A New Year's Serve

[don_budge]

The Mirror Image...Rosewall vs. McEnroe

For me, it's Rosewall's backhand passing shot that clinches it. Okay Mac could hit over his backhand where Rosewall couldn't, but Rosewall hit sliced backhand passing shots...repeatedly...successfully. A sliced backhand must be exceptionally good to do that. I say "sliced"...many say Rosewall sliced his backhand...and he did...but when I saw him play he hit only with a tad of slice, not much...more flat if you ask me. Like I said, it travelled better, travelled harder than Mac's...perhaps because it was flatter.

If you want to see a great volleyer then trawl the British Pathe website for clips of Frank Sedgman. He was great off both wings, probably the best ever...pulverised both his backhand and forehand volley, technically superb...even with a wooden racket and aging celluloid that ball is really moving in those clips. He was also a tremendous mover with quite brilliant footwork. Sedgman and Hoad were quite wonderful players and uniquely brilliant. The tragedy is they are lost forever in terms of quality footage...utterly breaks my heart...snaps it in two. You see, I love tennis and its history as much as you, don_budge...

It's an interesting comparison...Rosewall and McEnroe. Rosewall being right-handed and McEnroe swinging from the other side. The strategies would be in the mirror image...for example, McEnroe used to exploit the right-hander backhand down the line whereas Rosewall would be going cross court to the right-hander backhand.

When going down the line with the slice McEnroe may have been more concerned with placement and feathery touch in combination with depth and power more often than Rosewall's down the line. Rosewall may have been more concerned with penetration and a bit more zip when attacking the opponents forehand. Conversely we can speculate about their respective approach to hitting cross court.

Undoubtably the technique is designed for the intended tactics. Just a whimsical thought...regards the comparison of the two. Plus their respective style of play had their own distinctive individualistic take on the game. Perhaps Rosewall stuck to the book just a bit more...with the madness that was John McEnroe exhibiting just a touch more artistic flair. At least it may have appeared so because Rosewall stuck to the Aussie script for sportsmanship and classy behavior.

But I think that your assessments have the advantage of the perch that you have been sitting in all of those years at Wimbledon. Lucky you!

[bottle]

Two Hand One Hand High BH Volley

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/strokearchive/pro_woman/martina_hingis/mh_approach_and_volley/mh_forehand_approach/mh_forehand_approach.html?MHFHApproachBHV.mov

Sometimes a shot just seems naturally smart.

And once a player reaches that decision, he or she is apt to try to implement and master this shot.

An alternative would be to achieve similar forward racket work but with one hand. I can see some good days using this method instead. But the two hand one hand model means added strength and control going up—no?

[bottle]

El Tweako: The Name of Tennis

Somebody who has just lost a match, I suppose, is most apt to change some part of their game. But a player who has done very well may feel exhilarated enough also to try something new.

On what I call my ATP forehand, I've been dividing my measured backswing into no more than a pair of conceptual units: First Turn and Continued Turn.

My first turn has kept hand parallel to the court, but I could be doing more with my arm just then, could lift it a bit to create a feeling of lightness and rhythm to meld into tapping the dog.

I also have been delaying wrist layback to the "continued turn" stage. No, I'll do that simultaneous with the small lift, with hopes of melding this energy into the arm straightening with less of a sharp turn and more gain of gradual increments of racket speed before the maximal increase occurring at flip.

The working image for all of this is "upside down boot" repeatedly emphasized by Doug Eng and others.

One reaches the "just try this" image in the Rick Macci videos but in a slightly different way.

If the tweak doesn't work just right, I return to what I did before.

But such "de-experiment" is more psychologically difficult than being correct with one's hunch in the first place.

[10splayer]

Somebody who has just lost a match, I suppose, is most apt to change some part of their game. But a player who has done very well may feel exhilarated enough also to try something new.

On what I call my ATP forehand, I've been dividing my measured backswing into no more than a pair of conceptual units: First Turn and Continued Turn.

