Federer article

[johnyandell]

Good points. We need to delve into the whole issue of court movement. If you look in the Stroke Archives-especially the new stuff from Indian Wells he does appear to be the best balanced (or one of for sure) and very explosive yet smooth and controlled in his movement. The series so far has looked mainly at the swings. We are adding more articles on footwork in the future and I'll be writing on the forehand stances as well.

[lukman41985]

He does really jump into shots. I wonder though: is it a result of him trying to put some power into his strokes by exploding into the shot with his legs or is he getting up to the ball so it doesn't get too high up on him--trying to get it in his optimal strike zone. Probably a combo of these two.

[vaculik]

John:
I would like to offer my perspective on Federer's forehand. I
think his knuckle is at the edge between bevel 3 and 4 because it is
more of a hammer grip like Don Budge uses in his video archive,
except one is an eastern hammer and the other a continental hammer.
Also note the fluidity of Budge's strokes. Let me relate this to my
personal experiences.
I started playing tennis on grass almost 60 years ago using the
hammer continental. Then about 8 years later I had the traumatic
experience of having to play on asphalt and other hard courts where
the ball bounced up my waist! The continental became a disadvantage
because of the inconsistencies in wrist adjustments and at a later
time I took some lessons and tried the eastern grips. They have
never had the same feel as the continental hammer for me. The
strokes felt awkward and stilted but I persisted. Occasionally I
would slip back into the hammer, with the butt in the palm of the
hand, and felt I could do a lot more with the racket than with the
splayed out fingers of the eastern. With the eastern it felt as if
I was imposing a shot on the ball but with the hammer it felt as if I
was following and guiding the ball and my strokes felt more
"natural". There was a lot more feel in the shot. Maybe this was a
result of my early conditioning in the game.
Today, using the eastern hammer and coming in at the ball butt
first, then whipping the racket over the ball so it finishes face
down, feels like there is a longer contact and I am in effect
"slinging" the ball back.
In summary, I am saying Federer is achieving the fluidity of Don
Budge because of the hammer grip except he has improved it by using
it in the eastern position. I believe the hammer grip may allow for
more freedom and variations in arm movement, for whatever reason.
(Now, if Federer was to change his eastern backhand to a hammer so
his knuckle sits on the edge between bevels 1 and 2, I wonder what
would happen. Look at the fluidity of the Budge backhand.)
On another subject: the forward tilt of the racket. I wait to
return serve with the backhand grip and if it's to my forehand I will
sometimes return it with that grip. Interestingly, it is a more
consistent and effective return than switching to the forehand grip
and it does have a forward tilt. The ball very seldom goes into the
net. Maybe it's my years of playing with the continental and having
to adjust the wrist accordingly which enables me to execute such a shot.
I hope I have not wasted too much of your time and offered a
perspective that maybe of use. You really have a first class and
informative web site. I love the music videos.
Regards, Peter

[johnyandell]

Peter,
First glad you like the music videos! I love making them, and even watching them...
On the grips--interesting about the hammer. I've never liked the super finger spread thing myself. It always felt forced and stiff. One more thing to try to investigate. Who wants to go thru the archives and see who is hammer who is spread and who is in between...?? Lukman that ought to keep you busy for a while if you get bored...

John

[lukman41985]

Hahahaha, you know I'll be all over it...thanks John!

[jctennis]

Incredible article(s). What you are doing is actually some new kind of art form. There is just no way anyone could have seen or had an opinion on the technical complexities of that shot without the video.

BUT quite demanding to read. And a little disheartening because how am I supposed to copy my hero Roger if he has 27 forehands--I was hoping for like 1 or maybe 3... Is there a way to boil it down and make it simpler? Also so far as the variations go, what do they all really mean in terms of shot selection?

[tennis4you]

Federer's forehand article

John,
You obviously have looked at a lot of video of Federer's forehand. The article is very complicated and hard to wade through. I believe you focus too much on the arm and finish postions. Most players (even a lot of very high level players) will probably not be able to emulate the complete relaxation that Federer seems to have in his arm. Much like Sampras's serve nothing replaces a "live", relaxed arm for producing power with control. Your torso argument is interesting, but does not differntiate between the shoulders and the hips (which I believe are the real key to producing a more relaxed arm).
Your best and most informative conclusion came at the end of the article, which I hope does not get missed by most players was:
"The elements in Federer's forehand that would be most beneficial for most players to copy are, ironically, the ones he shares with the other players. These are in the preparation phase, specifically the unit turn, the left arm stretch, and some version of a compact backswing."

The website is looking spectacular keep up the good work.
Thanks.

[coleman]

federer head position on forehand

federer might be left eye dominate as agassi is.you want your dominate eye closer to contact so left eye dominate players have to turn their head more to achieve this.

