Neutral Stance For Approach/Short Balls

[jperedo]

Hello,

In the hope of curing my inconsistency with attacking short balls, I've recently been studying videos of short ball forehands in the archive.
I noticed that most are hit using a neutral stance. Is there a known biomechanical reason for this?

Hewitt neutral stance short ball -

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/...ShortSide5.mov

Hewitt open stance baseline ball -

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/...tanceSide3.mov

Hewitt neutral stance baseline ball -

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/...tanceSide2.mov

I also have analyzed Robredo shortside3, openstanceside3, and CenterNeutralStanceCourtLevelSide

My initial impressions -

1. Where neutral stance is used, the ball is struck further in front of the body (ie - closer to the net) compared to open stance.

2. When comparing the short neutral stance versus the baseline neutral stance, it appears that the ball is struck further in front of the body on the short ball.

My tentative conclusion is that hitting further in front using a WWiper motion results in more "brushing of the ball". On the other hand, hitting closer to the body allows one to hit "through" the ball more. The former would cause the ball to travel a shorter distance, therefore the ball stays in when hitting the short ball. Somehow the neutral stance helps facilitate this.


Agree/Disagree?


(Also if someone could show me how to convert the links above such that the videos are viewable directly on the message board that'd be great!)

[uspta146749877]

Choice between netral and open

Hello,

In the hope of curing my inconsistency with attacking short balls, I've recently been studying videos of short ball forehands in the archive.
I noticed that most are hit using a neutral stance. Is there a known biomechanical reason for this?

Hewitt neutral stance short ball -

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/...ShortSide5.mov

Hewitt open stance baseline ball -

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/...tanceSide3.mov

Hewitt neutral stance baseline ball -

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/...tanceSide2.mov

I also have analyzed Robredo shortside3, openstanceside3, and CenterNeutralStanceCourtLevelSide

My initial impressions -

1. Where neutral stance is used, the ball is struck further in front of the body (ie - closer to the net) compared to open stance.

2. When comparing the short neutral stance versus the baseline neutral stance, it appears that the ball is struck further in front of the body on the short ball.

My tentative conclusion is that hitting further in front using a WWiper motion results in more "brushing of the ball". On the other hand, hitting closer to the body allows one to hit "through" the ball more. The former would cause the ball to travel a shorter distance, therefore the ball stays in when hitting the short ball. Somehow the neutral stance helps facilitate this.


Agree/Disagree?


(Also if someone could show me how to convert the links above such that the videos are viewable directly on the message board that'd be great!)

A choice between open and neutral depends:
1.whether a player has enough time to set up an open stance
2.a recovery time for open and neutral are different

[airforce1]

My initial impressions -

1. Where neutral stance is used, the ball is struck further in front of the body (ie - closer to the net) compared to open stance.

2. When comparing the short neutral stance versus the baseline neutral stance, it appears that the ball is struck further in front of the body on the short ball.

My tentative conclusion is that hitting further in front using a WWiper motion results in more "brushing of the ball". On the other hand, hitting closer to the body allows one to hit "through" the ball more. The former would cause the ball to travel a shorter distance, therefore the ball stays in when hitting the short ball. Somehow the neutral stance helps facilitate this.


Agree/Disagree?


(Also if someone could show me how to convert the links above such that the videos are viewable directly on the message board that'd be great!)

not sure I followed your conclusions correctly, but my thoughts are that the WW FH is best hit from a slightly open stance opposed to a neutral one. Also that with the WW, the ball will be hit way out front and closer to net with heavy drive and topspin. I think it is the superior attack for a FH that bounces high enough to use it.

For lower balls I prefer the neutral or slightly closed stance with a more eastern grip to dig them out.

[uspta146749877]

Videos

Hello,

In the hope of curing my inconsistency with attacking short balls, I've recently been studying videos of short ball forehands in the archive.
I noticed that most are hit using a neutral stance. Is there a known biomechanical reason for this?

Hewitt neutral stance short ball -

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/...ShortSide5.mov

Hewitt open stance baseline ball -

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/...tanceSide3.mov

Hewitt neutral stance baseline ball -

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/...tanceSide2.mov

I also have analyzed Robredo shortside3, openstanceside3, and CenterNeutralStanceCourtLevelSide

My initial impressions -

1. Where neutral stance is used, the ball is struck further in front of the body (ie - closer to the net) compared to open stance.

2. When comparing the short neutral stance versus the baseline neutral stance, it appears that the ball is struck further in front of the body on the short ball.

My tentative conclusion is that hitting further in front using a WWiper motion results in more "brushing of the ball". On the other hand, hitting closer to the body allows one to hit "through" the ball more. The former would cause the ball to travel a shorter distance, therefore the ball stays in when hitting the short ball. Somehow the neutral stance helps facilitate this.


Agree/Disagree?


(Also if someone could show me how to convert the links above such that the videos are viewable directly on the message board that'd be great!)

videos-you have to specify a longer path
for example in the case of hewitt

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/strokearchive/pro_men/lleyton_hewitt/lh_forehand/lh_fh_short/lh_fh_short.html?LHFHShortSide5.mov

see what is specified at at the URL description at the top of the page

[ochi]

A basic reason for overhitting shortballs is letting the racquet arm trail. The farther one moves into the court, the more the racquet should be brought forward. From the service line on, it's a modified volley. One's feet should wind up where they ought to be, like a shortstop's. Lots of variables will dictate the stroke and follow-through that is required. That's what I was told during a lesson many years ago, after I complained to the instructor that I frequently blew easy sitters -- especially crummy, blocked serve returns. The better I served, the more of those came across the net to me, and it was driving me nuts. It took him just a few minutes to set me straight.