My first turn has kept hand parallel to the court, but I could be doing more with my arm just then, could lift it a bit to create a feeling of lightness and rhythm to meld into tapping the dog.

I also have been delaying wrist layback to the "continued turn" stage. No, I'll do that simultaneous with the small lift, with hopes of melding this energy into the arm straightening with less of a sharp turn and more gain of gradual increments of racket speed before the maximal increase occurring at flip.

The working image for all of this is "upside down boot" repeatedly emphasized by Doug Eng and others.

One reaches the "just try this" image in the Rick Macci videos but in a slightly different way.

If the tweak doesn't work just right, I return to what I did before.

But such "de-experiment" is more psychologically difficult than being correct with one's hunch in the first place.

Are you opposed to taking a video of the stroke? I for one, would like to see it. Sounds like you're on the right track.

[bottle]

I'm a little opposed, simply because there's so much video out there, which makes me want to explore the "verbal cue" area all the more-- I'd like to go in that different direction.

That doesn't mean I don't respect video, which I use all the time, though not of myself.

Also, I don't have easy filming capability. And I'm busy writing and editing all sorts of stuff (not just here).

Thanks for suggesting I may be on the right track with my forehand. Part of my approach's weirdness (which naturally I welcome) is that stuff happens such as winning with the old-- as opposed to the new-- idea.

But when is a new idea not an old one anyway?

I really liked hearing about Scott Murphy's mid-career experiments with self-feed. And reading once about how Manuel Santana went out on the grass without a hitting partner the night before the Wimbledon final to hit lobs which he used the next day to win.

So much for the ignoramuses who say that self-feeding has no relation to actual tennis.

One might as well say that introspection is anachronism in the superficiality of modern civilization.

One needs it all-- calm reflection, much hitting with others, good coaching and input from anybody.

Film will help, too, if that's your bag. I know I successfully used it on a large number of college men and women when I was a crew coach.

P.S. Part of the pleasure I take from tennis is talking about it, a little like Freddie Bartholomew in his father's car speeding back from Gloucester, Massachusetts to New York City in the Kipling-derived film CAPTAINS COURAGEOUS. We only see him through a car window. Little Freddie is gesticulating with both hands, showing the size of some of the fish that he and Spencer Tracy (Manuel the Portuguese fisherman who was crushed by a falling mast) caught together.

At a Michigan party yesterday I had a long discussion with a 70-year-old resident of Vero Beach, Florida, a former district manager for Sears & Roebuck. Was he a tennis player? Sure. But had he heard of TennisPlayer or "The ATP Forehand?" Nope. It's fun at a party where the other people are on different topics to hold your cocked arm way out from your body in the just tapped the dog and "just try this" position.

[bottle]

Backhand Slice is Ninety Per Cent Philosophy

The strongest backhand slices and backhand volleys (not always the best idea!) have this in common. They sling the racket head with double roll and make contact with wrist ahead of strings, which are above it, employing an "inside out" or beautifully tangential swing, i.e., strings just come out to ball before going in from it.

To this player, then, contact appears to occur on inside of the ball although that probably isn't the actual case.

A good cue-- "hit inside of ball"-- is more important than science because my usual goal is to keep the ball sizzling low, and to do so I need to fool myself a bit.

Side-spinning ball to outside is an entirely different story.

Then one can cross the ball, from outside to in, with cue and science the same.

[10splayer]

The strongest backhand slices and backhand volleys (not always the best idea!) have this in common. They sling the racket head with double roll and make contact with wrist ahead of strings, which are above it, employing an "inside out" or beautifully tangential swing, i.e., strings just come out to ball before going in from it.

To this player, then, contact appears to occur on inside of the ball although that probably isn't the actual case.

A good cue-- "hit inside of ball"-- is more important than science because my usual goal is to keep the ball sizzling low, and to do so I need to fool myself a bit.

Side-spinning ball to outside is an entirely different story.

Then one can cross the ball, from outside to in, with cue and science the same.

