Have a Question for Me?

[jryle1]

It's a good question and I think the answer is that only a player could answer. Obviously it works for those guys. It probably pushes the contact further in front and also probably requires more body rotation.

I think Brian will eventually have something to say about it quantitatively. It's dangerous to throw around terms like "storing kinetic energy" loosely.

Whether it's some kind of turning point in the evolution of technique I am not sure. I do think that it probably has more application for elite players. And remember there are plenty of great forehands around with other arm structures: Djokovic, Soderling, and Del Potro who seems to use a variety.

I suppose that's fair enough about the kinetic energy thing. Yeah it's interesting. Federer and Nadal appear to be the only ones doing it. After re-reading what I wrote I forgot to mention what I was talking about. I'm talking about the extreme layback of the wrist? Is that what it is? Jeff calls it "pulling at an angle into the ball" or something like that. I just find it interesting that the Federer and Nadal forehands are probably up there as two of the greatest shots in history along with the Sampras serve and other strokes as well but I just find it easy that these extreme layback positions are interesting and could they mean anything. The other two pics arent neccessary, they are just for contrast really.

And yeah, for sure, Berdych's is pretty damn big!

[johnyandell]

It's a good question and I think the answer is that only a player could answer. Obviously it works for those guys. It probably pushes the contact further in front and also probably requires more body rotation.

I think Brian will eventually have something to say about it quantitatively. It's dangerous to throw around terms like "storing kinetic energy" loosely.

Whether it's some kind of turning point in the evolution of technique I am not sure. I do think that it probably has more application for elite players. And remember there are plenty of great forehands around with other arm structures: Djokovic, Soderling, and Del Potro who seems to use a variety.

[jryle1]

I just borrowed Jeff Count's photo here from his article on the straight armed forehand to ask a question.

I've been intrigued by this position since first learning of it from Jeff's site and talking to him about it. I THINK he believes this COULD be one of the reasons why Federer and Nadal's forehands are so unique, powerful and explosive. Would it in your opinion, be worth investigating this aspect of the stroke more. From the position above to contact and just after contact, to see what makes these two forehands unique? I know you've done two very detailed articles on the Federer forehand and one on Rafa's but I thought it might be interesting investigating this further.
I think Jeff puts Roger's forehand down to extreme torque combined with maximum leverage but he'd be able to help me out more there with the explanation.

Would just like to get your opinion on the above pictures and how it affects the strokes. Surely it allows you to store more kinetic energy which will later be released?

[johnyandell]

Yes most likely if they play in a major final--I was in London during the world deal and not really positioned to do the analysis.

Dec will be up any day--I think it's all interesting!

[jryle1]

Two questions:

1) Will we ever have the Fed Vs Rafa analysis again? I know Fed-Rafa matches these days are very rare but that was one of my favourite articles. The grand slam and clay analysis'.

2) When's the Decemeber issue due out? I'm psyched for it. Any interesting material?

[uspta4201423750]

pioneering a new grip on the backhand

Well, so much for my pioneering the semi-western left hand on the backhand; the newest Tennis Magazine's article, "Master Every Stroke" on page 31 recommends "semi-western grip." This advice seems to come from Rick Macci, but it's in Tom Perrotta's article. I guess I'm not as revolutionary as you and I thought. Harry Kingsley

[johnyandell]

Don,

Jamming on the Dec issue, but did you factor the deceleration?? 120mph off racket is about 90ish mph pre bounce, 60ish post bounce, 50-55ish mph at contact.

John

[tennis_chiro]

Please check my last post of Service toss

John, please check my logic here

http://www.tennisplayer.net/bulletin/showthread.php?p=12331#post12331

It's post #35.

don

[johnyandell]

It's a great question. I think we need to be careful about generalizing based on certain examples. There are plenty of Federer forehands where he does get that more extreme rotation. Agassi rotated like that sometimes, but probably on balance not.

The more extreme the grip, likely the higher contact height, more likely airbourne contact, more likely greater rotation. With Fed, since he tries to play up as much as possible and takes the ball lower/earlier, he hits with one foot on the ground more, and rotates less on those--sometimes...

You get the idea here. Just as their are many wiper variations, there are degrees of rotation and the challenge is that top players combine these things in so many ways. It's hard to say what the norm is or even that there is one.

