Paris Masters ATP 1000

[stotty]

The trouble with a sliced backhand is a player needs to be highly skilled at its execution for it to be become a weapon. All the nuances are required. Roger's is the only one I can think of which is deft, piercing, neutralising, and sometimes all those things in a single rally. He can make his slice backhand a really nasty thing to deal with, and you cannot say that about any anyone else's sliced backhand on the tour, not really. Rafa and Novak have improved their sliced backhands over time but they are not in the same class as Roger's.

Despite it's simpleness, a sliced backhand does take years to cultivate if it is become a weapon rather than just a defensive option.

I liked McEnroe's because he was so deft in his use of it. He could deliver nasty slices to deal with and he could deliver ones that were just darn awkward. And he could kill pace like no one else in history.

It helps of course if you have amazing feel and hands like Roger and McEnroe.

https://www.tennisworldusa.org/tennis/videos/Roger_Federer/51245/roger-federer-hits-unbelievable-slice-backhand/

[bottle]

Last shot: A cross!

[bottle]

Providence! The single indoor court is still there, a museum of the winter when Bill Tilden came from Pennsylvania to Rhode Island to hang out with the Iselin family and others.

[don_budge]

The trouble with a sliced backhand is a player needs to be highly skilled at its execution for it to be become a weapon. All the nuances are required. Roger's is the only one I can think of which is deft, piercing, neutralising, and sometimes all those things in a single rally. He can make his slice backhand a really nasty thing to deal with, and you cannot say that about any anyone else's sliced backhand on the tour, not really. Rafa and Novak have improved their sliced backhands over time but they are not in the same class as Roger's.

Despite it's simpleness, a sliced backhand does take years to cultivate if it is become a weapon rather than just a defensive option.

I liked McEnroe's because he was so deft in his use of it. He could deliver nasty slices to deal with and he could deliver ones that were just darn awkward. And he could kill pace like no one else in history.

It helps of course if you have amazing feel and hands like Roger and McEnroe.

https://www.tennisworldusa.org/tenni...lice-backhand/

Actually it is not so complicated as all that. Nice comments by the way. No...we won't mention the slice backhands of Fafa Nadal or Novak Djokovic in the same breath as Roger Federer's or the greatest of the greats...Johnny McEnroe.

For example I am taking a 16 year old young fellow and teaching him the game of tennis now. It is the only tennis "project" that I have going now and I'm happy just to have an iron in the fire to keep my coaching instinct (my coaching act) fine tuned. We are two and a half months into the project and it is going really well. On the backhand side I have first showed him the basic fundamentals of driving the ball with some resemblance of topspin and after getting a feel for this we have immediately delved into the realm of the "slice" backhand.

"All of the nuances required". You are so right in this observation as the reason that we don't discuss the "purely elementary" slice backhands of Nadal and Djokovic is that they have no nuance. But you are really on the money when you mention the slice backhand of the "Bad One"...John McEnroe. The nuance required runs the gamut from the basic fundamental "ear to ear" swing with the racquet head all of the way to the little slippery ball that Federer inserted into the conversation in the video that you embedded in your post.

My best protege here in Sweden surprised me this morning when he was waiting at the club with Edvin. I told him that we had a two hour session scheduled and Gustaf was good enough to join us. The focal point of the technique instruction in this session for Edvin was regarding his slice. My ex-partner at the other club here in town only teaches the retarded modern slice backhand. Since he has never played any competitive tennis successfully in his life or to save his life he only can mimic what the Swedish Tennis Federation tells him. You see...Sweden is ever so proud of their "socialist" society here but the reality is it is some kind of gulag in terms of thinking outside of the box.

Gustaf has an excellent slice backhand which of course I taught him. From his basic "ear to ear" slice motion he keeps his racquet head on the path of the ball for a very long time and he therefore can hit it like a laser. Much like his teacher used to be able to do with a wooden Wilson Pro Staff. This is where we begin with Edvin. But Edvin has somewhat of a ingrained idea that he wants to "chop" the ball as the modern slice backhand has devolved into. But at the end of two hours he was beginning to get the racquet head on the right path and he couldn't contain himself afterwards. Another idea going off in the "fragile eggshell mind...in the gold mine".

