Interactive Forum August 2013: Jerzy Janowicz: Forehand

[sejsel]

Interesting, cause I take a counter position to most here. At least as it relates to adult, club level tennis. As the head pro of one of the largest adult tennis camps here in the states, I can tell you first hand, that a lack of "penetration" on the groundstrokes is not really an issue. Most can "penetrate" the back fence. No, the overwhelming problem is the inability (whether it be technical or disciplined) to create a spin rate that allows margins, consistency, and an ability to work through/execute 4 and 5 stroke shot patterns (which is absolutely devastating to club level opponents)

So while i agree that the mechanics of Jerzy's strokes, (which would TEND to produce a flatter ball) is not ultimately a disqualifier as a model. I disagree strongly with the premise that club level players need to choose a model that promotes penetration over spin/consistency. When a player is operating at a 10-15 to 1 ratio (unforced errors to winners), choosing and developing a model that creates sufficient spin rates is key.

Addressing the unforced error "ledger" is where the real improvement will be made.

Agree, though I think that Jerzy's model - if chosen - can be used as a platform for generatin - yes - behold - spin.

You just needs methods and the way of teaching it.

But I can closely relate to the problems you are mentioning, hell, I see all of what you are describing on daily terms - with recreational players, as well as lack of gaging the pace and spin, and many other things that acompany that (such as wrong upper body positions prior and during the execution of the shot) along the path...

[10splayer]

Many roads to Damascus

Interesting, cause I take a counter position to most here. At least as it relates to adult, club level tennis. As the head pro of one of the largest adult tennis camps here in the states, I can tell you first hand, that a lack of "penetration" on the groundstrokes is not really an issue. Most can "penetrate" the back fence. No, the overwhelming problem is the inability (whether it be technical or disciplined) to create a spin rate that allows margins, consistency, and an ability to work through/execute 4 and 5 stroke shot patterns (which is absolutely devastating to club level opponents)

So while i agree that the mechanics of Jerzy's strokes, (which would TEND to produce a flatter ball) is not ultimately a disqualifier as a model. I disagree strongly with the premise that club level players need to choose a model that promotes penetration over spin/consistency. When a player is operating at a 10-15 to 1 ratio (unforced errors to winners), choosing and developing a model that creates sufficient spin rates is key.

Addressing the unforced error "ledger" is where the real improvement will be made.

[don_budge]

Spin...to Win

I like the fact that he hits the penetrating ball that he does. I love the fact that he hits his drop shots with deception and disguise...not to mention feathery touch. But the fact of the matter is he needs to develop more spin on his ball.

I teach his forehand. I love the fact that he can flatten it out. I believe you must have the ability to penetrate with the forehand to play all court tennis. No camping out behind the baseline hitting all heavy top spin all of the time...even though modern professional tennis is played virtually the same way all of the time on all surfaces. I even advocate playing with underspin with my younger ones...in order to teach them the value of keeping the ball in play. Another huge advantage in playing the more penetrating ball off of the forehand is that you are not stuck with the sole option of approaching the net behind a shot with heavy topspin. That kind of stuff is constantly eaten up on the tour...just another reason that net play is a thing of the past. Intelligent approach games are nonexistent.

Once the student can hit flat penetrating shots...then we work on the heavier topspin. You need the spin to stay in the point...at least 50% of your shots are defense or neutralizing. These are more often than not played with some degree of "excessive" top spin.

This guy is just loaded with talent. But as it stands now...he is a wonderful underachiever. What is going to be the motivating factor for development? The current forces behind him? That is the big question for Jerzy.

[sejsel]

Not only is it a good model for the other 99% (perhaps with just a little more topspin for the club player), but in "rock, paper, scissors terms", how else do you cut through the paper blanket that Nadal (and Djokovic and Murray) throw up on the court. Jerzy's forehand is the only thing that can actually cut through Nadal's defenses (not that different from the ball flight on a lot of Wawrinka's shots... or Del Potro's). Granted, it has less margin for error, but otherwise you have no chance. Also, you have to be able to serve big enough to get a return that gives you a reasonable chance to make this riskier shot. Not recommended for a pro with a pop gun serve who is constantly defending. Better have a big gun.

......
.......
.......

don

I think Nadal-Robredo match(-up) speaks clearly in favor of this sort of reasoning.

Competing with someone like Nadal on his own terms, with similar style of play, but without generating the rates of spin he is generating is a recipe for suicide match-wise.

