Interactive Forum: November 2008 Philipp Kohlschreiber Backhand

[normand_trempe]

I wouldn't say Federer doesn't ever rotate his hand and arm. You might want to check out this article. I'm sure we could find examples in the Kohlschrieber footage as well.

If you look closely at the forward swing you see that even with the classic finish, the hand and arm are turning over 90 degrees or so. But It's less frequent or extreme than the forehand, but it can be double that or so. It appears that this factor is a variation the players use to increase spin.

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/..._rotation.html

i realise i am not very specific in my explanations! What my coach wanted me to do wasnt just a 90 degree rotation which i agree happens almost on every shot, he wanted me to rotate it 180 degrees so that the head of the racquet was parallel to the ground on the opposite position that the racquet is at the hit. I felt my elbow and shoulder muscles were about to break.

[nabrug]

Maybe don't listen!

i realise i am not very specific in my explanations! What my coach wanted me to do wasnt just a 90 degree rotation which i agree happens almost on every shot, he wanted me to rotate it 180 degrees so that the head of the racquet was parallel to the ground on the opposite position that the racquet is at the hit. I felt my elbow and shoulder muscles were about to break.

I am almost convinced that what you mean belongs to the Bh2 technique. To explain this I have described the strokes from the movies of Kohlschreiber above on this thread.
Movie 1 (3 strokes): ?, ?, Bh2.
Movie 2 (4 strokes): Bh1, ? (probably Bh2), Bh2, Bh2.
Movie 3 (3 strokes): Bh2, Bh1, Bh2.

The danger is that coaches try to persuade caracteristics of strokes on pupils in order to achieve the same stroke of the top player without really understanding the stroke themselves. Something that also John Yandell mentioned several times in several articles as a warning. In this case the hand/arm rotation belongs to Bh2. People with Bh1 shouldn't strive for the same arm rotation like in Bh2.

Besides this as a tennis teacher I think that you shouldn't give pupils instructions about the form of the racket (racket face trajectory) in the end fase. The end fase gives information on the former racket trajectory. In my opinion you should only use this information to give feedback/instructions on the preparation fase and/or main fase of the swing.

Nico Mol
Amsterdam
Holland

[10isDad]

I have to say i have never seen Kohlschreiber play and so do not know his game style and how he uses his backhand.

Highlights of his biggest win (2008 Aussie over Roddick) are available on youtube, and lots of other match-clips. There's even a couple poor quality videos of highlights between Federer v Kohlschreiber.

BTW - Kohlschreiber ripped 30 BH winners on Roddick that night...

[normand_trempe]

youtube video of kohlschreiber

I went to see the video on you tube thanks. There is another great one on you tube

Federer vs Kohlschreiber - Gerry Weber Open 2008 - FI

and a great bh to bh rally between the 2 at around 6min.50sec. in the video

thanks for the link

[normand_trempe]

I am almost convinced that what you mean belongs to the Bh2 technique. To explain this I have described the strokes from the movies of Kohlschreiber above on this thread.
Movie 1 (3 strokes): ?, ?, Bh2.
Movie 2 (4 strokes): Bh1, ? (probably Bh2), Bh2, Bh2.
Movie 3 (3 strokes): Bh2, Bh1, Bh2.

The danger is that coaches try to persuade caracteristics of strokes on pupils in order to achieve the same stroke of the top player without really understanding the stroke themselves. Something that also John Yandell mentioned several times in several articles as a warning. In this case the hand/arm rotation belongs to Bh2. People with Bh1 shouldn't strive for the same arm rotation like in Bh2.

Besides this as a tennis teacher I think that you shouldn't give pupils instructions about the form of the racket (racket face trajectory) in the end fase. The end fase gives information on the former racket trajectory. In my opinion you should only use this information to give feedback/instructions on the preparation fase and/or main fase of the swing.

Nico Mol
Amsterdam
Holland

Hello Nico! i have watched the clips. And i was wondering what u meant when you said that people with BH1 shouldn't strive for the same arm rotation like in BH2 ?

It is interesting what you say that teachers shouldn't give pupils instruction about the form of the racket in the end fase of a stroke. I believe it Takes away the focus from what the racket should be doing at the contact and can disrupt the swing. I made that mistake with myself.

[nabrug]

Hello Nico! i have watched the clips. And i was wondering what u meant when you said that people with BH1 shouldn't strive for the same arm rotation like in BH2 ?

It is interesting what you say that teachers shouldn't give pupils instruction about the form of the racket in the end fase of a stroke. I believe it Takes away the focus from what the racket should be doing at the contact and can disrupt the swing. I made that mistake with myself.

For more information read the thread with title: Fh1/Bh1 versus Fh2(A)/Bh2(A).
In short: they are really different techniques. The arm/hand rotation is a result(!) of the Bh2 (a circulair/angulair) technique. Bh1 is a more lineair stroke. The stroke is explained perfectly at Tennisplayer.net!

Nico Mol.

[normand_trempe]

For more information read the thread with title: Fh1/Bh1 versus Fh2(A)/Bh2(A).
In short: they are really different techniques. The arm/hand rotation is a result(!) of the Bh2 (a circulair/angulair) technique. Bh1 is a more lineair stroke. The stroke is explained perfectly at Tennisplayer.net!

