serve as outlined by you. I have found incredible amounts of topspin to be achieved with this serve (which is good since I am only 5’7”); however, when I try to toss the ball more to my right and more in front of me to hit a flatter serve I am having problems with consistency. Perhaps I have the wrong grip (classic continental, bevel 2 for both index knuckle and palm pad)? What grip does Sampras use and does he ever change it? Does the Sampras serve mandate a minimum amount of rotations/topspin?


Thanks, Pedro Rivas, M.D.

[johnyandell]

As I frequently say in repsonse to specific stroke questions, the real answer is impossible without seeing video of the stroke.

One of the thing that made Pete's serve so great was his ability to hit all serves off one toss.

If you can't flatten it out somewhat--remember you don't ever want no spin--with the toss you have, you may have pulled it too far left to get spin. But if you move the toss too far right (and usually lower) you may hit too flat.

It's a bad idea to have two tosses and worse motion variations based on them. It's all a compromise. You want to find the ball position that allows you to do a bit of everything and more importantly vary serves at will without tipping the serve off.

So far as the grip Sampras was probably a 1 / 1 with the heel pad and knuckle pretty close to on top. That's a very tough grip for the average player, so yeah, a 2 / 1 or 2 / 1 1/2 is probably the way to go. The speed spin trade off is and should be different for every player. There are no minimal values that this motion produces.

One further thought. One of the things stressed in the articles is that Pete's serve--especially the extreme turn is not for everyone. Analyzing it is not the same as advocating it.

A lot of people skip right over that vital point and think they can copy it. Seen a few Tennisplayer subscribers who had the Sampras stance, but terrible swing paths and contact points. So go in order and make sure you look at yourself on video. Without that these problems are pretty much impossible to solve.

[uspta1863382890]

John,


I will get some video of my forehand and send it in, as you suggest. I've been working on my serve for so long that I've long taken my forehand for granted. Plus, the forehand comes relatively easily by contrast. Nevertheless, if I am honest with myself I must concede that my forehand is mediocre.

[johnyandell]

Ok send it on...details on how in Your Strokes section.

[privas]

One more question about Sampras’ serve on the “Myth of the Toss.” I enjoyed this article very much.

If the Sampras arm is parallel to the baseline at the time of the toss, this explains the sideways arcing component. But how does the toss land “inside the court” and not simply on top of the baseline? Does this occur because of the slight forward weight shift during the toss? How do I get more “forward component” on my “Sampras serve” toss and not simply sideways arcing motion? How does Sampras flatten-out or slice a ball that is in the strike zone for topspin serve?

[johnyandell]

The toss is traveling on an arc not only to the left, but also forward.

The tossing arm may start parallel to the baseline, but what how it moves forward as it moves upward in this clip.

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/strokearchive/pro_men/petesampras/ps_serve/ps_serve_body_rotation/ps_serve_body_rotation.html?PS1stSAdBodyRotationSi de1.mov

What you want is the image of the path of the toss headed directly toward the contact point. These two intersect--the toss and the racket. Visualizing that arc and that point usually make that happen.

[privas]

I enjoyed very much your article on the Federer serve, especially your insight on the arm during the racquet drop being more parallel to the baseline compared to Roddick and Sampras. You emphasized the lack of correlation with the circular path in that the circular path should produce more racquet drop, like Philipoussis.



My theory is that the amount of racquet drop and arm drop is proportional to the preceding right shoulder drop achieved during the “set to launch position” as Nick Bollettieri would call it. To achieve this Nick advocates (at least in his video on the sonic serve) dragging the back foot in during the toss like many players today, but Roddick achieves this position nicely without this foot dragging, helped in part significantly by keeping his feet close together during the wind-up to begin with; and Sampras achieves it by pivoting his left foot on its heel clockwise during the wind-up and his subsequent coiling and forward weight transfer.

In my opinion, it appears that Federer does not achieve much of a “set to launch position” with the left hip thrust forward towards the net, like Sampras and Roddick and Philipoussis. It would seem that this would prevent him from getting the full adequate racquet drop. Perhaps his circular path is a way of compensating for this?



Thanks, Pedro Rivas

[johnyandell]

Anything's possible and I've been proven wrong many times, but my current opinion is that this theory is crazy talk!