[uspta2448519013]

Typically it's because your body is moving forward and the feet end up that way more often than not because of that.

[ochi]

Exactly -- all that body weight moving forward, even just a bit, plus a long swing, makes it difficult to control the shot. Also, it seems to me that hip-blocking makes for a compact, controllable swing. This takes practice. Is a semi-open stance best? Like Sampras being at a 45-degree angle when volleying?

[jperedo]

Exactly -- all that body weight moving forward, even just a bit, plus a long swing, makes it difficult to control the shot. Also, it seems to me that hip-blocking makes for a compact, controllable swing. This takes practice. Is a semi-open stance best? Like Sampras being at a 45-degree angle when volleying?

Hi Ochi thanks for your response.

I'll have to disagree somewhat with the shortened swing part. If you compare the video of Hewitt hitting from the baseline to the video of him hitting from the service line, both appear to have an equally long backswing. Also note that he is propelling himself forward on the short ball rather than stopping and hitting. I've noticed a similar pattern when comparing the short ball forehands of the different pros on the site.

The hip blocking is interesting idea. I'd appreciate if you could elaborate further else I'll research the concept on the web. Thanks for bringing it up.

[ochi]

If we had the talent and coordination, and put in as much practice as Lleyton Hewitt, we could run in with the racquet arm way back and put away shortballs, too. A hard-hitting local instructor who was ranked in the top 10 nationally in doubles last year went up against a guy in open singles who blasted every shortball for a winner. It amazed him. He can't do it, good as he is.

Try shortening your takeback more and more, the farther you come in. I think you'll like the result. It's really a matter of that old maxim, "Keep it simple."

How to explain hip-blocking? I just now stood up and made a shadow swing. As my hand got just beyond my right hip, I stopped my hip turn cold. Not sure if that's exactly what I do on court. Not sure of useful variables, either. On low balls, perhaps it comes of having limited set-up time once you've dashed in. But if the ball sits up and waits for you, the temptation is to take a big cut, which will remind you almost every time that you are not Hewitt -- unless the ball sits way up and you are very close to the net.

I am going to search Tennisplayer for advice on this. JY, is it there? If not, how about some guidance for all of us less-than-gifted recreational players?

[jperedo]

Looking at the video I do see now that the neutral stance shots do have less hip rotation.
I think this would essentially slow down the swing, without having to adjust the backswing.

Whatever it does, it seems to work in practice.

[airforce1]

I wouldn't adjust my technique too much before I addressed the string issue. I can be much more aggressive with short balls now that I'm using a new soft poly string that has amazing precision and good power. I can get more spin and use a bigger swing, but still hit my spots.

[ochi]

Airforce, please, which poly? What racquet, gauge, what tension, and how much loss of tension did you notice over the first few days? Your increased control hitting shortballs makes me want to try it. A few weeks ago, I used a friend's Flexpoint 4, which is lighter and has a much wider beam and more power than my L-Radical. I was surprised at how much faster my forehands and serves were going in. Even though I was hitting forehands much harder than usual, they were not going long -- actually, they weren't going as deep as I like. That racquet had a months-old Banger string job. I decided to buy one, but couldn't find one, so I bought a Liquidmetal 4, its predecessor (almost the same racquet, but slightly heavier). I had it strung with RIP, at 62, which is what I have in my Radical. After getting the tension down into the 50s, I played with it, and my shots were flying. After two sets, I went back to my Radical. I guess I'll have to shell out for poly now, but have no idea which one to choose.

[airforce1]

Ochi,

yes, it is Pro Supex, Big Ace string 1.22 g. Touted to be as soft and powerful as some multi's, but still has the control of a poly. Also known to maintain playability twice as long as most polys. I only dropped my tension by 2-3 lbs and it felt great.

I'm using 57 mains/ 55 crosses in the red head 102 prestige.

Before I used sensation at 59-60lbs, and for the last yr I enjoyed BBO crosses at 56 and sensation mains at 59.

I think it's worth a try and I may go to a lighter stick (prince Black) to increase bat speed with all the control I'm getting with this string. I hit with a prince pro tour Ozone with alu, that felt incredible.

[ochi]

Thanks, Airforce. There's a lot of very helpful information at Stringforum.net, but it's overwhelming. The many testers' reviews at the Tennis Warehouse forum for a couple of the Luxilon strings and the Babolat Pro Hurricane are all over the place -- they hold tension, they lose tension fast; easy on the arm, hard on the arm; great control, balls fly. I'm going to go by what what you and my friend with the Flexpoint say, for now. He's using Alu, and next will try Luxilon's Flouro.

By the way, a friend switched to a Prince Black (the Bryans' racquet) last year, and his game improved a notch, to 4.5 or approaching it, and he's 62! I'll have to ask what string he uses.

[airforce1]

Thanks, Airforce. There's a lot of very helpful information at Stringforum.net, but it's overwhelming. The many testers' reviews at the Tennis Warehouse forum for a couple of the Luxilon strings and the Babolat Pro Hurricane are all over the place -- they hold tension, they lose tension fast; easy on the arm, hard on the arm; great control, balls fly. I'm going to go by what what you and my friend with the Flexpoint say, for now. He's using Alu, and next will try Luxilon's Flouro.

I think there are several excellent 2ond/3rd gen polys out there right now, but it was clear to me that Big ace stood above the others in value,--
based on costs, playability, tension maintenance, durability, comfort and length of good playability.