Federer article

[davehagler]

This is the best thing I've seen on the website - as good as anything
anywhere. I gotta sleep but my brain is going about as fast as it can
thinking about all the great info and visual info in this.

[alechorton]

Wanted to complement you on your extensive article on Roger Federer. I think the information you present is fabulous and in our ever changing world of player development and coaching techniques, sometimes the more things change the more they stay the same. I find it very interesting that some coaches and commentators really do not pay attention to great research when it is being done (like yours). The same thing was true when I was working for Vic Braden in the 80's and 90's. I mean we had to battle coaching myths all the time, even when we could show people footage filmed at 30,000 frames a second, the still think they "can come over the ball", "hold the ball on their strings a few more seconds" and just "flick the wrist like the pros". Thank god "Scratch your back" is gone!


For years I have told many of my fellow coaches and Students that Federer does not hold a true semi-western grip and that it is a hybrid, the same was true for Bjorn Borg (his was even closer to a full eastern). I was discussing the other day with several coaches down here in So Cal that I thought Federer hits his open stance with a classic follow through and sometimes he hits a neutral stance with an extreme wrap type follow through, of course they thought I was on drugs, but now I have some more ammunition (more video). Additionally, I truly believe that most of Federer's shots from the baseline have a hook on them so they always have a slight side-spin mixture which makes his shot doubly tough to pick up. I think that he could only do that with the grip he holds, I don't think you could be as effective with a full western or even a Semi-western to do what federer does. However I have yet to see anyone comment on the fact he hit strokes with the curve like a bowler, what are your thoughts?

[lukman41985]

Great observation about the hook spin Federer puts on the ball. You can really see this shot when he hits the forehand down-the-line pass by hooking the ball from the doubles alley into the back corner. Just beautiful! But the way he does it, I think, is the way golfers hit a draw or more extreme hook. To do this, you need to hit the inside, lower quadrant of the ball and swing out. This will put the side-spin on the ball that you are talking about. If you look carefully, you'll see Federer does this same thing on his backhand passes where he hooks the ball by hitting the outside, lower quadrant. He also does this on his backhand slice. What many people forget about the slice is that to make it bounce and spin left when it lands, you need to not only hit down on the ball with a slightly open face, you need to hit the outside of the ball. As far as players with more extreme grips not being able to hook the ball, I don't think that's true. The side spin isn't a function of grip, it's a function of swing path.

[sorinteodoru]

My Name is Sorin and I am an open player and a part-time tennis instructor. I would like to thank you for a good article on Federer's forehand and I enjoyed it very much, so I would like to add my two cents since I too have been studying it. To start, I don't believe it is possible to have 25 variations on the forehand and still keep it consistant, so I believe I have found a common element that encompases most of those variations. It all boils down to how you think about how you hit a forehand. I the classic model I was taught the racket head moves in a low to high motion to contact and the body pushes the racket either by stepping forward, body rotation, arm motion, or a combination of all.

At contact I was taught to keep the racket angle constant as long as possible to avoid errors. This leads me to a mindset that the racket pushes the ball at contact. After studying Federer's mechanics and trying 20 or so different ideas on how to hit his forehand, I think I have found it.

Here it goes, mind you this is only how you should think about it not what actually happens... First start off with the classical unit turn (don't worry about the backswing) then think of your arm from shoulder to wrist as a lever (call it the arm lever) be it straight, double bent or in between (your distance from the ball will determine which one). Then think of the length from your wrist to the tip of the racket head as another lever (call it the disk lever). Now you do your normal forehand with your body and arm, but you imagine a large flat disk with your wrist at the center and your racket face lying flat on the surface of this disk and the racket tip on the outside edge of the disk. Now imagine your disk lever is only allowed to travel around this imaginary disk with the face flat on it. This imaginary disk angle reletive to the court is critical at contact, because this will determine where the ball will go and how much topspin it will have. I like to think of the disk about 20 to 30 degrees tilting forward but it varies with the situation. My backswing is used to put the racket flat on this disk then my arm lever moves the entire disk in front of my body, then my wrist turns the racket along the disk to contact, then everything relaxes.

Now, you would think moving the racket along this disk would give you an extremely short hitting zone which may be true, but having the the racket face travel along this disk/arc keeps the face very constant. Additionally, since the disk lever is very short, it can travel very vast through the hitting zone creating tremendous topspin to compensate for the short hitting zone. Finally, I believe that sending the racket in such an arc is very doable when you consider the same is happening in the one hand slice where the the face is set and it travels in an arc to contact with an incredibly small hitting zone yet the silce is one or the most consistant shots in the game.

To sum it all up, it boils down to thinking the forehand stroke is more of an arc than a collision or a push. Here are some pictures to illustrate my case.

[lukman41985]

The way you describe everything is pretty convoluted. Additionally, it isn't that revolutionary when you think about. The racquet needs to travel on an arc. This is said in the article. As you move the racquet through the shot and the body moves forward along with the arm, the racquet will go on an arc, and no, this doesn't necessarily shorten the hitting zone. If your arc is fairly flat, you'll have a longer hitting zone than an arc that is very rounded or nearly V-shaped.

One more thing, just because Federer has 25 variations on the forehand doesn't mean each one is hit completely differently. As John outlined in the article, there are commonalities that exist between all of them. So it is possible to have that many variations with practice and experimentation. The most important thing is to have the fundamentals down. And when I think Federer, I think Fundamental.