Most "slices" have a degree of sidespin on them. (esp as the contact point is lower) This happens as a result of a path that works down, but slightly outside/in. This "path" is pretty constant regardless of directional intent. That, (direction/shot line) is governed by racquet face angle at impact. So, your tip to hit the inside, or outside, or back of the ball really is a cue that helps direct the ball to different quadrants of the court. If a player is trying to hit an inside out shot, an image of attacking the inside part of the ball is a good one, as it promotes more "lag" in the racquet head. On the flip side, getting to the outside of the ball will promote more racquet head "lead" and a crosscourt shot line. At any rate, the outside/in path is more or less the same for both. So path dictates spin axis and racquet face dictates shot line.

Just my 02 cents.

[stotty]

Most "slices" have a degree of sidespin on them. (esp as the contact point is lower) This happens as a result of a path that works down, but slightly outside/in. This "path" is pretty constant regardless of directional intent. That, (direction/shot line) is governed by racquet face angle at impact. So, your tip to hit the inside, or outside, or back of the ball really is a cue that helps direct the ball to different quadrants of the court. If a player is trying to hit an inside out shot, an image of attacking the inside part of the ball is a good one, as it promotes more "lag" in the racquet head. On the flip side, getting to the outside of the ball will promote more racquet head "lead" and a crosscourt shot line. At any rate, the outside/in path is more or less the same for both. So path dictates spin axis and racquet face dictates shot line.

Just my 02 cents.

Don't most sliced backhands involve mostly outside/in sidespin? Higher and medium balls would inevitably have outside/in sidespin? Inside/out sidespin would require a lower ball and the wrist/racket to drop to allow the racket to carve inside the ball...to get some inside out swerve, correct? Pat cash did this well when approaching the net.

I am curious about your thoughts on the height of the backswing for sliced backhands. Players such as Cash and McEnroe lowered/raised their backswing slightly depending on the height of the incoming ball. These days players start so high on all balls and cut more heavily downwards. Why is that? Is it a forced issue due to the spin/power of today's game? Or have certain techniques of the shot been lost due to the sliced backhands being somewhat less necessary than in the past..

[bottle]

My Interest: Gaining Control Over Sidespin/Backspin Mix

This primarily in response to 10splayer but maybe addresses what Stotty is saying, too:

Okay, interesting, and I've thought plenty about these specific steering possibilities before, particularly in connection with Pancho Segura's advice to hit sidespun forehand approach shots down the line so that they will bounce off to the outside.

Mucho spin, sting, pace, direction, and lowness (assuming slice) all would be desirable, but I don't think you can have drastic sideways break and drastic lowness too-- there's a trade-off.

Anyway, my ideas in this case came very simply from a self-feed session ten minutes before my post.

Regardless of target (and with the same target for bounce on other side of net), I got some balls to break sharply from bounce, some to break a little with a lower bounce, and some to seemingly not break at all just stay (very) low.

Note: It might be a cop-out to say: "What does theory matter if something works?" Because it was fooling around with inside out swing concepts-- plus the double roll sling in anything that Rosewall starts on backhand side-- that changed the mix. And for sure, no shrewd person wants their cross-court slice to break back toward the center of the court (well, not in most cases). At the back of my mind is achieving inside out(ness) with arm roll more than arm trajectory. Experiments ought to build on idea of hand behind the ball, in my view. If this principle works on ATP Forehand, and it does, why not in application elsewhere?

Gets complicated quickly, I know, but in both Rosewall slice and Rosewall BHV there's clear sequence: The arm rolls backward and forward to combine in a sling, and then there's more of a block. Well, where does the ball get hit? On the cusp? A little before? A little after? Maybe it's best to be ignorant. Just give me my pure backspin and pure sidespin, please, and I most likely won't care if I lose the in between shot except maybe on a few droppers.

[bottle]

Rosewallian Backhand Volley

I'm influenced by Stotty's account of watching this shot up close at Wimbledon.