[johnyandell]

I pretty much agree--it's is very complicated! I didn't set out to make it that way, Roger did that for us. Sometimes to understand the forest, you have to look at a lot of different trees.

I agree with you that Federer's arm is as "live" as live can be, still I think it's worthwhile looking at the different patterns. If you can pick up one or two of the variations and learn to excute them technically, you won't be Federer but you'll have a better forehand. (I know it's proved true for me...) One of the problems I feel is that people try to copy Federer without actually getting the elements correct--or even close to correct...so that's where the high speed footage has tremendous value for all of us.

I'll also have to agree with you (and myself) about imitating the commonalities he shares with other top players. I plan at the end of the forehand series to boil a lot of the detail down to some simple steps for developing the stroke and the variations. But first I need to look at a few more trees...

You should elaborate before us about your thoughts on the hips, shoulders, and relaxed arm!

[lukman41985]

Second Sequence:

Sorin,
I was thinking about your description the other day and I have to say, your disk image works really well for me. In particular, I use the image of a disk to vary my ball spin and speed on the forehand. If I want to hit a really flat shot, I imagine my racquet traveling on an arc, face perpendicular, but with the tip traveling along a disk that is parallel to the ground (sitting flat so one side faces the court and the other side faces the sky). If I want to hit a shot with a lot of top, I imagine the disk being oriented so that the one side is facing the left fence, the other side facing the right fence. If I want to get a good combo of spin and speed, I imagine a disk inclined about 45 degrees. And on your second string of pictures, this is exactly what your illustration shows. The whole disc image also gets into the idea of swing plane, which is all the rage in golf, but not really discussed in tennis. Different planes allow one to hit different shots. Thank you for opening my imagination and kinesthetic machinery to this whole concept.

[crosscourt]

I would like to comment on two issues. Sorin's arc, and the eyes issue.

For me, like Sorin, they key thought that I have in hitting a forehand is to get the arc. Watching pros play at Roland Garros in particular I am struck by the constant that the arc is in their shots off the ground. It doesn't matter how much pressure they're under, there is always an arc -- at least for the guys who trade on groundstrokes. Everything else can be sacrificed if the pressure is on -- stance, turn, loop whatever (though turn is next after arc). But they always hit the arc. I am not advocating dumping all the beautiful things that you see in Federer's strokes, nor am I saying that when you groove your shots you shouldn't aim to get the key elements in there, but for me it helps if I know that however much pressure I am under there is one thing that I have to execute and for me it is the arc.

On the eyes, there are so many different things to try to think about. I am sure that for me as for most players the key thing is to concentrate on watching the ball all the time. From your racket to the other guy's and then all the way back. Getting this degree of engagement with the ball is key to early preparation and a stable platform to hit from, and all the good things that follow from that. If there is any caveat it is that it is best to try to see the ball through the hit. I know that it isn't possible to do that, but it must give you the best chance of co-ordinating all the moving parts in your shot to try to do so. Part of the discipline of doing that is staying down on the ball and that means looking at where the ball was, and not where it has gone to, for a very short period after the hit. It shouldn't stop you picking up the ball again early enough -- way before the ball goes over the net, and it shouldn't stop you also observing your opponents movements. It really helps if you are feeling confident and are hitting the ball out in front.

[lukman41985]

crosscourt,

What do you mean about the arc of the ball? I'm somehow skeptical that the pros have the same arc on almost every shot. Somebody like Federer, with all his variety, I don't think would have the same arc on every shot. So please just explain.

Also, about the eyes. Conventional wisdom says we must focus as hard as we can on the ball at all times. I believed the same, until I read works put out by Arete Sports. Check out the Parallel Mode Manual: http://www.arete-sports.com/articles.shtml

[crosscourt]

Lukman -- when I say the arc I man the arc described by the racket. As Sorin describes in the photos he provided. And it does change with the trajectory that I want the ball to take. But the changes are much smaller than the constants. I hit a mid-court put away with a very similar shot to a defensive topspin lob. If you watch someone like Gaudio play a rally, and he turns defence into attack pretty well, just watchhis forehand preparation and you'll see what I mean.

[lukman41985]

Sorry crosscourt, thanks for clearing that up. I thought you were talking about the arc of the ball. Keeping the arc of racquet constant would definitely help in disguising the shot.

[crosscourt]

Lukman -- I have had a look at the the Arete website. I am not sure how much of it I follow let alone understand, but it seems to be about helping players improve their awareness of where they need to hit the ball relative to their body position/position on court. I think that this is probably something that varies with the depth/height/pace of the ball at least a little. Anyway, if it helps I am sure it is a good thing. I guess that as part of watching the ball, at least as it gets near to me, I do what they advocate -- identify the best position of the ball for me to execute my preferred stroke. I don't advocate watching the ball to the exclusion of all other processes, just doing that as a basis for making all the other processes work best.

cc