I watched the parts of the Djoković - Nadal match when Djoković exerted pressure on Nadal, keeping him on defensive, far beyond the baseline, on his heels. The comment from Frew McMillan pointed out Djoković being able to "flatten-out" his forehand more than Nadal when conducting this sort of pressure from the baseline (don, thanks for mentioning Connors in this regards as someone who was able to sustain similar kind of pressure periods during the play).

Maybe the way to keep people like Nadal at bay is the contrasting style of play, as well as technique.

Some data from matches throughout the years points out to this.

[sejsel]

I believe this forehand technique is not suitable for the highest level of the game. Granted he does hit a solid amount of winners with flat shots but he really lacks the consistency because of his low spin rates.

Also many of the guys are surprised by this kind of a flat forehand but they will eventually get used to his style if he hangs around the Top 20 long enough and as a result he will hit less winners I think.

If he would use the "stretch-shortening cycle" more I think he would hit much better forehands and would be able to create more spin when necessary.

The end goal in my opinion should be to continue with those flat winner type shots in the right situations but add some heavier spin to his shots when necessary.

I don't think his forehand comes close to being a strength when he matches up against Top 10 players that hit huge forehands with heavy rotations.

Interesting post. There is a school of thought among top coaches today, whether they are developmental coaches or coaches at other levels that this is the way game has to be played - technically - in the way described in the quoted post.

However, johnyandell question about 99.9 % of the rest of us raises some thougths.

As well as the way Söderling conducted his match when he broke Nadal's run at Roland Gaross. On clay. Great deal of spin in his forehand, but not really the primary trademark of his shot, generating pace primarily with large body parts, ever more so obviously than Nadal, Robredo, etc.

[brielmaier]

Janowicz's forehand

I don't think that there is as many differences as others seem to see. Basically Jerzy has the same atp forehand style, but doesn't use much of a wiper at the finish, so that he doesn't need to have his grip more towards the western. His unit turn, and movement toward the contact point are still dynamic enough otherwise he wouldn't get the power he does. His finish is flatter more like the old style forehands. Perhaps this was a situational shot and he uses more of a wiper finish when he needs more spin, like most of the top players. I think that we need to realize that the strokes we analyze can be situational, and not the same all the time. As teachers and coaches we need to teach situational shots, with different componants of a basic form. IE: changing follow throughs, changing or no backswing as in a serve return, changing spins, moving forward, backward, open stance closed stance, etc.
TB

[stroke]

Another question then. How suited is this forehand as a model for the 99.99% ?

Very much so. I really like the way he delays his transition point to so close to contact. Brain pointed out that is a very desirable trait in his type 3 model. He gets enormous power with his compact type 3 forehand. His late transition point remains me of Tomic's forehand. I think it is maybe his grip structure that holds back his spin potential. He looks way more eastern that Fed to me. Particularly on the heel of hand.

[10splayer]

I agree with your assessment of Jerzy's forehand. His lack of spin, compared to some of the best forehands in men's tennis, is an issue. I have always gone back and forth between Nadal and Fed about who has the very best forehand in tennis, but after watching Nadal break down Robredo with the weight/spin of his forehand, it is hard to not go with Nadal. He wins points just hitting routine(for him) forehands and let the work on the ball do its thing., kind of like producing forced errors from his opponent.

I too, have begun to appreciate Nadal's forehand more. Fed has always been the gold standard by which to compare. And I still think he revolutionized the shot with his straight arm/eastern configuration. (i have my theories as to why it was so dominating) For going on 12 years now, he has owned the competition, without injury, and the forehand is big part of that. On top of that, he will probably be able to walk upright in 20 years, unlike Rafa. It's just an unbelievably beautiful, efficient, effective shot.

But yeah, Nadal is just a beast off that side. We alll know the benefits of playing with that kind of spin rate in terms of consistency and angle production. But I think the hidden gem in the whole equation is his ability to hit the ball shorter (rally ball) without getting hurt. When the ball is coming in on that higher trajectory (because of the spin rate) shots that are even landing 1/2 to 3/4 court are unattackable. The ball is still rising(and way off the ground) as it crosses the baseline. For guys with lower trajectories, that kind of lack of depth is a killer, as it falls right into there opponents wheel house. So not only is he incredible consistent, produce rediculous angles, he also doesnt even have to hit the ball particularly deep.

[tennis_chiro]

It's a great model

Another question then. How suited is this forehand as a model for the 99.99% ?

Not only is it a good model for the other 99% (perhaps with just a little more topspin for the club player), but in "rock, paper, scissors terms", how else do you cut through the paper blanket that Nadal (and Djokovic and Murray) throw up on the court. Jerzy's forehand is the only thing that can actually cut through Nadal's defenses (not that different from the ball flight on a lot of Wawrinka's shots... or Del Potro's). Granted, it has less margin for error, but otherwise you have no chance. Also, you have to be able to serve big enough to get a return that gives you a reasonable chance to make this riskier shot. Not recommended for a pro with a pop gun serve who is constantly defending. Better have a big gun.

