Interactive Forum: Extension

[johnyandell]

Extension

Our moderator EricMatuszewski has a great new topic for this month: extension.

What is the importance of extension in a forehand, How much should a player extend?

When should players extend more and when should players extend less?

Can this be determined and if so how? Below are 4 examples of short balls,
the first two are Roger Federer and the second two Rafael Nadal.

In the next window down, you'll find the Quick Time movies of the exact same shots, to study frame by frame.

It's a hot topic in tennis! What do you think?


Federer






Nadal

[johnyandell]

Extenison

Frame by Frame Quick Time Movies




Federer







Nadal

[gzhpcu]

I think extension is important for speed and control, the lifting, pronating motion for spin.

I would think, when hitting a short ball, less extension for a heavily angled shot, lots of extension for a power putaway shot.

When hitting long balls, lots of extension for speed and depth. In most cases here, accompanied by the lifting pronating motion to get a heavy ball.

[stroke]

This thread ties in nicely to Jeff Count's piece in this month's issue, the "Windshield Wiper Forehand". Jeff points out that so many of us don't get this world class forehand extension, and he singles out a root cause being not getting one's shoulder into the shot. Clearly, Federer is a perfect example of the proper execution of the forehand that Jeff is describing in his piece. Nadal, it looks like to me, somewhat lacks this shoulder element Jeff speaks of, but it obviously is not much of a detriment to his final product. All the featured players in Jeff's piece also use the double bend forehand technique, as Jeff points out. As many have pointed out before, both Fed and Nadal have a nearly straight arm at contact. I would like Jeff's take on these thoughts, and how it may or may not tie it to his Windshield Wiper piece.

[maverick1]

I too am very curious about this point (elbow bent vs straight at contact).

I personally feel like I hit a better forehand when extending my elbow straight and making contact well in front of the body. That extension brings a little extra power from the triceps, and the contact in front makes it easier to keep my eyes pointed at the contact zone.

Anyway, I probably have many more elementary issues with my game that I need to worry about, and I am looking forward to my first lesson(with Eric, no less) tonight!

[lukman41985]

Check out the amount of extension Federer and Nadal get in the top two clips. Nadal starts a little bit further underneath the ball than Federer but they both hit through the ball tremendously. They are playing these approaches deep. I'm not sure where Federer is hitting his approach but Nadal is definitely goind down-the-line.

In the bottom two clips, both players are hitting angled, crosscourt forehands. Quick observation: both guys are the best I've seen hit the angled forehand since Gustavo Kuerten. Pete Sampras had a great angled forehand, but only seemed to hit it on the run, when he had the angle. Guga, Rog, and Rafa can hit the angle from even the center of the court. Anyways, Rog and Rafa's angled forehands produce two different types of balls from what I've seen on TV. Rog's ball starts hooking right off the racquet. It hits the ground, tails away, but bounces low. Rafa's ball hooks just as much, hits the ground, and explodes off the ground like a serve that has a combo of kick and slice spin. It's unbelievable. It makes sense looking at the bottom clips. Roger's swing path is more 9 o'clock to 3 o'clock whereas Rafa is more 7 to 1. Regardless, it'd be hell to try to chase down either ball and do something with it. Both guys hit the angled forehand to win the point, or maybe a point or two after just because of intimidation and running the opponent ragged.

So, the trend seems to be that you should extend more to land the ball deeper. Extend less to land the ball shorter. Today's players during the rally can also extend less, land the ball on the service line, and because of all the spin/velocity they place on the ball, hit what used to be considered a short, attackable ball and get it screaming to the baseline and up high on the opponent. Something you may have read about here on the forum--I believe this was written by Giancarlo Andreani:

Hello,

I might have some info on this "hitting short" trend. According to my Spanish coach, Joaquin Lopez, who was a professional and training with Moya, Corretja and Co. in Barcelona, this is done purposefully. The idea being that it is low risk, and please remember: a ball with 3500 to 5000RPM landing on the service line is virtually impossible to take on the rise. Since it's trajectory is really high. Actual data will be available in the near future so I hear.

Also, the Spanish guys are mostly trained on clay where this ball hit short with this amount of spin is truly impossible to take early. Bad bounce included.

Let me know if I can give you more info on this. I am tempted to inquire more info from Joaquin on this.

The best,

gc

So it's not a one-size fits all thing. As Brett Hobden said in his article What is the Modern Forehand?: "The modern forehand(s): technical solutions tailored to each tactical problem." (http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/..._forehand.html)
Check out this clip of Roger hitting a beautiful, intuitive, short, crosscourt, forehand angle:

Roger hitting the deep, down-the-line forehand approach:

[jeffreycounts]

This thread ties in nicely to Jeff Count's piece in this month's issue, the "Windshield Wiper Forehand". Jeff points out that so many of us don't get this world class forehand extension, and he singles out a root cause being not getting one's shoulder into the shot. Clearly, Federer is a perfect example of the proper execution of the forehand that Jeff is describing in his piece. Nadal, it looks like to me, somewhat lacks this shoulder element Jeff speaks of, but it obviously is not much of a detriment to his final product. All the featured players in Jeff's piece also use the double bend forehand technique, as Jeff points out. As many have pointed out before, both Fed and Nadal have a nearly straight arm at contact. I would like Jeff's take on these thoughts, and how it may or may not tie it to his Windshield Wiper piece.

Thanks for referencing my article and for the fantastic questions you raise. The way I see it is that Federer and Nadal can do what they do for one big reason. Leverage. Take a look at Nadal's contact point in this picture.