How about the idea that Rosewall's slice is the best in tennis history, but that his backhand volley is even better than his slice? Myth or reality? I'd heard it before.

To use Rosewall as model (which almost everybody for sixty years or so has agreed is a great idea), I'd like to concentrate here-- very simply-- on the backhand volley.

Here's the great clip-- the best we know of.

I recommend that the aspiring student (that would be I), a person who wants to beef up and make more consistent his sticked backhand volley, try the first two film versions where Ken slings his racket head at the ball, then lowers his perfectly vertical strings straight down a cascade.

This might be an example of what Don Brosseau calls "answering your own question."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WR7kvBGntW8

[stotty]

I'm influenced by Stotty's account of watching this shot up close at Wimbledon.

How about the idea that Rosewall's slice is the best in tennis history, but that his backhand volley is even better than his slice? Myth or reality? I'd heard it before.

To use Rosewall as model (which almost everybody for sixty years or so has agreed is a great idea), I'd like to concentrate here-- very simply-- on the backhand volley.

Here's the great clip-- the best we know of.

I recommend that the aspiring student (that would be I), a person who wants to beef up and make more consistent his sticked backhand volley, try the first two film versions where Ken slings his racket head at the ball, then lowers his perfectly vertical strings straight down a cascade.

This might be an example of what Don Brosseau calls "answering your own question."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WR7kvBGntW8

Contrary to the video commentary, Rosewall was always fractionally later than would be desirable on a forehand volley. Rather like the ones he is hitting in the clip itself. Nevertheless it was a fine shot.

His backhand volley was a wonder, and off any ball, be it low, high, soft or hard. On this side he really did cut the ball off out in front of him. It was his timing that was so good...just better than anyone else's. And don't forget he was around 50 when I saw him hitting with Stolle at Wimbledon. The beauty of watching great players hitting from just a few yards away is that you see everything...the intricate things you never see on TV.

[10splayer]

Don't most sliced backhands involve mostly outside/in sidespin? Higher and medium balls would inevitably have outside/in sidespin? Inside/out sidespin would require a lower ball and the wrist/racket to drop to allow the racket to carve inside the ball...to get some inside out swerve, correct? Pat cash did this well when approaching the net.

I am curious about your thoughts on the height of the backswing for sliced backhands. Players such as Cash and McEnroe lowered/raised their backswing slightly depending on the height of the incoming ball. These days players start so high on all balls and cut more heavily downwards. Why is that? Is it a forced issue due to the spin/power of today's game? Or have certain techniques of the shot been lost due to the sliced backhands being somewhat less necessary than in the past..

As per the second question, yes, the higher bouncing balls dictate an inclined (and high) backswing immediately.

"Sidespin" is not really an accurate term, IMO. (as in backspin vs sidespin) There is only an axis of rotation, on the horizontal plane. They both have backspin. The only difference is that, with a ball that curves, the axis is on a "tilted plane". And that is dictated by the racquet path. (down, and from outside/in, or not)

Now, what I think you see in today's game, is simply a player trying to control the enormous velocity and spin. By increasing the downward angle, AND, coming "across" the ball more, there is a "softening" agent built in. i.e control.

I share everyone's admiration for Rosewall's slice backhand. It's a thing of beauty, but, I think that sort of "slice drive" is long gone given the speed of today's game.

[bottle]

But if one is undismayed by judgments such as 10splayer's in # 1572, one can, I submit, discover considerable and perhaps unanticipated efficiency in slicing and dicing for the rest of one's existence.

And one can get ornery, if one wants, about the game of some of one's opponents. Pretty fast but not always consistent if you ask me.

And one can, if one cares to, begin to irritate by asking, "Well, just what is the basis of your judgment that Rosewallian slice is outmoded? Personal experience in trying to learn and understand and hit it or the conceptual overkill common to most tennis players?"

I think there are fewer open minds in tennis even than in politics. Another unfortunate area of overlap is the fashion industry.