Towards the end Gustaf had to leave so I was hitting balls to Edvin's backhand and he was trying to get the "feel" of getting the racquet head through the ball with his weight committed to his front foot. In his struggle he hit a high ball with a decent stroke and a decent amount of spin that landed on the baseline on my side. I stopped play and went up to the net and asked him one of my favourite questions as a coach...as a teacher. "How did that feel?" So so he sort of managed. Well I told him that was a brilliant shot. Combined with the height and the placement and the spin there is very little an opponent could do from that position to hurt him with a reply. We paused to discuss the tactical ramifications of such a play. You must pay attention what your opponent does with different types of spins, depths, heights...etc. All of it. Because as you say...It is all about "all of the nuances"! He hit a ball that landed short with enough spin to make it die short...I followed up to the net with the same sort of questioning and tactical analysis.

So as far as slice backhands go and the skill required goes. Not so much skill...certainly not any more than producing a good solid forehand or any other stroke. I think a tremendous amount of the "devil in the details" is in the coaching. Coaches don't see this shot for all that it is worth these days even if Federer is surgically carving up all of the players on the ATP tour on his deathbed. Technique...varying the grip, the degree of tilt in the racquet head, varying the arc of the swing...yeah it is sort of complicated. It takes years and the job is never done.

In the end I referred Edvin to the chapter in Bill Tilden's book, "Match Play and the Spin of the Ball" where he discussed the value of intensive practice in a chapter devoted to just that. In describes how Tilden back in 1920 or sometime thereabouts went indoors during one cold winter in Pennsylvania or wherever he was and he went to work on his "drive" backhand. Of course the same sort of intensive work can be applied on the slice backhand and it should be done early on in the development of a tennis player.

[don_budge]

It helps of course if you have amazing feel and hands like Roger and McEnroe.

https://www.tennisworldusa.org/tenni...lice-backhand/

That amazing feel and those hands were developed with an incredible amount of hard work...and of course the right direction at the behest of their coach. There is no magical formula or any reason that anyone cannot develop such a backhand. This used to be a staple of every single tennis player years ago. Roger Federer demonstrates why he is "The Living Proof" in my teaching paradigm with his use of the slice. He has merely and perhaps unwittingly connected those three little dots...all of the way from Bill Tilden to Richard Gonzalez to John McEnroe.

Thanks man.

[stotty]

Actually it is not so complicated as all that. Nice comments by the way. No...we won't mention the slice backhands of Fafa Nadal or Novak Djokovic in the same breath as Roger Federer's or the greatest of the greats...Johnny McEnroe.

For example I am taking a 16 year old young fellow and teaching him the game of tennis now. It is the only tennis "project" that I have going now and I'm happy just to have an iron in the fire to keep my coaching instinct (my coaching act) fine tuned. We are two and a half months into the project and it is going really well. On the backhand side I have first showed him the basic fundamentals of driving the ball with some resemblance of topspin and after getting a feel for this we have immediately delved into the realm of the "slice" backhand.

"All of the nuances required". You are so right in this observation as the reason that we don't discuss the "purely elementary" slice backhands of Nadal and Djokovic is that they have no nuance. But you are really on the money when you mention the slice backhand of the "Bad One"...John McEnroe. The nuance required runs the gamut from the basic fundamental "ear to ear" swing with the racquet head all of the way to the little slippery ball that Federer inserted into the conversation in the video that you embedded in your post.

My best protege here in Sweden surprised me this morning when he was waiting at the club with Edvin. I told him that we had a two hour session scheduled and Gustaf was good enough to join us. The focal point of the technique instruction in this session for Edvin was regarding his slice. My ex-partner at the other club here in town only teaches the retarded modern slice backhand. Since he has never played any competitive tennis successfully in his life or to save his life he only can mimic what the Swedish Tennis Federation tells him. You see...Sweden is ever so proud of their "socialist" society here but the reality is it is some kind of gulag in terms of thinking outside of the box.

Gustaf has an excellent slice backhand which of course I taught him. From his basic "ear to ear" slice motion he keeps his racquet head on the path of the ball for a very long time and he therefore can hit it like a laser. Much like his teacher used to be able to do with a wooden Wilson Pro Staff. This is where we begin with Edvin. But Edvin has somewhat of a ingrained idea that he wants to "chop" the ball as the modern slice backhand has devolved into. But at the end of two hours he was beginning to get the racquet head on the right path and he couldn't contain himself afterwards. Another idea going off in the "fragile eggshell mind...in the gold mine".