I think it's pretty much a straight issue of shoulder flexibility. I've seen Sonic Serve--actually all theory there is from Pat Dougherty not Nick. He's a good friend, but in my opinion Max pushes that hip thrust too far--yeah he had a great serve but I wouldn't say he had the most gorgeous or efficient looking motion. I think that hip thing is more a natural function of the turn and knee bend--and maybe a little tilit and push. And yeah Roger is a little less extreme than Pete. But better that the other way around.

But no matter how low your right shoulder is, it can either rotate backwards in the shoulder joint or not. The more you can do this the better and the easier it seems it is to get a drop with a more abbreviated motion. Seen this time after time with players at all levels. Check out the Paul Goldstein Your Strokes, for example.

[rosheem]

John,

I hit a much better ball when I use the wiper motion vs. trying to drive straight through the ball. The advantages the wiper has over the more traditional drive (for me):


More consistent
Higher, faster bounce catches opponents off-guard
Easier to create sharp angles
Cleaner contact (when I analyze my own video, I observe more hits that are slightly off-center when I try to drive straight through vs. using the wiper)
Easier on wrist/elbow (probably due to cleaner contact)


The only disadvantage is that I don't always get the depth and penetration I might want. My observation is that this happens because I get a little too tight, especially on balls that should be put away, and I pull the trigger too soon on the stroke. As a result, the racquet face closes too soon and the shot is a bit shallow and low.

The other disadvantage is that I am annoyed by these old school teaching pros who keep telling me to "flatten that one out" on certain balls.

I think I would be better served to stick with the wiper as my bread-and-butter shot and improve on it, rather than continuing to struggle with the flatter-style driving shot. However, I think I read here or somewhere else that club-level players should become proficient at driving the ball first and then add the wiper later.

I just wanted to share that my experience seems to support the opposite view...learn and hone the wiper forehand first, and add the penetrating drive later. So far, having moved from never playing tennis in my life about two years ago to being able to beat the best 4.0 players in my club and hang with many of the 4.5 players...I haven't really seen a problem with this approach. I would love to hear your thoughts on this.

[uspta1863382890]

Hi John,

I was wondering if you can suggest any specific stretches or exercises to help the shoulder range of motion on the drop in the serve. While I know I won't be able to change things much (and I'll never have a shoulder that moves like Roddick's!), mine is quite tight and I'm willing to make the effort. There must be room for a little improvement. I can feel a general sense of tightness and lack of range, but I can't pinpoint anything.

Thank you.

By the way, the more I immerse myself in what I'm learning from you, the more deeply I come to understand how unhelpful traditional teaching is. I've certainly tried as hard as anyone to improve my strokes, but it is at last clear that you cannot consciously make different things happen in complex muscular movements (especially while you're processing a lot of information at once, as in tennis). I don't think about how to walk, and, similarly, I'm not consciously aware of what goes into hitting a forehand. To change things (strokes) that happen outside of or prior to consciousness, you obviously have to train differently, intelligently, and specifically. For example, I'm about to try a couple of exercises to help me fix two elements in my serve - inadequate drop (I not only need to improve my range, as in my question above, but also the ability to get into and out of the drop, regardless of how far my physiology allows me to go), and rotating out too soon and too much (a la V. Williams). I've noticed that in certain warmups when I abbreviate and isolate in specific ways, I can see change. For example, yesterday I took Rick Macci's no-leg serve from one of the articles on your site (he has you put your feet in hoppers and face the net to serve with just the whip of the arm - this is much like a baseball warmup my coach used to have us do) and did it while standing at 90 degrees to the baseline. Without even intending it, I was able to come at the ball from the left and hit from a better, more left contact point and get a better topspin component.

Therefore, when I get some time to actually go out and practice, I'm going to spend some time serving from the drop and doing this modified Macci drill. Then, I'm going to repeat them often until the motor learning happens and my full on serve includes these elements. I also want to try isolating going from the power position to the drop.

It seems to me that one of the great obstacles to learning tennis is our mistaken understanding of what the "conscious I" is actually conscious of, along with a complete lack of understanding of how motor learning happens. I look forward to practicing and seeing if some change occurs.