Listen, rolled backhand slice like McEnroe's will never be old-- not so long as the strings go past the hand. And double rolled backhand slice like Rosewall or Hoad could lead to unbelievably good backhand volleys-- level in the Hoadian evidence, rising in the case of Rosewall to a rose wall.

Also, while I don't want to argue every single point about everything at least right now, I think the view that Rosewall was slow is zany and requires substantiation. Double roll in Rosewallian slice is certainly no slower than the double roll in the current ATP forehand so many of us love to talk about.

Finally, I think, a recreational player should put first interest in recreational tennis and relegate tour tennis for once to its proper place.

[10splayer]

But if one is undismayed by judgments such as 10splayer's in # 1572, one can, I submit, discover considerable and perhaps unanticipated efficiency in slicing and dicing for the rest of one's existence.

And one can get ornery, if one wants, about the game of some of one's opponents. Pretty fast but not always consistent if you ask me.

And one can, if one cares to, begin to irritate by asking, "Well, just what is the basis of your judgment that Rosewallian slice is outmoded? Personal experience in trying to learn and understand and hit it or the conceptual overkill common to most tennis players?"

I think there are fewer open minds in tennis even than in politics. Another unfortunate area of overlap is the fashion industry.

Listen, rolled backhand slice like McEnroe's will never be old-- not so long as the strings go past the hand. And double rolled backhand slice like Rosewall or Hoad could lead to unbelievably good backhand volleys-- level in the Hoadian evidence, rising in the case of Rosewall to a rose wall.

Also, while I don't want to argue every single point, I think the view that Rosewall was slow is zany and requires substantiation. Double roll in Rosewallian slice is certainly no slower than the double roll in the current ATP forehand I love to talk about.

Finally, I think, a recreational player should put first interest in recreational tennis and relegate tour tennis for once to its proper place.

You're so self obsorbed...... I was asked what my thoughts on the pro game is,,,,NOT what you or any other club level hack does. The incoming ball characteristics dictate not only swing shapes, but the direction/evolution of strokes. It's just a little different then what you face or what those from yesteryear faced. The reason Fed doesn't hit a flatish, slice drive, ala Rosewall is because the ball is coming in at 95 miles an hour, with 2500 Rpm's of spin, and he is using a very powerful racquet compared to those in the 60's and 70's. That's my opinion. Got it?

[stotty]

As per the second question, yes, the higher bouncing balls dictate an inclined (and high) backswing immediately.

"Sidespin" is not really an accurate term, IMO. (as in backspin vs sidespin) There is only an axis of rotation, on the horizontal plane. They both have backspin. The only difference is that, with a ball that curves, the axis is on a "tilted plane". And that is dictated by the racquet path. (down, and from outside/in, or not)

Now, what I think you see in today's game, is simply a player trying to control the enormous velocity and spin. By increasing the downward angle, AND, coming "across" the ball more, there is a "softening" agent built in. i.e control.

I share everyone's admiration for Rosewall's slice backhand. It's a thing of beauty, but, I think that sort of "slice drive" is long gone given the speed of today's game.

Thanks for this.

John Yandell concurs with you over Rosewall's sliced backhand and that it's debateable whether it's still a viable technique in pro tennis. I put the same question to John some time ago.

It's hard to imagine what it must be like to face balls struck at 90 mph and loaded with topspin as in the modern game. I've never had that experience...but it's easy to see why the sliced backhand has evolved the way it has..."high start and steep cut".

I was brought up on the Rosewall model (as were most of my contemporaries), and it worked great for me. Actually Rosewall's backhand didn't have that much slice, just a small amount. I know because I've witnessed it up close. It was more a flat shot.

It's still a great model for club players and I continue to teach it. The club player and regular juniors will never be faced with rocket-propelled, heavily topspun balls so the technique is still viable and makes good sense.

The game is so fast now, isn't it? Dimitrov was hitting one handed backhands at over 90 mph at times against Djokovic last week; some of his forehands were topping a 100mph...frightening.