Inability to hit winners

[rosooki]

Please help me understand why some pro players just can't hit winners when I feel they should be hitting them. In particular, I'm talking about Andy Roddick, and to some extent, even Nadal.

Some players, like Murray and Berdych, hit the ball with tremendous whip and power, whereas no matter what set up Roddick is given, he can't put it away (leaving me screaming at the tv). He hits his shots firmly, but his opponents always run them down. Nadal seems to exchange speed for spin and angle, but I can't see where Roddick is getting any extra benefit other than fewer errors.

Is this because of an overly stiff wrist? Nadal seems to be able to flatten out his shots when he absolutely has to, but I can't see Roddick ever flattening his out and getting any real whip on the ball.

[johnyandell]

Possibly Andy is rotating more than extending compared to previous days. But one thing is true--pure racket head heat--assuming great technique--is a natural gift from god.

[nabrug]

The game is not about power anymore.

Possibly Andy is rotating more than extending compared to previous days. But one thing is true--pure racket head heat--assuming great technique--is a natural gift from god.

In a way this is a true remark. But in general I get itchy if people don’t know any more answers and go to answers referring to gifts from God or to a superior mental talent (like people do with Nadal). It is the same feeling what I get if people describe caracteristics of shots without really knowing the essence or the feeling of the shot and have all kinds of conclusions.

(The only gift from God I see is Roger Federer’s fluent technique.) For the rest I see with the top players 1. ball trajectories, 2. the different risks in hitting different ball trajectories, 3. very conscious game plans concerning ball trajectories used by Nadal and Federer and 4. percentages. The outcome of most matches is the product of the qualities of a player compared to the other player. Andy Roddick’s game is about power and the tennis game is not about power. With the reach of e.g. Nadal (see my former posts) power will never be the deciding factor anymore. That means if Roddick keeps the same qualities he will never be no.1 again. That doesn’t mean that he can’t win any match against anyone but against Federer or Nadal I normally give him a 10% chance to win with the tools he has now. In the recent match against Federer he couldn’t handle the zone 3 (see below) balls. In this situation, like other situations, I dare to say that he used too much power. I am convinced it is not about more power. It is more about knowing ball trajectories in a given game situation and hitting them with natural pace. I think Roddick can hit all the trajectories you need in a game. He only has to learn more about how to use them.

I will mention 2 examples here which I use in my training sessions. It gives information about my tennis language and in general information about an underdeveloped part of the tennis game. If Andy develops this part he can be #1 again. He has more than enough power.

Example 1: Imagine a ralley through the middle of the court. Players play the ball deep against the baseline so that the opponent has to stay far behind the baseline ( I call that zone 5). Ball trajectories are round! From moonballs to lower heavy topspin but round. One player makes a mistake and the ball lands in zone 4 (middle endzone towards the baseline) in the middle of the court. The other player can now make a winner with a straight (!) shot to the left or the right angling outside with a target zone around the service line. Please visualize the ball trajectories now. What are the options for this player now? Should he go for a power shot or just try to get the right (straight) ball trajectory with the natural speed it will have.
I see these advantages to go for the last option:
1. The more power you use the more chance that the ball will go wide.
2. The less power a ball has the more the ball trajectory will stay down after the bounce and move away from your opponent.
3. The more power the ball will have can be used by the opponent to get the ball back. (Especially with Murray and Nadal who use the technique you can learn from Oscar Wegner. In short it gives you a maximal reach and a maximal profit in tempo.)
4. The slower the ball the more time you have to approach the net.

Example 2: The same ralley with the same mistake. The attacking player is now going for an approach through the middle. What are the options for this player now? Should he go for
1. a power shot in a corner,
2. a low staying shot against the baseline in the middle (like most of us learned?) or
3. a low staying shot in zone 3 (around the service line till zone 4) in the middle?

In the first option you have the most chance that a Nadal will punish you. The second option is the best if you can get the ball very close to the baseline with pace on a very consistant base. In this option I see most players get punished a lot because several things go wrong. Besides the advantages mentioned in example 1 I see these extra advantages in the last option:
1.If the ball is low and in zone 3 the defending player has to go forward (!) an has to hit from below the net upwards.
2. The passing angle will get more difficult (especially from the middle) when players get closer to each other.