Brandon

[johnyandell]

Honestly that first one is a question for a physical therapist, or someone who does sports massage, or a yoga teacher. We will have some stretching exercises on the serve from Chris Lewit and his wife Kim who does teach yoga in a future issue.

But I have rarely seen anyone who couldn't get into the drop position using the windmill drill. I'm revisiting it again in the next issue in a Your Strokes article.

Yeah the mystery is how change occurs. What my experience has shown is that if a person can't model the positions naturally without the ball, there is no chance with. Similarly once the physical model is mastered, the player needs to create some mental images/feelings that correspond with these positions. If you can stay out of the verbal and learn to visualize these keys during actual play, that's the best way I know to make the change/

[bobfremeau]

Hi John.

Love the site. Great stuff.

Any plans for the backhand volley osmosis clinic?

Bob

[johnyandell]

You know I even forget why I didn't get to that...thanks for the reminder, but check out the two backhand volley articles:

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/avancedtennis/john_yandell/volleys/backhand_volley/backhand_volley.html

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/avancedtennis/john_yandell/volleys/backhand_volley_variations/backhand_volley_variations.html

They have all the info in a different format. Also the high speed archive on the volleys:

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/high_speed_archive/high_speed_archive.html
I will try to get around to the osmosis version but am knee deep in forehands right now!

[wicky10s]

Hi John,
A special personal thanks for the new film footage of Roger. These shots show the tennis ball in many of the frames and it really helps to re enforce the key aspects of stroke preparation while setting up for the ball not to mention that elusive concept of timing! Not so elusive any more thanks to this type of video presentation. What could be more clear than this?
Thanks a million.
Wicky10s

[johnyandell]

It's some gorgeous stuff!

[florian80]

Hi John,

Quick question on your thoughts on rotation on the forehand. We know that rotation is important but this question is more regarding the when. Looking at a lot of high speed it seems to me that the upper body rotation slows down/almost stops right before contact and the upper body is relatively still through the contact zone. After the ball is off the racket, the right shoulder usually starts coming around again. Lots of coaches are telling students to rotate as much as they can and way through contact. From personal experience as a player and coach, I think you hit the ball a lot cleaner when you do not try to rotate all the way through contact. What are your thoughts and how would you communicate that to students ?

Thanks

[johnyandell]

Interesting question! How fast are the body parts going at what parts in the swings? And I don't know the answer(s). Good question for Brian Gordon's long awaited forehand series.

I think a variety of teaching cues--even those that may not actually describe what happens accurately--can be effective for players. I haven't seen that particular one myself. I think if you look at players with similar grip styles over a lot of examples you can make some parameters as to positions...

If your player is matching the positions of the model players on similar balls, I think that is about as much as you can do without doing quantitative measurements. Not exactly a definitive answer but honestly my thoughts at this point.

[airforce1]

Hi John,

Quick question on your thoughts on rotation on the forehand. We know that rotation is important but this question is more regarding the when. Looking at a lot of high speed it seems to me that the upper body rotation slows down/almost stops right before contact and the upper body is relatively still through the contact zone. After the ball is off the racket, the right shoulder usually starts coming around again. Lots of coaches are telling students to rotate as much as they can and way through contact. From personal experience as a player and coach, I think you hit the ball a lot cleaner when you do not try to rotate all the way through contact. What are your thoughts and how would you communicate that to students ?

Thanks

sorry if it is out of line commenting in John's section, but I really like your point here.
That period where the shoulders stop is part of the extension phase that is the subj of discussion on the FH these days, then the shoulders are actually pulled around on the last part of the rotation by the racket and arm as the extension phase ends and pulls the body around in the follow thru.

so the first part is driven by hips and shoulders, then the last part is pulled around by the power of the stroke.

[uspta990770809]

sorry if it is out of line commenting in John's section, but I really like your point here.
That period where the shoulders stop is part of the extension phase that is the subj of discussion on the FH these days, then the shoulders are actually pulled around on the last part of the rotation by the racket and arm as the extension phase ends and pulls the body around in the follow thru.

so the first part is driven by hips and shoulders, then the last part is pulled around by the power of the stroke.

Really like what AirForce is saying. I think it's partly that the movement is too quick for the hips and shoulders through the impact zone. The lower body gets things started, but then the arm just releases really quickly through the ball and you hit against the somewhat stabilized front (left for righty) side, kind of like in a golf swing.

