A New Year's Serve

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[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?

[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!

[stotty]

The passing shot is the clincher

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fH-A3AeyukI

Good one licensedcoach...which is better? How could one possibly be better than the other...they both were THAT good...weren't they? McEnroe also came over his backhand...Rosewall NEVER did.

Experiential...up close and personal. Being there. It's half the trick. But to understand what you are seeing...now that is being in the moment. One with the universe.

Rosewall...slice and pulverize. McEnroe...slice and dice. Too sweet for words...out on the lawn tennis courts of Wimbledon. Birds chirping in the background.

But either can accomplish the other as Rosewall can dice and McEnroe can pulverize...see that McEnroe backhand volley in the Artist and Engineer thread (Magician and Mechanic). You posted this too...in another thread. Mac crushes that one...by just making himself into a wall at the moment of impact...ball on gut. No backswing at all...racquet an extension of the hand and body leaning on the ball. He never got his other hand on the racquet and the racquet propels backwards with the momentum of the Connors return. His volley was on top of Connors so quick that Connors' only option was defensive lob even though the entire down the line side of the court was wide open.

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...

[don_budge]

Pulver and Dice...Any way you slice it

Having seen both shots live in action at a distance of just yards away, I feel qualified to chip in here.

Rosewall’s sliced backhand is better than Mac’s. It’s simpler - just - and I don’t mean by path of the swing, more by Rosewall’s better, more efficient use of his body. Mac’s sliced backhand floats smoothly and beautifully along but has more underspin; Rosewall’s is flatter and travels better, travels harder. Mac’s grip leans slightly more to the forehand side of continental; Rosewall’s is slightly to the backhand side of continental. Better.

Mac’s slice is good. It’s the one shot of his where we get a significant break at the elbow during the backswing. On all other shots the break at the elbow is fixed. He doesn’t vary the break in the elbow to accommodate different incoming balls. I feel this is a weakness with balls struck at the body. Lendl exploited it well. A break at the elbow is essential with slice. It delivers power, a slingshot effect...as is clearly seen in the Rosewall clip where he is hitting with such velocity that his body is propels his body backwards. Now that is how to make a post to hit off with your body when being forced backwards, terrific.

Similar comparisons can be said of their backhand volleys. Rosewall wins here too. Mac can punch but he’s mostly a feeler when given the option; Rosewall is a puncher, a pulverizer, and so smooth with it. Rosewall’s backhand volley is a stunner. I watched him hit with Fred Stolle many years ago on an outside court a Wimbledon. Only a handful of people stood around watching. I was one of the fascinated and watched from merely a few yards away. He missed not one backhand volley during that hit. And, boy, does the shot repeat, repeat, repeat...same motion on every ball. It’s probably one of the most beautiful shots the game has ever seen.

But McEnroe is the more gifted of the two players, which means a lot. McEnroe’s feel and dexterity is a big compensating factor for his shortcomings compared to Rosewall. I use the word “shortcomings” with the deepest respect in separating the shots of two players of such lofty standard.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fH-A3AeyukI

Good one licensedcoach...which is better? How could one possibly be better than the other...they both were THAT good...weren't they? McEnroe also came over his backhand...Rosewall NEVER did.

Experiential...up close and personal. Being there. It's half the trick. But to understand what you are seeing...now that is being in the moment. One with the universe.

Rosewall...slice and pulverize. McEnroe...slice and dice. Too sweet for words...out on the lawn tennis courts of Wimbledon. Birds chirping in the background.

But either can accomplish the other as Rosewall can dice and McEnroe can pulverize...see that McEnroe backhand volley in the Artist and Engineer thread (Magician and Mechanic). You posted this too...in another thread. Mac crushes that one...by just making himself into a wall at the moment of impact...ball on gut. No backswing at all...racquet an extension of the hand and body leaning on the ball. He never got his other hand on the racquet and the racquet propels backwards with the momentum of the Connors return. His volley was on top of Connors so quick that Connors' only option was defensive lob even though the entire down the line side of the court was wide open.

[bottle]

Tall, Rotorded and Leg-Impaired: Helicopter Serve?

And throw way out front, I may add.

Anything goes to establish a long runway.

Design features: Down together up together past release with the two arms bending toward each other as winding hips thrust forward and front leg bends to go up on toes.

The place or time where power starts is right then, with closed racket face over head and hand behind.

Unitary power thrust establishes natural sequence between (hips and knees) and (shoulders from gut). Such desired sequence will continue if you gave arm enough to do.

That would be a single throw in which the two halves of your arm needle together behind you and to your left and then start opening up as upper arm pre-loads while still behind you but to the right.

The feel or look of this is of a shallow dip of helicopter blades toward the rear fence.

Adding forward force but mostly position are your "threshing" heels, another way of saying that front foot flattens as rear foot goes up on its toes from your pushing with that leg.

The idea (a design idea again) is not to thrust hard with gimpy front leg but to pry with it so that the whole body flies over. This move is to get rear hip higher than front hip so that hitting shoulder can get extra high, too.

Less rotation from the gut (translation: "Stay more closed") may be in order for wide slice and kick, both. Less gut should create more whip of arm around the body.

My idea of both arms bending toward each other almost as if to form a vertical hoop may be too mannered and fancy, or could on the other hand prove functional to keep left side up.

The racket tip shouldn't touch the tossing hand but might graze it-- just an idea.

[bottle]

Incredible. And experiential. Thanks so much.

[stotty]

Rosewall v McEnroe

Re Wawrinka's serve (# 1548). Don't know why I thought his arm was straight at top of backswing (it's bent):

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/strokearchive/pro_men/stanislas_wawrinka/sw_serve/sw_1st_serve/sw_1st_serve.html?SW1stSDeuceCourtLevelRear.mov

But he does come up with palm severely down.

