A New Year's Serve

[bottle]

Another problem equivalent to not dwelling on basics, particularly in tennis: Not forming crisp opinions. And if some of those opinions start with aesthetic appreciation, fine, since, as Chris Lewit for one has said, "Beautiful strokes are good strokes." Tennis, with its huge mental/aesthetic component, rewards people for being sure of themselves.

[10splayer]

there, their

thank you

[bottle]

there, their

[10splayer]

I agree with this.

Bias is a crime most of us are guilty of. Not just in tennis but in all walks of life. It's hard not to take sides. It's hard not to be prejudice.

Getting students to make positions and checkpoints followed up with monitoring and fine tuning where feasible would seem the core job/responsibility for tennis coaches. Coaches claiming a role greater than this are probably overrating themselves and failing to recognise students' individual ability to evolve and develop through their own experience...which often tops coaching everytime.

Yes, we are all guilty of that. Perhaps the biggest dilemma in development, is knowing when to intercede and when to just stay out of the way. We all have egos, and think we know best.

The greatest coaches I've come in contact with, though, know how to find a balance between personal exploration and rigid intervention. One can see there subtle influence on players, without a "cloning" effect.

And yes, many, many coaches overate there influence.especially those who "take over" high caliber players. Too me, the "real" coaches are the early intervention ones, who, initially, develop fundamentally sound games, which, allows players to grow and an opportunity for future options. That's where the rubber meets the road.

[stotty]

Exactly, and the danger in coaching (in my opinion) is forcing, or not allowing a player to evolve because of our preconceived notions, bias's etc. I.e the Rosewall backhand is the best

As in the forehand example, I have seen so many coaches hamstring players because they think "neutral ", or open stance is the way to hit,for example. Equip a player with good fundamentals, and let them go out there and adapt and evolve. As long as they're operating within a range of acceptability, they'll figure it out without a coaches help.

I agree with this.

Bias is a crime most of us are guilty of. Not just in tennis but in all walks of life. It's hard not to take sides. It's hard not to be prejudice.

Getting students to make positions and checkpoints followed up with monitoring and fine tuning where feasible would seem the core job/responsibility for tennis coaches. Coaches claiming a role greater than this are probably overrating themselves and failing to recognise students' individual ability to evolve and develop through their own experience...which often tops coaching everytime.

[bottle]

Fanciful Poach: An Essay

Pat Blaskower quotes William James at the beginning of her chapter DEVELOP SUPERIOR POACHING SKILLS: "It is only by risking our persons from one hour to another that we live at all. And often enough our faith beforehand in an uncertified result is the only thing that makes the result come true."

To put the ball on my first target for backhand poach, which is a point in the alley halfway between the net and the service line, I'll stare through my strings at that target and watch the oncoming ball from the corners of my eyes.

And I'll be gliding toward that target, or rather to a point on my side of the net opposite that target, my final bouncing place.

My head will be close to my racket head with racket tip rather high.

This disposes of the ready made idea that racket length will be parallel or close to parallel to court for a volley in this direction.

So what are the mechanics that will enable this firmly blocked stroke?

1) A bigger than usual shoulder turn achieved during the run to ensure that shoulders line is pointing through the strings at the target.

2) A teeter-totter or lowering of the elbow to keep the two heads together while subtracting force.

3) A slow clenching of the shoulder-blades together to add firmness/force.

4) Straightening of the arm.

5) Biting the ball. Getting eyes on level of the ball. Making like Abby Wambaugh heading the ball. (These three cues are basically the same.)

6) A strict adherence to the Mercer Beasley dictum that a volley goes slowly forward to block the oncoming ball and use its speed.

The more these elements are simultaneous the better. Well, have I hit this shot and practiced it? Never.

It therefore qualifies as fanciful, although, superficially, it seems reasonable. Until we consider that I'm proposing to hit the ball out front from my point of view but behind my body from the ball's point of view.

So this shot, like one's decision to hit it, though healthful in its riskiness, maybe won't produce the result that William James and Pat Blaskower have in mind.

Because I'm hitting it from behind my body if you ask the net.

Reverse everything and hit a forehand instead-- the kind with no wrist layback whatsoever and straightening arm and opening strings that keeps alignment to the target for the longest time that is humanly possible. Save the elaborate BHV I just described for poaching from the ad court (for the right-hander). Aim the shoulders line at the target (again, a point in the alley between service line and net).

At least these two extreme volleys will keep the racket on the opponent side of one's body-- you'll therefore hit them sooner. An added advantage is that a missed ball may strike your body-- incentive to learn these poaches quickly.

Partial poach is acceptable play. You can hit a ball from center of court to center of court, using your most practiced volleys in the most conventional way. Or dance back, letting your partner have the ball.

Full poach is all out. You go no matter what and keep going until a final split-step in the alley.