Nico Mol.

got it. I had read that thread but I thought that you were talking about people who had 2 different kinds of backhands. But i figure you meant that on different kinds of balls you don't want to use the same technique.

[nabrug]

got it. I had read that thread but I thought that you were talking about people who had 2 different kinds of backhands. But i figure you meant that on different kinds of balls you don't want to use the same technique.

I don't know exactly what you mean. But Federer e.g. is able to use both. He can use them on the same kinds of balls because it also depends on the game situation which ball trajectory he wants to produce. So the game situation is also important.

[bottle]

All Discussions of Backhand go to an Ordinary Player trying to hit one

I remember Ben Ford, the tour technician, telling me that when he invents an improved stroke for some talented pro, he wants to test it first on lesser players because the extremely talented player can make any flawed stroke work-- one that will later crumble in battle. But if the new stroke works
well for the lesser player-- well, then, most likely it's sound.

Along these lines I recently found a beautiful one-hander on the web-- or rather it came to me in my email replete with four beautiful videos of the progression I needed to use thoroughly and easily to learn it.

It's a great stroke similar to what USPTA pro Jim Kacian taught me 20 years ago, and I used it with success. Around the third or fourth match with my regular opponent, however, it started to break down.

It was then I became more respectful of all the conscious design I put into my
imitation then takeoff on Federer but had mercifully forgotten. I'm not Federer-- that's not my point-- but hand goes sideways on the grip change, not straight back. Then rear shoulder goes up, and hand still is near where the ball will be. The late takeback of arm and looping of it forward combined with a slight dancer's pivot is nothing if not reliable-- simply because the arm didn't commit itself too soon.

I can definitely see some delay in Kohlschreiber's arm getting back.

[normand_trempe]

I don't know exactly what you mean. But Federer e.g. is able to use both. He can use them on the same kinds of balls because it also depends on the game situation which ball trajectory he wants to produce. So the game situation is also important.

I meant two people how have two different kinds of backhands technique. Let's say a Venus Williams who has got both her elbows bent at impact in her two hander compared to Agassi who has both straight. Or comparing Federer, who still has his elbow bent when the racket starts moving forward to contact and Kohlscreiber or Kuerten who have theyr arm already straight at that same moment. You are right, game situation is important also.

[normand_trempe]

Is there something Federer could do better on his BH ?

I know the thread was to talk about Kohlschreiber but i can't find something he could do better with his bh. On another note i think Federer's bh has become a weakness in his game looking at the Wimbledon final. I think one best sees one's weakness in the most pressure filled situations and Fed's bh stopped him from being the winner i believe.

- He gets on the defensive in bh topspin rallies from the backcourt
- It makes him overuse his fh and puts him in difficult positions
- He doesn't have the confidence to rip it when it would be beneficial
- He is not as offensive as he could be on return of 2nd serves, when the time is right.

What do you guys think about this ?
And what could he improve on his bh or in his game in general ?

[nabrug]

I know the thread was to talk about Kohlschreiber but i can't find something he could do better with his bh. On another note i think Federer's bh has become a weakness in his game looking at the Wimbledon final. I think one best sees one's weakness in the most pressure filled situations and Fed's bh stopped him from being the winner i believe.

- He gets on the defensive in bh topspin rallies from the backcourt
- It makes him overuse his fh and puts him in difficult positions
- He doesn't have the confidence to rip it when it would be beneficial
- He is not as offensive as he could be on return of 2nd serves, when the time is right.

What do you guys think about this ?
And what could he improve on his bh or in his game in general ?

The answer lies in understanding Fh2A/Bh2A. Federer is only one step away unlike other players. If only he can use Bh2A on the high bouncing rotational services of Nadal he has a tool to get in the ralley in a very save way. Slicing is NOT the answer.

Fh2/Bh2 give more circular and rotational shots. They are produced more in defending and building situations. It requires less precisement. Fh2A/Bh2A gives most rotation. The stroke is not risky. When you go from Fh2 to Fh2A you can almost hit with all your power (in the largest hitting zone) without having to control that like you have to do with Fh1. The ball hardly goes wrong.

I know that Federer is the better player if they use the same techniques.

Nico Mol.

[normand_trempe]

i don't understand!

The answer lies in understanding Fh2A/Bh2A. Federer is only one step away unlike other players. If only he can use Bh2A on the high bouncing rotational services of Nadal he has a tool to get in the ralley in a very save way. Slicing is NOT the answer.

Fh2/Bh2 give more circular and rotational shots. They are produced more in defending and building situations. It requires less precisement. Fh2A/Bh2A gives most rotation. The stroke is not risky. When you go from Fh2 to Fh2A you can almost hit with all your power (in the largest hitting zone) without having to control that like you have to do with Fh1. The ball hardly goes wrong.

I know that Federer is the better player if they use the same techniques.

Nico Mol.

Hello Nico! Where do u get your fh1 fh2, are you talking about Federer ?

[nabrug]

For more information read the thread with title: Fh1/Bh1 versus Fh2(A)/Bh2(A).

[normand_trempe]

?!

For more information read the thread with title: Fh1/Bh1 versus Fh2(A)/Bh2(A).

Hello Nabrug! I didn't even want to read your whole thread...but i did, well half. It's way too complicated and way too unspecific i cannot understand a thing. You have to explain it simpler man or differently. From what i understood fh1 could be the same forehand stroke as fh2 but with a different ball trajectory or spin ?