It will be really interesting to see what Brian Gordon brings to light.

[florian80]

Makes sense what you guys are saying. My thoughts are that in the kinetic chain the energy is always transferred from one part of the body to the next. Right before contact all the energy/speed generated through rotation etc. goes into the arm and the body remains relatively still in this phase. If the body was still rotating, it would be very hard to keep the racket on track to hit the ball clean i think.
The same principle is at work with the one handed backhand for example where it is more obvious that the upper body stays relatively still (usually sideways) just before and after contact when you watch someone like Fed for example. On the forehand everything is so fast nowadays though that it causes a lot of confusion i think.
curious on johns thoughts.

cheers

[johnyandell]

I want to see numbers. I think we have to be careful about making quantitative statements without any quantitative data. But again, to me I think the explanation while if it can be substantiated is certainly interesting, is still less important than the simple execution of the positions.

[10splayer]

Makes sense what you guys are saying. My thoughts are that in the kinetic chain the energy is always transferred from one part of the body to the next. Right before contact all the energy/speed generated through rotation etc. goes into the arm and the body remains relatively still in this phase. If the body was still rotating, it would be very hard to keep the racket on track to hit the ball clean i think.
The same principle is at work with the one handed backhand for example where it is more obvious that the upper body stays relatively still (usually sideways) just before and after contact when you watch someone like Fed for example. On the forehand everything is so fast nowadays though that it causes a lot of confusion i think.
curious on johns thoughts.

cheers

It sure will be interesting in hearing Brian Gordon's take on this subject.

My perspective comes from that of a dumb tennis pro, so take it for what it's worth, but I definately tend to agree with this observation.


In a multi-segmented swing, the body rotates in segments, and at different speeds, from the ground up. And even though the hips, for instance, rotate forward much sooner than the shoulder and arm, they all "square up" (parallel to the baseline) at impact. (at least with stronger grips)

To me, this would suggest that the lower body, hips, , etc, start to slow there rate of rotation, to transfer energy to the last links. If they didn't , in the case of the hips, they would be grossely over-rotated at contact. And never achieve this almost universal "squared up" position

I think the "True Aligment" article by Kerry Mitchell, and his observation about the position of the hips, at impact is pertinant here.

[johnyandell]

These are reasonable hypotheses... I've got some 3D data Brian developed on Pete Sampras's serve. We'll start to ask some of those questions of it, starting with the speed of the racket.

[kiddy]

John

I thought the article on Todd's serve was very instructive, in particular the windmill drill I've found to be very effective for developing a btter a racquet drop.
I was wondering if you had any exercises or drills for developing forearm pronation into the ball during the hitting phase. Most of the drills I have involve trying to drive the ball into the ground which I have found to be a) not very effective and b) counter intuitive given the 'myth of the wrist snap'.

Any help advice would be greatly appreciated. Apologies if the answer is already somewhere in the site.
Kind regards

John

[johnyandell]

The best description of the upward swing to the ball is a "high five" with a service grip.

Technically "pronation" refers only to forearm rotation. But the upward swing is a rotation of the hand, entire arm and racket.

Often the term pronation is also used to describe the angle of the racket turning over in the followthrough. In my opinion the goal is not to create this position. It's an effect of the upward swing when the racket is well into the deceleration phase. Whatever the upward swing speed is, the racket will continue to turn over the appropriate amount in response.

I'm not a big believer in drills that are somehow different from the stroke motion itself. If you have a full racket drop, you can practice the high five by starting from the racket drop position. There is no big magic here. The elbow extends and the hand turns into the ball. The key is to video it and see if you make the positions. Without the video you never really know.
If it's good from the racket drop start, now video the whole motion.

All this is discussed several places. Check out the article on Pete's serve in Tour Strokes on the swing path and the various serve articles in Advanced Tennis on Fed and Roddick.

[crass_lawner]

Makes sense what you guys are saying. My thoughts are that in the kinetic chain the energy is always transferred from one part of the body to the next. Right before contact all the energy/speed generated through rotation etc. goes into the arm and the body remains relatively still in this phase. If the body was still rotating, it would be very hard to keep the racket on track to hit the ball clean i think.
The same principle is at work with the one handed backhand for example where it is more obvious that the upper body stays relatively still (usually sideways) just before and after contact when you watch someone like Fed for example. On the forehand everything is so fast nowadays though that it causes a lot of confusion i think.
curious on johns thoughts.

cheers

It sure will be interesting in hearing Brian Gordon's take on this subject.