[stotty]

Perfection

Bangboard is great for honing Rosewallian slice. For mastering Rosewallian backhand volleys, at least as I envision them, though, I don't seem to have enough time (in both senses). From seven feet away there just isn't in my case space for double roll. Also, my own backhand volley knows the relation between hand and strings. This relationship is different for Rosewallian backhand volley. To hit even the second Rosewallian backhand volley off of the bangboard seems impossible!

I see Rosewallian backhand volley as the same basic shot as a backhand smash, only modified for lower balls. No? I'll continue this line of experimentation just to be a contrarian.

The Rosewall backhand volley was/still is perhaps...the most versatile shot imaginable. It is incredibly compact when being drilled at by a human wall like Fred Stolle. It also has a lengthy backswing and follow through on slow or lingering balls. Low balls, high balls, difficult balls...it has few equals...Edberg...McEnroe perhaps. Try to think of it as perfection...because perfect it certainly was.

[bottle]

50-50

Bangboard is great for honing Rosewallian slice. For mastering Rosewallian backhand volleys, at least as I envision them, though, I don't seem to have enough time (in both senses). From seven feet away there just isn't in my case space for double roll. Also, my own backhand volley knows the relation between hand and strings. This relationship is different for Rosewallian backhand volley. To hit even the second Rosewallian backhand volley off of the bangboard seems impossible!

I see Rosewallian backhand volley as the same basic shot as a backhand smash, only modified for lower balls. No? I'll continue this line of experimentation just to be a contrarian.

[tennis_chiro]

Kind of feel like him sometimes!

How bout Burgess Meredith, so we keep the reference all within one show?

I always remember him for the Twilight Zone episode where he is the bookworm who was stuck in the library and just wanted to read and never has enough time (flying by the seat of my pants here) and comes out of the library one day to see there has been some kind of catastrophe (it is Twilight Zone after all) and he is the only person left alive. But he doesn't mind because he has all the time in the world to do what he wants to do, read. And then he has an accident and drops and breaks his reading glasses and he can't read anymore. That's kind of how I feel about all the knowledge I've gained of how to hit a tennis ball and play our game (largely from Tennisplayer.net), but my body can't respond anymore. If only I'd had this knowledge when I was 20 or even 30. Just think if I'd have had a forehand!!

In any case, I still think there is room for that "knife" in today's game!

don
PS Matthau and Lemon did a lot of movies. Which one are you referring to?

[10splayer]

Okay. I am old school. But I think a player should learn to hit both the more prevalent "Federerian" backhand players use today to deal with the aggressive heavy ball they face in today's high power game and the "Rosewallian" slice drive. Because guess what, they are still getting the chance to hit approach shots and drop shots. Most of the time, they are not hitting those shots off terribly aggressive, heavy balls. One of the things that Janowicz has demonstrated with his recent success (though I have failed to detect anyone really pointing it out), is that an effective dropshot can make the deep game and the associated appropriate move to the net much more effective. The "Federerian" (love that word) slice is great for approaching with a ball that floats deep and bounces low allowing suitable position to be taken in the front court. To be effective, you have to be able to keep the opponent off balance with the threat of the drop shot as well as the deep approach. Now you may not be able to hit a "Rosewallian" slice (love that one too!) off one of those blistering 3000 rpm, 70 mph groundstrokes, but you most certainly can hit it off a defensive return of serve; and when you can add to the dual threat of a drop shot or a feathery or even somewhat faster "Federerian" slicing backhand, the offensive beauty I like to call "the knife", that cuts through the court before your opponent has a chance to set up and turn defense into offense, you create a much greater challenge for that opponent.

So, no, "by cracky", I don't accept the fact that there is no place in the modern game for the Rosewallian backhand!!!

don

How bout Burgess Meredith, so we keep the reference all within one show?

[tennis_chiro]

A Word from Walter Brennan before Matthau and Lemon get their licks in!

Okay. I am old school. But I think a player should learn to hit both the more prevalent "Federerian" backhand players use today to deal with the aggressive heavy ball they face in today's high power game and the "Rosewallian" slice drive. Because guess what, they are still getting the chance to hit approach shots and drop shots. Most of the time, they are not hitting those shots off terribly aggressive, heavy balls. One of the things that Janowicz has demonstrated with his recent success (though I have failed to detect anyone really pointing it out), is that an effective dropshot can make the deep game and the associated appropriate move to the net much more effective. The "Federerian" (love that word) slice is great for approaching with a ball that floats deep and bounces low allowing suitable position to be taken in the front court. To be effective, you have to be able to keep the opponent off balance with the threat of the drop shot as well as the deep approach. Now you may not be able to hit a "Rosewallian" slice (love that one too!) off one of those blistering 3000 rpm, 70 mph groundstrokes, but you most certainly can hit it off a defensive return of serve; and when you can add to the dual threat of a drop shot or a feathery or even somewhat faster "Federerian" slicing backhand, the offensive beauty I like to call "the knife", that cuts through the court before your opponent has a chance to set up and turn defense into offense, you create a much greater challenge for that opponent.