You can see zone 3 shots in the middle a lot in men’s doubles (I don’t see a lot of women’s doubles). This shot is a building shot. In doubles you will score the first ball after this shot.

So (to the first writer) it is not about just hitting a winner. You first have to build the point before you can hit the winner. That is what I especially see with Murray and Nadal. In former posts I explained that Nadal is never hitting a straight ball. He is defending in a very agressive way. He uses strokes which allow him to use all his power in every stroke. He rarely makes a mistake or to say it differently the odds are very much in favor for him. I sometimes look at him playing and I think that he is laughing his head off. He is hardly taking any risks and he is just waiting for the mistake. So Roger waits a difficult match again this sunday. Cowardly I predict a 50/50 chance. But normally the agressive defender will win against the player who wants to hit winners.

I will end with 2 other observations:
1. The zone 3 ralleys in the last match Simon vs. Monfils. Very interesting. Simon also used this in his match against Nadal. It had no effect at all against Nadal. Nadal took benefit of these efforts a lot of times. I mention this because many people see the solution in slicing against Nadal. It is not disturbing him at all.
2. Verdasco copied some of the high ball trajectories of Nadal in their match. It had a very advantageous outcome for him.

Nico Mol
Amsterdam
Holland

[johnyandell]

That's a lot of detail, but I'll stay by my basic point that there is a small difference in physical ability here. Maybe Andy could do something different with the myriad points you make, but I see this as a level thing at this point. One of the fallacies in coaching in my opinion is that there is a technical or tactical solution to every problem.

[airforce1]

I think Narbug made some very excellent points.

The best of which IMO was that the aggressive defender will usually win.

The ole addage, "Defense wins Championships". This always rooted in the knowledge that championships are always matched up in a way that only the cream of the crop makes it to the Championship game or match, and not some crappy team or player, that only sports a good defense.
It is very difficult to attack precisely and consistently enough to win in a best of five sets match against a top notch defender.

by being an aggressive defender, you make it tough on the attacker in at least 2 ways. They have challenging balls to attack, against a player prepared well to defend. The attacking player really assumes a large majority of the risk and must be having an excellent day to survive these odds.

We should not be surprised to see such an approach to the game from a family with a strong soccer background, a sport that is often decided by only one goal.

[nabrug]

Is it the message?

That's a lot of detail, but I'll stay by my basic point that there is a small difference in physical ability here. Maybe Andy could do something different with the myriad points you make, but I see this as a level thing at this point. One of the fallacies in coaching in my opinion is that there is a technical or tactical solution to every problem.

Maybe there is a small difference in physical ability. But the major thing I see is unawareness. If Andy is aware than we can really judge his physical ability.

For the rest of the answer I get a feeling that you didn’t do anything with my (only) 2 examples. It gives you the essence of a different thinking. I don’t see a myriad points. That doesn’t sound nice by the way. Is it because the message says IT IS NOT ANYMORE ABOUT MORE POWER. I have a feeling that you don’t like that message. It is the same feeling I got last time that I told you about the ball trajectories Nadal is hitting in the beginning of most ralleys (Fh2A/Bh2A).

[johnyandell]

Just my opinion. To be completely honest I was never able to follow those arguments because they weren't presented clearly. Possibly the English thing. Your comments also tend to come across as abrasive and even arrogant, and that's a tough combination with hard to understand. There is no requirement that I agree or respond to everything posted on the Forum. It's a place for freedom of expression. Glad you have taken the opportunity and I and others will of course do the same.
Again, my experience with world class players is the same as with players in general. Large portions of what they do are dictated by personality and inclincation. A few rare players will change or evolve according to coaching input at the point in their career when they are playing at the world class level, but not many. People can tell Andy to stand in or whatever until they are blue in the face. But the problem right now is that his ball now off the ground is not at the same level as the very top players.

[nabrug]

Arrogance or stating facts, that is the question.