Re McEnroe slice and volleys vs. Rosewall convention slice and volleys. In these sequences of full slice John McEnroe clearly rolls his arm forward but didn't roll it backward first like Ken Rosewall.

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/strokearchive/modern_legends/johnmcenroe/mac_backhand/mac_backhand.html?MacBHSliceCenterSide2.mov

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/strokearchive/modern_legends/johnmcenroe/mac_backhand/mac_backhand.html?MacBHSliceWideCourtLevelRear1.mov

Note, in this second sequence, just how square the shot gets right after contact, i.e., the racket corners, sharp. But not during or before!

On backhand volleys McEnroe might include a little forward roll or not. No doubt he's fully adjustable. But one thing is sure: There's no looping below and then up to business part as in Rosewall in the 1954 Davis Cup clip.

Is McEnroe's method more simple? Yes. Better? Maybe.

Re usual long secret of seniors tennis: "Shorten thy strokes."

Having seen both shots live in action at a distance of just yards away, I feel qualified to chip in here.

Rosewall’s sliced backhand is better than Mac’s. It’s simpler - just - and I don’t mean by path of the swing, more by Rosewall’s better, more efficient use of his body. Mac’s sliced backhand floats smoothly and beautifully along but has more underspin; Rosewall’s is flatter and travels better, travels harder. Mac’s grip leans slightly more to the forehand side of continental; Rosewall’s is slightly to the backhand side of continental. Better.

Mac’s slice is good. It’s the one shot of his where we get a significant break at the elbow during the backswing. On all other shots the break at the elbow is fixed. He doesn’t vary the break in the elbow to accommodate different incoming balls. I feel this is a weakness with balls struck at the body. Lendl exploited it well. A break at the elbow is essential with slice. It delivers power, a slingshot effect...as is clearly seen in the Rosewall clip where he is hitting with such velocity that his body is propels his body backwards. Now that is how to make a post to hit off with your body when being forced backwards, terrific.

Similar comparisons can be said of their backhand volleys. Rosewall wins here too. Mac can punch but he’s mostly a feeler when given the option; Rosewall is a puncher, a pulverizer, and so smooth with it. Rosewall’s backhand volley is a stunner. I watched him hit with Fred Stolle many years ago on an outside court a Wimbledon. Only a handful of people stood around watching. I was one of the fascinated and watched from merely a few yards away. He missed not one backhand volley during that hit. And, boy, does the shot repeat, repeat, repeat...same motion on every ball. It’s probably one of the most beautiful shots the game has ever seen.

But McEnroe is the more gifted of the two players, which means a lot. McEnroe’s feel and dexterity is a big compensating factor for his shortcomings compared to Rosewall. I use the word “shortcomings” with the deepest respect in separating the shots of two players of such lofty standard.

[bottle]

When Rosewall Convention Slice Goes Sour

6-0, 6-0, 6-2, 5-6 . We quit because our last set opponents, including a member of the Wayne State varsity women, thought they'd won it and time for dinner.

Here's what may be important, personally speaking of course, from Friday night's tennis social.

First, "convention" is not just a bunch of politicians trying but failing to look good.

A convention is an established technique, practice or device. Tennis teaching pros have been saying for more than half a century that if you want to develop really good backhand slice you ought to study the one that Ken Rosewall uses.

But as Stotty has pointed out, one can look almost exactly like Ken Rosewall but not get his result.

I'm trying to figure this out. And I'm most interested in applying tennis_chiro's inside out principle (since when I remember to use it I get my absolute best sliced results ever).

So you're tired and stiff and the shot goes sour. What happened? Did you try to take the ball too much out front? That could mean you were crossing the ball outside-in. But if you still were determined to hit the ball out in front you could roll forward more slowly. You could make the strings look as if they were going to hit the inside of the ball just before they hit the outside with an inside out swing.

When any kind of roll is involved in a tennis shot, I'm thinking, inside out or outside in is determined more by that roll than by trajectory of the whole arm, which can come from directly behind the ball.

The time to think about these matters is now and not during competition.

[bottle]

Ray Guns

Re Wawrinka's serve (# 1548). Don't know why I thought his arm was straight at top of backswing (it's bent):

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/strokearchive/pro_men/stanislas_wawrinka/sw_serve/sw_1st_serve/sw_1st_serve.html?SW1stSDeuceCourtLevelRear.mov

But he does come up with palm severely down.

Re McEnroe slice and volleys vs. Rosewall convention slice and volleys. In these sequences of full slice John McEnroe clearly rolls his arm forward but didn't roll it backward first like Ken Rosewall.

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/strokearchive/modern_legends/johnmcenroe/mac_backhand/mac_backhand.html?MacBHSliceCenterSide2.mov

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/strokearchive/modern_legends/johnmcenroe/mac_backhand/mac_backhand.html?MacBHSliceWideCourtLevelRear1.mov

Note, in this second sequence, just how square the shot gets right after contact, i.e., the racket corners, sharp. But not during or before!

On backhand volleys McEnroe might include a little forward roll or not. No doubt he's fully adjustable. But one thing is sure: There's no looping below and then up to business part as in Rosewall in the 1954 Davis Cup clip.

Is McEnroe's method more simple? Yes. Better? Maybe.

Re usual long secret of seniors tennis: "Shorten thy strokes."

[bottle]

In a good clinic held in Michigan, I heard Luke Jensen advise people to volley up. Perhaps Ken Rosewall's backhand volley-- as seen in the video-- qualifies as that.