Towards the end Gustaf had to leave so I was hitting balls to Edvin's backhand and he was trying to get the "feel" of getting the racquet head through the ball with his weight committed to his front foot. In his struggle he hit a high ball with a decent stroke and a decent amount of spin that landed on the baseline on my side. I stopped play and went up to the net and asked him one of my favourite questions as a coach...as a teacher. "How did that feel?" So so he sort of managed. Well I told him that was a brilliant shot. Combined with the height and the placement and the spin there is very little an opponent could do from that position to hurt him with a reply. We paused to discuss the tactical ramifications of such a play. You must pay attention what your opponent does with different types of spins, depths, heights...etc. All of it. Because as you say...It is all about "all of the nuances"! He hit a ball that landed short with enough spin to make it die short...I followed up to the net with the same sort of questioning and tactical analysis.

So as far as slice backhands go and the skill required goes. Not so much skill...certainly not any more than producing a good solid forehand or any other stroke. I think a tremendous amount of the "devil in the details" is in the coaching. Coaches don't see this shot for all that it is worth these days even if Federer is surgically carving up all of the players on the ATP tour on his deathbed. Technique...varying the grip, the degree of tilt in the racquet head, varying the arc of the swing...yeah it is sort of complicated. It takes years and the job is never done.

In the end I referred Edvin to the chapter in Bill Tilden's book, "Match Play and the Spin of the Ball" where he discussed the value of intensive practice in a chapter devoted to just that. In describes how Tilden back in 1920 or sometime thereabouts went indoors during one cold winter in Pennsylvania or wherever he was and he went to work on his "drive" backhand. Of course the same sort of intensive work can be applied on the slice backhand and it should be done early on in the development of a tennis player.

Interesting post.

I teach all manner of slices and allow the player to experiment and come up with their own nuances. I like my players to be able to cut inside lower balls, which was the staple of our generation when approaching the net, but it's still a nasty bugger to deal with even if the executor opts to stay back. I also like my pupils to carve around higher, shoulder-high balls. I also like them to learn to knife or float backhands, depending on the situation. The sliced backhand has multiple uses but they are only truly effective if executed well. You have to be able to slice well, very well. It's a trade in itself.

I think it's a mistake that Roger slices constantly to Novak because Novak just gets used to it. I prefer it when he uses it at the key moments, like when he broke Novak's serve in the second set, in Paris.

[don_budge]

Despite it's simpleness, a sliced backhand does take years to cultivate if it is become a weapon rather than just a defensive option.

I liked McEnroe's because he was so deft in his use of it. He could deliver nasty slices to deal with and he could deliver ones that were just darn awkward. And he could kill pace like no one else in history.

Your comments really help to capture the essence of the slice and all of the subtle or not so subtle nuances. I remember John McEnroe playing Bjorn Borg at Wimbledon and on one point he alternated slice, drive, slice, drive....almost just to say to Borg "this is what I can do...this is how much control I have".

In Roger's case...you are never going to see him use the slice constantly. Unless he is just taking a tremendous beating and on his heels every shot...and this will never happen. But he must use it judiciously with Novak Djokovic because for Roger to try to match his drive with Novak's drive backhand, the rallies are usually cross court, Novak is going to overpower him. Out control him.

But as you imply...he uses it tactically. As a means to the end. A slice here...a slice there. Move him here...get him leaning here. Then the drive. The knockout. But that being said...Djokovic rarely if ever is able to manhandle a Federer slice if Federer is able to do as he plans. He may make a mistake now and then. But when Federer executes as I say I have rarely seen Djokovic take advantage of it. I find that rather amazing how much it actually handcuffs Djokovic and forces him to play the Federer game. This is what you want if you are Roger Federer. You want to dictate play and at the same time maintain pressure on his opponent.

Remind me to next week include the underspin backhand lob and my favourite gimmick shot...hitting the bottom of the ball with the racquet face almost parallel to the court so that the ball bounces on the opponents side and comes back on my side. These two shot illustrate the extremes and then there is everything in between. That is a lot of nuance. If you can do all that and be able to come up with the drive backhand when the opportunity presents itself...now you are talking.

Great comments. By the way...when you begin a student how do you decide whether or not to start them with one hand or two?