[sorinteodoru]

Second Sequence:

[sorinteodoru]

Federe forehand

Yes, I'm sorry my explanation was so convoluted, but it was my first attempt at writing it. What I was trying to get across is that it feels like the racket is traveling around this arc edge on and that the impact is a glacing blow instead of a direct impact or a push. Maybe a better way to say it is to imagine an angled plane passing through the contact point. This plane is horizontal and angled upwards as it goes away from you. The feeling I try to get is to put the racket flat on this plane and as the forward swing starts keep it flat on the plane throughout the rest of the stroke. The racket should also feel like it is traveling in a circular motion around the plane with the face flat on the plane. Mind you, this is just an image in my head and a feeling I try to achieve not what is actually happening. I believe that learning a tennis troke is all about imagry and feeling and this one works for me and I hope it works for others. Maybe even Fererer thinks this way. Maybe not. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

[johnyandell]

Sorin,

Cool job on the pictures! I will have to agree that no one can have 20 forehands--in the sense of having 20 ideas of what to do or 20 technical explanations etc... and I'm sure Roger doesn't think that way. If anything he thinks just the way you describe--pictures and feelings and probably subconsciously. My speculation is that he probably has an idea or a picture of what he wants to ball to do--and simultaneously feels the motion from that. The fact that he does so many things with the ball is why we analysts have so much to try to figure out.

What I like is how you took the stuff and translated it into something that had meaning for you. That's what (I hope) this site is all about.

John Yandell

[alechorton]

Federer response

Luke,
I agree with you that the side spin any person hits on a particular shot is based on the path the racquet takes, but it also in relation to how the racquet is pointed. For example, if you wanted to hit a sidespin serve, it is far easier to hit it with a continental grip than an eastern forehand grip or a semi western forehand grip (granted I am speaking about a right hander trying to achieve right to left spin, a typical slice serve. Not a right hander trying to achieve a left to right spin). I think we could agree on that. My feeling is that in Federer's case his grip allows him to achieve that path more easily based upon the anotomy of his arm position. That is not to say you connot hit a topspin forehand with a hook with any grip, it is just anotomically easier with the eastern hybrid grip he uses.

[lukman41985]

That is not to say you connot hit a topspin forehand with a hook with any grip, it is just anotomically easier with the eastern hybrid grip he uses.

Can I get an Amen? AMEN.

[alechorton]

Amen brother!

Yes you get an amen!
I know, preaching to the choir right?!

It is nice to have some intelligent life forms out there. Especially when it comes to tennis. I know I had said previously I thought "scratch your back" was dead, but unfortunately I was watching a child get a serve lesson today and that old archived phrase came out of the bag of tricks....ugggh.
Could not stand it.
Well some coaches will never change, I cannot imagine what that coach (stated above) thinks when Federer hits the ball, step swing $60 please, oh yeah that's exactly like Federer's forehand!

Alec

[spinit1time]

What about the eyes?

I believe it is possible that Federer's head movement back to contact may be so that his eyes can be on the ball at contact. If I think of a hitting action, like hammering a nail, I know that my eye needs to be at the contact point to make sure I hit the nail on the head. If my eyes are on the contact point, I can also be pretty sure where my mind is. If you look at a still shot of Roger at contact, with his eyes looking right at the ball, is there any doubt where his mind is.

As far as him leaving his eyes at the point of contact until the finish of his swing, does it aid in his making sure he finishes properly and on balance? If you leave your eyes at the point of contact as you finish your stroke, after the ball is gone you experience a momentary sense of blindness- in fact, you can even close your eyes for a second after the ball is gone - and you will have a better awareness of the "feeling" of your stroke. You will be more aware of your balance and it will give your mind enough time to consider the feedback your body is sending. If your eyes look up before you finish, your mind will have already moved on, and you will have lost valuable information in the process.

Roger Federer is not the only pro who is doing this, but he is probably doing it the best. Juan Carlos Ferrero, David Nalbandian, Justine Henin(sometimes), and the new rising star, Rafael Nadal, all keep their eyes at contact until they finish their swings. I have also seen a few pros from the past who had similiar habits with their eyes.

[johnyandell]

Interesting observations! I'm not saying it's wrong about the eyes on the ball or the possible benefit of having the eyes there. It is a fact though that Roger can't "see" the hit--nor can anyone else. The eyes need an event about 1/8 of a second to resolve. But still there could be something to it. In some high speed footage from the 1997 Open, Sampras also appeared to be "seeing" or at least looking at the ball at contact--sans extreme head position. This goes counter to the "hitting blind" hypothesis, a well know book with pictures of dozens of pros looking everywhere BUT at the contact...
Might be worth sampling in the Archive--if we take 10-20 forehands of every player what percentage of balls are which players apparently focused on the ball.

Also interesting hypothesis on the feel after the hit? Anyone else have input??

[lukman41985]

If you leave your eyes at the point of contact as you finish your stroke, after the ball is gone you experience a momentary sense of blindness- in fact, you can even close your eyes for a second after the ball is gone - and you will have a better awareness of the "feeling" of your stroke. You will be more aware of your balance and it will give your mind enough time to consider the feedback your body is sending. If your eyes look up before you finish, your mind will have already moved on, and you will have lost valuable information in the process.

I've never heard this point, but it is very interesting and in my experience, true. Great observation.

[george]

John, a very detail analyse.
I would like to put in my 2 cents.
Part of the reason why his strokes are so great is his footwork.
his balance. I noticed in some video sequences, he comes off the
ground more than most pros as he does his split step and he has a very
wide base to give that balance. I will post a picture to show what I mean.
His leg are almost like springs, he is very flexible, he gets alot of his
power from his legs.

John, I would like to suggest a footwork sequence of Federer, just isolating
on his legs, his spit step, his recovery steps, his general movement on the
court. Footwork is the key to most player success, one of the differences
between Federer and Roddick. That is why Henin can match the power of the bigger players, by the amount of time she devote to her fitness and footwork
training.