It remains to be seen if Jerzy can develop the maturity and consistency to make this shot work more often against the top players. It may take the kind of lazer focus and intensity we only saw recently in a young Monica Seles before she was knifed or maybe her nemesis Steffi Graf. Guys just don't focus that well. It would take the mind of a Jimmy Connors who played with a very small margin of error on his deep flat ball and was able to hold his concentration together for a very long time.

Jerzy also has the ability to finish the point off with pretty good volleys; not many players do have that skill today. And the drop shot makes it tough for them to neutralize him by backing up.

He certainly has to get better, but what attracted me to his game from the first time I saw him play last November in Paris was this potential to exert real pressure on the top players. He is already a handful if he is having a decent day. He settles in and gets just a little solider and he will challenge anyone on a regular basis. He still double faults too much... at 6' 8" with a good motion. I fully expect him to put on another 10 to 15 lbs of muscle in the next two years without slowing down at all. He is not just fast for a big man; he is actually pretty quick...period. Isner and Del Potro and Raonic lumber; they are not "quick". Jerzy is. I don't think that all the "smart" analysts have properly evaluated the upside to Jerzy's game.

He needs someone really smart in his camp to get him on the right path, but depending on whether or not he gets his head on right and takes care of all the nagging injuries and figures out, long term, the right way for him to play, I don't think there is any limit on how far he could go in about three to four years.

don

[johnyandell]

Another question then. How suited is this forehand as a model for the 99.99% ?

[stroke]

I believe this forehand technique is not suitable for the highest level of the game. Granted he does hit a solid amount of winners with flat shots but he really lacks the consistency because of his low spin rates.

Also many of the guys are surprised by this kind of a flat forehand but they will eventually get used to his style if he hangs around the Top 20 long enough and as a result he will hit less winners I think.

If he would use the "stretch-shortening cycle" more I think he would hit much better forehands and would be able to create more spin when necessary.

The end goal in my opinion should be to continue with those flat winner type shots in the right situations but add some heavier spin to his shots when necessary.

I don't think his forehand comes close to being a strength when he matches up against Top 10 players that hit huge forehands with heavy rotations.

I agree with your assessment of Jerzy's forehand. His lack of spin, compared to some of the best forehands in men's tennis, is an issue. I have always gone back and forth between Nadal and Fed about who has the very best forehand in tennis, but after watching Nadal break down Robredo with the weight/spin of his forehand, it is hard to not go with Nadal. He wins points just hitting routine(for him) forehands and let the work on the ball do its thing., kind of like producing forced errors from his opponent.

[florian80]

I believe this forehand technique is not suitable for the highest level of the game. Granted he does hit a solid amount of winners with flat shots but he really lacks the consistency because of his low spin rates.

Also many of the guys are surprised by this kind of a flat forehand but they will eventually get used to his style if he hangs around the Top 20 long enough and as a result he will hit less winners I think.

If he would use the "stretch-shortening cycle" more I think he would hit much better forehands and would be able to create more spin when necessary.

The end goal in my opinion should be to continue with those flat winner type shots in the right situations but add some heavier spin to his shots when necessary.

I don't think his forehand comes close to being a strength when he matches up against Top 10 players that hit huge forehands with heavy rotations.

[johnyandell]

Greg,

Haven't counted his spin rates but bet they are pretty flat, ie, 2000rpm or less on average.

That butt cap thing is overrated in my mind. The diagonal of the incoming ball means it's different from forehand to forehand and sometimes never happens.

[sejsel]

Jerzy Janowicz: Forehand

The more things change in world class technique, the more they change...I mean in a cyclical way... Just when the experts have concluded you will be laughed off the tour unless you have a predominantly windshield wiper or reverse finish on your forehand,.....

...........

..........

Speaking of different styles of forehand, technique(s) and so on, reverse finish vs. "classic(al) forehand, check 55:16 - 55:45 in the following video (easy to see what on forehand):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5TmPAZ-c2JI

[tntenniswhiz]

Greg,

I tend to agree with the above. The wrist motion at times occurs and at times it doesn't. It's mainly a consequence of the other factors.

The action of the wrist to which I was meaning to address was that which resulted in the butt of the racquet pointing to the ball if only for that fleeting moment and is the step right after the "flip". Isn't that present in Jerzy's motion?

Also wonder how many rotations are on the ball in comparison to the others we are have become aware of?