[don_budge]

I remember John McEnroe playing Bjorn Borg at Wimbledon and on one point he alternated slice, drive, slice, drive....almost just to say to Borg "this is what I can do...this is how much control I have".

John McEnroe, by the way, was using a wooden Wilson Pro Staff too. I don't think that I have ever seen a tennis player who was as "clever" as McEnroe.

[stotty]

I don't think that I have ever seen a tennis player who was as "clever" as McEnroe.

Me neither.

[stotty]

By the way...when you begin a student how do you decide whether or not to start them with one hand or two?

We take kids from aged 5. Yes that's young. Other facilities nearby try to beat us to it by accepting kids aged 3. I say if you start kids aged 3 more often than not they will be done with the game aged 7...burnt out. Starting aged 5 is too early also. To prevent burnout we cap how much they do....but that's for another post.

Anyway, when you start kids so young the obvious happens...two hands. I don't coach the kids at this point; two female coaches I employ do.

As a rule of thumb - a little later down the line when they get to me - any two-handers that look remotely cack-handed, get switched to one-handers.

It's nothing more scientific than that with me. If it don't look right...switch it.

[don_budge]

We take kids from aged 5. Yes that's young. Other facilities nearby try to beat us to it by accepting kids aged 3. I say if you start kids aged 3 more often than not they will be done with the game aged 7...burnt out. Starting aged 5 is too early also. To prevent burnout we cap how much they do....but that's for another post.

Anyway, when you start kids so young the obvious happens...two hands. I don't coach the kids at this point; two female coaches I employ do.

As a rule of thumb - a little later down the line when they get to me - any two-handers that look remotely cack-handed, get switched to one-handers.

It's nothing more scientific than that with me. If it don't look right...switch it.

Thanks man! You got it in a nutshell. That's too young. The child's mind has not become awoke before the age of 12 normally. That is not to say that some are more mature than others. But the burnout or boredom factor is real. Once they wake up and look around...they wonder to themselves what the hell am I doing here. They quit. There should be a study done as to how many of these babies last for 5 years...10 years. Seriously.

My current project that I am working with is an interesting case. I had him at the club originally when he was "too young". He must have been eight or so and he was there for a couple two or three years. He showed some ability to make the correct motions but he was just too young to take it seriously. He came back to the program when he was 15 or so and he was much more mature and ready to engage. Engagement being the key term.

When I left the club he even had the wherewithal to contact me and make the obvious observation that nobody was teaching him a thing as I was. I told him that I would help him with his game. No charge by the way. We started about three months ago and for two and a half months we met for an hour on Saturdays. I could coordinate this with one of my semi-weekly trips to town for supplies. For the past couple of weeks we have been going two hours straight. I am laying the foundation for a competitive tennis player. Whether or not he competes will be up to him. You know about horses...you can lead them to water but it is up to them to drink.

I believe that more recruiting into the sport should be done at the 12, 13 and 14 year old range. Even Edvin can become an excellent player. It may be late to become one of the best in the world...but it would not be out of the range of possibilities.

All of these three year olds up to 10 year olds are going to be a crap shoot as to whether they stay with the game or not. It isn't for everyone in the end. It takes a different kind of beast to be out there on your own...no supporting cast.

[stotty]

Research suggests more than half the children who take up tennis aged 4-7 years quit before they are 9. Half again then quit before aged 11. Participation continues to decrease right through to aged 18. All the evidence suggests it is counter productive to start children too young. The problem is different sports compete for funding based on numbers participating in their respective sport. Each sport wants to snatch kids young before another sport does.

If every sport could just relax and stop force-feeding, children would be better off.

I have lost count of the number of children who started tennis very early, were talent spotted, fed false promises, then exited the game with bitter still feelings when things didn't pan out. The best thing most child could do is start tennis aged around 10, have a weekly lesson to establish fundamentals, play with friends, play a few tournaments, and fall in love with the game of tennis. You can go anywhere after that and survive whatever the game throws at you and still be in love. Tennis then becomes a game for life.

The trouble is no one listens, except my wife, who thinks I'm right.

[bottle]

The trouble is no one listens, except my wife, who thinks I'm right.

And what a great wife she must be.