Because his arm is completely straight, he can't push through the ball at all. There is literally no room for movement forward, unlike with the double bend. But the extreme leverage is getting massive spring off the strings based on the contact point alone. It's like a stiff arm in football where the running back sticks a straight arm out and the leverage will knock the opponent over. Or it's like pong, where you don't push your square forward to hit the ball back, you just block it, and the mass of the paddle will get the ball to bounce off quickly.

There are two things you can do at this point though. You can lift the arm up. And you can turn the hand over. This is what Federer and Nadal do. They get this massive leverage which gets "free" power, and then they add lift from the arm and torque from the hand. Nadal's reverse forehand relies on a rapid and extreme lift of the arm upward. Federer uses the hand turn primarily.

I am an accomplished table tennis player, and their shots remind me a lot of table tennis backhand, because in a table tennis backhand all you are doing is turning your hand and forearm. The force of the ball meeting a leveraged paddle gets you the power automatically. All you have to do is add torque from the hand and forearm. There is almost no forward movement in the table tennis backhand, just torquing motions.

Finally about Nadal's shoulder. Look at the size of his left shoulder. It's insane. And if you think of the arm as a lever, then the supporting base of the lever is his shoulder. You can see it clearly in this picture. So the "base" of this lever - his shoulder - is behind every single forehand.

What I find fascinating about the straight arm forehands is that it mirrors the one handed backhand where the arm is a locked, straight, lever. The difference, however, is that on the forehand the hand can quickly turn the racket and arm over, giving you tons of torque on the ball. The onehander, with the way the hand is oriented, doesn't allow this kind of turning motion.

[lukman41985]

Jeff,
Do you think the straight-arm leverage technique is usually more difficult to learn than the double-bend technique? Is it fair of me to speak of them as two different techniques? It would seem that the double bend would feel more natural. Thanks for all your great insights, articles, pictures, videos, etc. By the way, here's a picture you'd appreciate:

[jeffreycounts]

Jeff,
Do you think the straight-arm leverage technique is usually more difficult to learn than the double-bend technique? Is it fair of me to speak of them as two different techniques? It would seem that the double bend would feel more natural. Thanks for all your great insights, articles, pictures, videos, etc. By the way, here's a picture you'd appreciate:

That's a beauty!

Personally I think the straight arm forehand is very, very difficult to learn, let alone master. I would argue that the way Nadal and Federer hit the ball is completely unteachable. That is pure instinctive talent. The timing involved in what they do is extraordinary. You would have to be an amazing athlete with thousands of hours on the court to hit the forehands they do.

Now Srichaphan and Philippousis (the two hardest names in the world to spell) have straight arm forehands but they certaintly aren't doing what Federer and Nadal are doing with their forehands (wrist release, extreme lift or turning of the hand and forearm). Their style of straight armed forehands is much more achievable, but I think the good double bend hitters are much more effective than those two.

The Federer/Nadal forehands are very difficult for many reasons. The wrist release the straight arm leverage, the perfect timing of lifting the arm and turning the hand. I mean you would have to be an extraordinary athlete, combined with thousands of hours on the court, to even have a chance of getting this type of forehand. I can't imagine how many frustrated people have tried to imitate the Federer forehand and ended up frustrated.

The double bend forehand is so much simpler technically. And it is incredibly powerful and versatile. Right now, the double bend forehand is good enough to get you to number 3 in the world on the men's side. So I only teach it unless someone naturally picks up a straight armed forehand. Even on the pro tour now, there aren't any up and coming players who hit like Nadal or Federer. Andy Murray, the one everyone is excited about now, has a solid double bend with very little wrist movement. Another young guy I love is Djokovic, who has the double bend as well. I'm not sure if we will see a Fed/Nadal forehand in the next 10 years to be honest.

One thing I think people miss by studying video is just how hard the double bend forehands are. If you sit in the front row of a Hewitt match, you will be blown away by the power he generates off his forehand. Sit in the first row a Hingis match, for that matter, and you would be struck at the pace she is generating with her double bend forehand. The combination of clean contact with the shoulder support and drive is lethal.

Just my thoughts

Jeff

[lukman41985]

Another young guy I love is Djokovic, who has the double bend as well.

No wonder. Talk about a beautiful double bend and extension!

[jeffreycounts]

No wonder. Talk about a beautiful double bend and extension!

Perfect example Lukman. I could have used this in my article. Toggle on the frame two frames before contact, up to contact, and the frame just after contact. Incredibly the double bend is completely intact in all four frames. He extends the double bend through contact by extending from the shoulder.

This is why I hate the term "racket head speed". First of all, the racket stays back through contact, so I don't see how speedy it can be on impact. And second, the racket is part of an entire structure (the double bend). When people focus on racket head speed, they typically break out of the double bend and get the racket swinging ahead of the shoulder and body on its own. This prevents the hand and racket from staying back while the powerful shoulder pushes through and then turns over.

Awesome example!

[johnyandell]

Friggin' pretty! Nice filming by our main in Umag, Giancarlo Andreani!

[lukman41985]

Jeff, would you mind discussing further how Paradon and Flipper are different than Nadal and Federer with regard to their straight-arm forehands?

[jeffreycounts]

Jeff, would you mind discussing further how Paradon and Flipper are different than Nadal and Federer with regard to their straight-arm forehands?

I gotta go to sleep! But do this. Get a rear view of Paradorn's forehand and compare it to Federer's. You will see very, very different wrist action there. This difference leads to different dynamics through contact.

[lukman41985]

Do You See A Difference?

I gotta go to sleep! But do this. Get a rear view of Paradorn's forehand and compare it to Federer's. You will see very, very different wrist action there. This difference leads to different dynamics through contact.

Conservative grips, straight hitting arms, what's the difference?