So, no, "by cracky", I don't accept the fact that there is no place in the modern game for the Rosewallian backhand!!!

don

[10splayer]

Yes, it's just evolution, isn't it? Players innovate, coaches follow. These things happen because they have to, they are forced, no other reason. Whether courts are speeded up or slowed down, or the balls made bigger, smaller, softer or harder...players will just evolve to cope...nature takes over. I believe this is right and perfectly natural.

If we want players to go to the net, the courts must be sped up...give it a year or two and players will soon be racing to the net...they'll soon work it pays the biggest dividend.

Exactly, and the danger in coaching (in my opinion) is forcing, or not allowing a player to evolve because of our preconceived notions, bias's etc. I.e the Rosewall backhand is the best

As in the forehand example, I have seen so many coaches hamstring players because they think "neutral ", or open stance is the way to hit,for example. Equip a player with good fundamentals, and let them go out there and adapt and evolve. As long as they're operating within a range of acceptability, they'll figure it out without a coaches help.

[stotty]

Evolution

The game really is incredibly fast. Not only in terms of velocity, but, with the high spin rates, a much wider game. Just an incredibly athletic endeavor.

I have spent the last 25 years or so on the court with many high level junior's, and I'm here to tell you (well you know), that the game is alot bigger than when I played major college tennis in the late 80's. These kids can really bring it. It's tough for this old man to hang with some of them.

As for this whole Rosewall backhand thing: First of all, I agree that it is a thing of beauty, and a viable option for the vast majority of players. I do think it (the drive/slice) however, has had it's days at the highest level. The proof, is in the pudding. You just don't see it anymore. Why? Because players have figured out that they cant control it with the incoming ball characteristics. They evolve. It's not coaching, or theory, but rather, practical application. Heck, i wouldn't surprised if many of them started with more of a drive slice, and it evolved into what you see today.Whether one thinks it's pretty or not is immaterial. In the teaching realm, there are so many parallels. We could coach a player to hit through the ball on the forehand, from a neutral stance, with very little wiper action (ala Chris Evert), till the cows come home. And while this is a sound initial fundamental/early progression ,they are not going to hit this way as they progress and learn to deal with the kind of ball you see at the higher levels.

And while I'm not discounting our profession as unimportant, players, when equipped with good fundamentals (our job) teach us, what to teach and how the game progresses.

Of course it's incumbent upon us (as teachers) to understand a players level, what theyre facing, and there future prospects. (your point)

Bracing for barage from Walter Matthau and Jack Lemmon

Yes, it's just evolution, isn't it? Players innovate, coaches follow. These things happen because they have to, they are forced, no other reason. Whether courts are speeded up or slowed down, or the balls made bigger, smaller, softer or harder...players will just evolve to cope...nature takes over. I believe this is right and perfectly natural.

If we want players to go to the net, the courts must be sped up...give it a year or two and players will soon be racing to the net...they'll soon work it pays the biggest dividend.

[10splayer]

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.

The game really is incredibly fast. Not only in terms of velocity, but, with the high spin rates, a much wider game. Just an incredibly athletic endeavor.

I have spent the last 25 years or so on the court with many high level junior's, and I'm here to tell you (well you know), that the game is alot bigger than when I played major college tennis in the late 80's. These kids can really bring it. It's tough for this old man to hang with some of them.

As for this whole Rosewall backhand thing: First of all, I agree that it is a thing of beauty, and a viable option for the vast majority of players. I do think it (the drive/slice) however, has had it's days at the highest level. The proof, is in the pudding. You just don't see it anymore. Why? Because players have figured out that they cant control it with the incoming ball characteristics. They evolve. It's not coaching, or theory, but rather, practical application. Heck, i wouldn't surprised if many of them started with more of a drive slice, and it evolved into what you see today.Whether one thinks it's pretty or not is immaterial. In the teaching realm, there are so many parallels. We could coach a player to hit through the ball on the forehand, from a neutral stance, with very little wiper action (ala Chris Evert), till the cows come home. And while this is a sound initial fundamental/early progression ,they are not going to hit this way as they progress and learn to deal with the kind of ball you see at the higher levels.

And while I'm not discounting our profession as unimportant, players, when equipped with good fundamentals (our job) teach us, what to teach and how the game progresses.

Of course it's incumbent upon us (as teachers) to understand a players level, what theyre facing, and there future prospects. (your point)

Bracing for barage from Walter Matthau and Jack Lemmon

[bottle]

Thanks. I like it (all).