[don_budge]

Research suggests more than half the children who take up tennis aged 4-7 years quit before they are 9. Half again then quit before aged 11. Participation continues to decrease right through to aged 18. All the evidence suggests it is counter productive to start children too young. The problem is different sports compete for funding based on numbers participating in their respective sport. Each sport wants to snatch kids young before another sport does.

If every sport could just relax and stop force-feeding, children would be better off.

I have lost count of the number of children who started tennis very early, were talent spotted, fed false promises, then exited the game with bitter still feelings when things didn't pan out. The best thing most child could do is start tennis aged around 10, have a weekly lesson to establish fundamentals, play with friends, play a few tournaments, and fall in love with the game of tennis. You can go anywhere after that and survive whatever the game throws at you and still be in love. Tennis then becomes a game for life.

The trouble is no one listens, except my wife, who thinks I'm right.

Thanks for the information. I feel pretty much the same way except perhaps even moreso. I never started to play tennis until I was barely 14 and I immediately fell in love with the game. I still love the game. Up until then I had played a number of team sports and acquired some basic athletic skill on the way so tennis came rather quickly to me. This kid I am working with now is 16 and I think that in two years I can have him competing. He will get his ass handed to him for a couple of years mostly but at the same time he will be able to handle it and understand it is part of the process.

The game of tennis is so complicated if you play it the way it was meant to be played the a child like mind is not ready for the concepts. Let's face it...it is really responsibility oriented. It's individual. It's not like team sports where you have the support of team and coach on the field. That is a huge difference.

I think at the age of 12 some kids start to show a maturity level where they are prepared for the challenge of learning the game. But not all. Your research numbers confirm what I suspect and this sort of mentality has been going on long enough to explain why the state of the game is where it is at. Kids that are that young show up for one reason usually...mom or dad wanted them to. It is best that the child or young adult comes on their own volition. That way they know why they are there. I used to look at the kids that were recruited into the program and just shake my head. Most were the leftovers that weren't talented enough or mature enough to participate in other sports.

I would like to recruit the best soccer players and the best players from other sports and introduce them to the game. But that would end up kind of messy because as you know...those coaches are going to protect their players with all of the ferocity of a mother grizzly bear.

I fully get what you mean when nobody listens. That has ceased to bother me. The herd is usually headed for the nearest cliff.

[don_budge]

I watched the first two sets on replay. Roger was almost exclusively hitting sliced backhands in the first set which was a decent tactical manoeuvre. You can understand why he would opt to do it. Nevertheless Novak looked the much more comfortable of the two in the rallies and had the more chances to break. You felt Novak would always win that first set.

I thought Roger's opted to shot-make much more in the second set and he hit some real corkers. He played a lovely tactical game to break Novak and steal the set. I prefer it when Roger uses the slice and dice stuff right in the crux.

I will watch the third set tomorrow.

Here's the replay:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0xDmp7cbFI

It looked to me that in the first set Roger Federer played classic tactical tennis against the baseliner Novak Djokovic. He was aggressive and was looking to finish it at the net. It was a well played set by both players and decided by the slimmest of margins. Twice Federer was up a break in the tie-breaker and still he managed to lose it. Normally an in form Federer is deadly once he gets up a break...he usually serves it out like a surgeon. But the patient this time is Novak Djokovic who is not your run of the mill patient...once he gets down he digs in and the defence gets that much tougher to penetrate. No loose points from Djokovic in this situation...in this set. If Federer wins this set it changes the whole complextion of the match. Both players were doing a great job of maintaining pressure on the opponent...particularly on their own service games. I am not sure how many break points either player had but all attempts to consummate a break were fended off.

The second set was just a little bit different. Federer has his back against the wall and he played it accordingly. He is attacking decisively and managed to put significant pressure on Djokovic where he finally cracked on his service game at 5-6. Now it comes down to the final set.

The third set did not disappoint and closely resembled the first set up until the tie-breaker. But Roger seemed to run out of gas and the air went out of his balloon. Novak steam rolled him in the deciding tie-break.

Roger had no choice in this tournament than to face the remerging Djokovic. He had a walkover against the ever injured Milos Raonic and a couple of perfect warmup matches with Fabio Fognini and Kei Nishikori. He was fit for fight and ready to take on Novak Djokovic. These days he seems to lose to some rather interesting opponents the round before he plays Djokovic...it almost looks to me as if he doesn't relish the encounter. Perhaps to preserve his head to head against him a bit.