My perspective comes from that of a dumb tennis pro, so take it for what it's worth, but I definately tend to agree with this observation.


In a multi-segmented swing, the body rotates in segments, and at different speeds, from the ground up. And even though the hips, for instance, rotate forward much sooner than the shoulder and arm, they all "square up" (parallel to the baseline) at impact. (at least with stronger grips)

To me, this would suggest that the lower body, hips, , etc, start to slow there rate of rotation, to transfer energy to the last links. If they didn't , in the case of the hips, they would be grossely over-rotated at contact. And never achieve this almost universal "squared up" position

I think the "True Aligment" article by Kerry Mitchell, and his observation about the position of the hips, at impact is pertinant here.

O.K. I said that I wasn't going to make anymore tennis related posts on this site, but I just can't help myself. Sorry John.

I agree 100% with Florian and 10s that energy is transferred from the ground up through the kinetic chain in chronological order, but I don't think it's true that each segment of the chain necessarily ceases to move after it has successfully transferred its energy to the next segment. I think that each segment transfers its energy once it has reached peak velocity, and after that it is transferring little or no energy, but it can't stop moving immediately due to inertia, so it continues to move (at a lower velocity) despite the fact that it is no longer transferring any energy.

If you watch a slo-mo video of Federer or Gonzales (or probably any pro) hitting a big forehand from a neutral stance you can really see their shoulders continue to rotate after contact has been made. This continuous movement does allow the player to maintain his balance though. But the key to the energy transfer is for the peak velocity (or acceleration - they'll occur at the same time) of each body segment to be reached in succession with the proper timing.

Of course the exact amount of body "follow though" will vary between styles, shots, and positions. In fact I can see Florian's point about the 1 handed backhand especially Federers. Sometimes, with low and/or wide balls, his body does in fact seem to reach peak velocity, transfer its energy to the arm, and then stop moving. Even his head stops moving and he's left staring at the contact point for a fraction of a second after the ball has left his racket. But even with Federer this isn't always the case, and on some backhands he really opens his shoulders up after contact. Henin and Gasquet both open their shoulders quite a bit after contact sometimes too.

[10splayer]

O.K. I said that I wasn't going to make anymore tennis related posts on this site, but I just can't help myself. Sorry John.

I agree 100% with Florian and 10s that energy is transferred from the ground up through the kinetic chain in chronological order, but I don't think it's true that each segment of the chain necessarily ceases to move after it has successfully transferred its energy to the next segment. I think that each segment transfers its energy once it has reached peak velocity, and after that it is transferring little or no energy, but it can't stop moving immediately due to inertia, so it continues to move (at a lower velocity) despite the fact that it is no longer transferring any energy.

If you watch a slo-mo video of Federer or Gonzales (or probably any pro) hitting a big forehand from a neutral stance you can really see their shoulders continue to rotate after contact has been made. This continuous movement does allow the player to maintain his balance though. But the key to the energy transfer is for the peak velocity (or acceleration - they'll occur at the same time) of each body segment to be reached in succession with the proper timing.

Of course the exact amount of body "follow though" will vary between styles, shots, and positions. In fact I can see Florian's point about the 1 handed backhand especially Federers. Sometimes, with low and/or wide balls, his body does in fact seem to reach peak velocity, transfer its energy to the arm, and then stop moving. Even his head stops moving and he's left staring at the contact point for a fraction of a second after the ball has left his racket. But even with Federer this isn't always the case, and on some backhands he really opens his shoulders up after contact. Henin and Gasquet both open their shoulders quite a bit after contact sometimes too.
Crass,
Yeah, I agree. If you read my post, I implied there was a slowing down of the preceding segment. At least that was my intent. I think a sudden halt would cause injury over a period of time, and I simply don't believe the body would allow that to happen. But then again, maybe I'm wrong.