Just my opinion. To be completely honest I was never able to follow those arguments because they weren't presented clearly. Possibly the English thing. Your comments also tend to come across as abrasive and even arrogant, and that's a tough combination with hard to understand. There is no requirement that I agree or respond to everything posted on the Forum. It's a place for freedom of expression. Glad you have taken the opportunity and I and others will of course do the same.
Again, my experience with world class players is the same as with players in general. Large portions of what they do are dictated by personality and inclincation. A few rare players will change or evolve according to coaching input at the point in their career when they are playing at the world class level, but not many. People can tell Andy to stand in or whatever until they are blue in the face. But the problem right now is that his ball now off the ground is not at the same level as the very top players.

English is not my native language, but I think it is good enough to understand what I mean. So the conclusion is that you don't want to understand it or are not interested at all in the subject.

I thought that you were someone who was looking in an scientific way. Unbiased and open for every option. I was hoping that I could brainstorm with you about things that are so obvious there and nobody mentions. In a brainstorm process I think the essence of the message is more important than how you present it. So maybe sometimes I take a position to speed up processes.

If you call me arrogant because I make statements based on facts which I derive from watching games over and over again than I make the conclusion which I did in former posts that that is not the message you want to hear. Because that is a very easy way to end a discussion. And that in my opinion doesn't tend to but that is abrasive and very arrogant on your part.

One example:
You state in one of your articles that Federer is hitting around 20-60 (?) kind of forehands. Is that arrogant? No it is not! Because you try to describe what you see in an honest way.
I state that Federer is using two forehand techniques. So I see only these two techniques. Is that arrogant? Or is it arrogant that I go against your word?

For me you don't have to reply anymore. I got the message.

[johnyandell]

Well, you have proved my point. It's not that I am not open to discussion. That's how most of the information from other coaches evolves on the site. I'm giving you some honest feedback.

[rosooki]

Re: Inability to hit winners

My post wasn't about strategy, actually. I did mention that Roddick seems unable to put the ball away even with a great setup. At this point, I don't believe it is a matter of coaching. Roddick has had some of the greatest tennis minds out there helping him. If there was something to be said, I'm sure it has been said multiple times.

When I look at his forehand, he seems to be punching the ball, creating spin and depth, but not speed and 'penetrating power'. The trajectory is higher and there are probably less errors, but a lot less winners too. With today's top players, just fractions of a second make the difference between the ball coming back or not.

[johnyandell]

Exactly. Something similar happened to Courier at the end of his career. All of a sudden his forehand lost stick. Let's keep in mind that Andy would still absolutely blast 99.99% of all players off the court. We're talking about 4 or 5 players above on the whole planet.

[sejsel]

On not being able to put it away...

Possibly Andy is rotating more than extending compared to previous days. But one thing is true--pure racket head heat--assuming great technique--is a natural gift from god.

There is more in the first (in bold) sentence of this quote than most of the people involved in tennis seem to understand these days. (John should be given credit for understanding it instead of being lashed at).
Credit to John for stating it time and time again. A second one is also relevant if you have seen generations of kids passing through tennis school, and players of various age and skill level, even including some pros.

People can tell Andy to stand in or whatever until they are blue in the face. But the problem right now is that his ball now off the ground is not at the same level as the very top players.

... And that really nails it - without having to write an essay about it.

[nabrug]

There is more in the first (in bold) sentence of this quote than most of the people involved in tennis seem to understand these days. (John should be given credit for understanding it instead of being lashed at).
Credit to John for stating it time and time again. A second one is also relevant if you have seen generations of kids passing through tennis school, and players of various age and skill level, even including some pros.




... And that really nails it - without having to write an essay about it.

I just reviewed half of the recent match Roddick-Federer. Roddick gets lot of opportunities to put pressure on Roger’s game. He gets lots of balls in zone 3 (low + bounce from service line till middle of back court). (I don’t think that anyone can make/is making power shots from there.) Most of the time he tries to approach the net with a top spin shot against the base line with a lot of power. And he gets punished at least 90%. That is why I think Federer is creating this game situation on purpose over and over again. Federer loves the power Roddick puts in his shots. Like Nadal loves the power of Federer.

From the beginning of tennis history the game developed. If one invented one year not to stay at the base line but go to the net and won most matches the next year somebody came up to lob this person and bring him back to the base line.
I am a Game Based Approach coach. What was good a year ago can be old and not relevant this year. So with all the respect to what coaches have achieved in the past if they don’t change with the changes of the game their remarks can be not relevant anymore. So from what I saw I conclude that the coach of Roddick did not help him with answers in the game situations against Federer. So to a former writer who claims that there is so much experience so they would have mentioned all the options already several times I disagree. Please do not understand me wrong concerning this. I think nobody has answers to the gameplay of Nadal right now. And do not understand me wrong concerning Roddick’s coach. Maybe he had a major contribution in getting Roddick to the semi-final. Maybe he changed Roddick to hit this forehand because he saw that the odds were in favor of using this stroke.

The big change in history IMO is what I tried to explain several times before is that the hitting zone of Nadal (with his Fh2/Fh2A technique) is 8 to 10 bigger than an other player. IMO you will need something beyond a gift from God to beat Nadal if you want to use power shots. IMO that is not likely to happen. And so IMO we have to look in other directions.

Possible answers to the game play of Nadal lie in:
1. understanding how counterplayers use your energy. What do they like and what do they don’t like.
2. understanding Nadal’s huge strike zone.
3. understanding Nadal’s technique (FH2(A) and BH2(A)). It will give you answers in what he can produce in different game situations. You might also want to use some of his technique against him.
4. the two examples I mentioned earlier in this thread. Exploring zone 3!
5. the last match Simon-Monfils.
6. the match Murray-Nadal just prior to the Australian open this year which Murray won.

I would like to open a new thread about the differences between Ideal Technique Approach (old school) versus the Game Based Approach (new school). GBA is based on an incoming ball and an outgoing ball. The stroke you produce depends on 1. the Observation of the incoming ball 2. the Decision you make 3. your Technique and 4. the Evaluation of former shots (ODTE). So in GBA there is not one perfect stroke but there are several perfect strokes depending on the ball trajectory you want to produce. And the technique is only a part of producing a stroke and not the only thing like in ITA. A GBA coach will first look if a player can solve a game situation and will first look in the opponents court if the player can achieve his goals. Than if the percentages are not okay than you will look at the player and you have to find out which of the 4 (ODTE) you have to improve. So in this vision technique is only a means to reach goals and not a goal in itself.
So maybe now you can understand that answers like : “Possibly Andy is rotating more than extending compared to previous day.” are not interesting for GBA coaches. In it self it can be a right statement but you have to narrow it down and be more specific. I also read a question about which tension you have to use in a volley grip. As a GBA coach that question just gets relevant if after a long road of examinating the problem the tension is the dominant cause of not achieving the goals of the player. From my experience I think that the tension of the volley will not likely be the dominant cause in volley errors. I think that dominant causes of error lie in much more basic things concerning the volley. Do not understand me wrong here again. The question can be very interesting. It is like some people are looking for the perfect service movement. Although it could be far more effective for their game to use a solid “ugly” service motion with which they can achieve their goals. GBA is more about accepting the player and his technique like he is and helping him with his game in winning more matches in stead of forcing him towards “our view” of the ideal technique. The interesting question in this “Would the young Nadal got the chance to develop like he did in your group?” Or would you have changed him?

Nico Mol
Amsterdam
Holland


P.S.: I really prefer people who write essays than people who don’t make the effort.

[johnyandell]

And everyone else (including myself) prefers people who don't make bitchy comments at the end of a perfectly good post.

[nabrug]

I really prefer people who write essays than people who don’t make the effort.

And everyone else (including myself) prefers people who don't make bitchy comments at the end of a perfectly good post.

I really prefer people who write essays than people who don’t make the effort. The word essay was used by sesjel.

If there is a negative connotation with this sentence/word you have to go to sesjel who first used this word. I only wanted to express that I appreciate people who make the effort to explain their thoughts in a thorough way.