[crass_lawner]

Crass,
Yeah, I agree. If you read my post, I implied there was a slowing down of the preceding segment. At least that was my intent. I think a sudden halt would cause injury over a period of time, and I simply don't believe the body would allow that to happen. But then again, maybe I'm wrong.

Yeah you're right, I misinterpreted what you meant by "square up." By square up you simply meant that the body parts are in alignment with each other and the baseline (assuming the ball was hit straight) for a brief moment which I agree with. I guess the part I was disagreeing with was the part in Florian's post where he said:

Right before contact all the energy/speed generated through rotation etc. goes into the arm and the body remains relatively still in this phase.

At least as it relates to the modern forehand. Like I said his quote does seem to apply to some types of backhands. But I can see how one might also think of it as still at contact in another sense, since at contact the body should also be the most balanced, and therefore have zero net forward, backward, or side to side motion. All the motion should be rotational, as opposed to when the player leans into the ball before contact or follows through, at which point his weight will be pulling backwards.

[10splayer]

Yeah you're right, I misinterpreted what you meant by "square up." By square up you simply meant are in alignment with each other and the baseline (assuming the ball was hit straight) for a brief moment which I agree with. I guess the part I was disagreeing with was the part in Florian's post where he said:



At least as it relates to the modern forehand. Like I said his quote does seem to apply to some types of backhands. But I can see how one might also think of it as still at contact in another sense, since at contact the body should also be the most balanced, and therefore have zero net forward, backward, or side to side motion. All the motion should be rotational, as opposed to when the player leans into the ball before contact or follows through, at which point his weight will be pulling backwards.

Yeah Crass,

It's all good! Your not the first person to misunderstand my writing.

[normand_trempe]

Hello John! i have really enjoyed the article of Jose HIgueras called Learn to Play. And although you have a lot of articles on tactics and a lot of videos on strokes i think there could be more videos of point sequences (wich we could download) where you can see those tactics done by the best. I would love to be able to show my players where the pros recover after every shot for example, in a video of Fed where he hits 5 or 6 balls and where you seem how he plays the ball like Higueras says. Thank you very much and keep up the excellent work!

Tova

[johnyandell]

Yeah I agree. We are working on a new archive of point patterns with a wide camera set behind the court--sometime at the start of the year we'll probably start putting it up.

[llll]

john i am looking to but a video camera thats easy to download the video and then sent it for analysis. i cant find where you have specs to look for in a camera. can you tell where in the site i can find the info, thanks ,larry

[johnyandell]

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/teaching_systems/john_yandell/using_tennisplayer_part2/using_tennisplayer_part2.html

[llll]

thanks john.

[tommyt]

Hey John, I was watching James Blake play recently and he was receiving a 2nd serve and up 15-30. He missed the return and subsequently lost the next 2 points handily and the game. He looked upset at himself at missing such an opportunity. It got me wondering how many players in Blake's situation, at 30 all after missing an easy 2nd serve opportunity, consequently lose the following 2 points and the game. I don't know if tennis has such stats. I always tell my students to reset after every point and a player like Nadal seems to be able to do that but I'm wondering about other players. Thanks.

[johnyandell]

Not that I know of. It can't be statistically advantageous but I think you are correct in that the real question is your ability to stay positive in the situation.

[10splayer]

John,

Do you have any information, or any estimate, on how much , if any, the game has "sped up" in terms of average ball speeds and spin rates in the last 5 or 6 years?

[johnyandell]

Not really. We can see from our spin studies that Nadal spins the ball faster than Sampras, but in 1997 Bruguera had the same spin rates as Nadal, and Muster and Courier were similar to Federer.

If you studied the shot spot data you might get a sense of changes in ball speed. My sense is yeah it's increased, but saying it and proving it by data is different.

Not sure how much of that cumulative data is readily available though over time.

[10splayer]

Yeah John, thanks for your time. You always seem to respond promptly to your customers. I guess coming up with concrete numbers, would entail alot of work... Been around tennis all my life, often times at pretty high level, but just amazed at what there doing with the ball now, juniors included.

Just don't know if my feeling about the increase was valid, or if I was falling for the whole "modern game is so much better" mentality.

[johnyandell]

Well if you watch matches from the 1980s opn TV it's pretty obvious it's gotten a lot faster since then. Last 5-10 years probably as well. That's just my opinion.