[tennisfan04]

Shoulder rotation in forehand

Hi John,

Thanks for some terrific 500 fps slow motion videos of Roger Federer. My question related to the shoulder finish at the end of the forehand. If you look at the first three forehands by Roger in the Forehand Wide Open Stance (500 fps), his shoulders at the end of the forehand motion are parallel to the baseline, while his racket is pointing to the back fence. So his shoulders rotated by roughly 90 degrees.

Many players like Djokovic and Agassi have an almost 180 degree shoulder rotation in their forehand and their shoulders are facing the backhand sideline and are 90 degrees to the baseline.

Just like a 100 m sprinter cannot stop at the 102 meter line, rather his momentum carries him at least 7 - 10 meters past the finish, shouldn't the shoulders on a well struck forehand rotate by 180 degrees if full power is applied to the forehand? Roger may be the one exception, who can generate an outstanding forehand with only a 90 degree rotation, but in terms of teaching tennis players do you like to see a 180 degree rotation?

Thanks

[johnyandell]

i think Phil's last post pretty much summarizes all the issues. It would be quite a challenge to come up with an explanation that encompasses them all!

Regarding the wind up and the toss and the differences, check out Doug Eng's series on service rhythms.

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/tour_strokes/tour_strokes.html

Without trying to respond to everything you guys raised, I'll add one thing. I think it's important to distinguish in all this the difference between the toss and the contact point.

The toss may be up to several feet inside the baseline, but, the contact point is only very slightly in front of the edge of the head. This is regardless of the body lean, bend at waist etc. As someone might of mentioned, the player or body catches up to the toss.

So the explosion up and out to the ball from the legs (more so obviously after the rule change) is a big factor as well as the angle of the body. That accounts for at least 1 foot up to several feet (check out Krajicek in the archives)of the distance in side the court.

I think it's important not to put the emphasis on throwing the ball in front for it's own sake. It's more a matter of pairing the toss with the motion to achieve the right contact point.

[gzhpcu]

John, I posted a thread on the toss. We would appreciate hearing your comments...

[jryle1]

HI John

Quick note to thank you for your talk at the Irish coaches conference last week. It was by far the best event I have attended in a while (snow aside).

I'm sure your aware of it but I got a casio exilim (240 frames per second) camera from dublin airport. It does a great job and only cost 200 euro.

Thanks a lot john.

Steve Landpon

Thanks. To clarify for everyone, I had the pleasure on Thanksgiving Sunday to present for a day at the Tennis Ireland Coaches Assoc annual convention.

It was a great conference and yeah, that is a great camera! Have fun with it. You can really help people using that camera and the Tennisplayer footage!

It was indeed a great conference. Was delighted that Peter Farrell invited me along as a guest. I think I have a camera similar to that and the footage isn't too bad as you can see in the Your Strokes article on my serve.

Thing was, I already knew everything you said except for the two handed backhand. Have never studied that because I'm a one hander but studied everything else religiously for the last two years! Was still good fun though!

[johnyandell]

I don't think there is an answer. Can the player do both? That's the only issue. The order he learns them in can go either way.

[kakashi]

Thank you

Thank you for reply


well, as you said it is much easier for a lot of student to hit though the ball with square stance. Just like golf stance.

Well, here is my question.

should we learn square stance first or open stance first?

I do not want to say "experiment" but this is the result I get.

A) Those who started with open stance
Pros- They can get high ball and side shots without any problem.
Their open stance become more natural since they learn this from the start.
And I can see they can rally or play match with different people right away.
Since match involves more side to side movement and faster and higher balls and open stance allow them to hit them easier
Cons-well, from my experience it takes while to get open stance correct. a lot of student doesn't really get the idea of keeping weight on right foot. and this is very important. Let them hit with left leg only. and i also draw the circle and ask them to place the right foot to one circle so they get the correct stance. when i ask open stance then, they usually place right foot and left foot with one line and that is not right... anyhow... my students get really really tire and bored.. from my experience it takes about 2month to get comfortable after these boring drill... but my biggest problem i see is that their shots get too spiny...well, it is much easier to hit spin with open stance but it can get too much spin a lot of times.. and I do not like it....


B) those who started with square stance
Pros- they can hit through the ball better.
Most student can get this stance without any problem. just moving weight forward. Easier to learn and easier to hit the ball harder

Cons- well, once they start playing match, especially faster pace or involves high ball then they can't hit those shots. well, since their shots tend to be bit lower, they miss more shots during the game. Not to mention about recovery problem....


My conclusion.. it is really hard to say..well, the thing is i have seen both case... I have seen many great players who started with square stance.. point.. Can you answer this question.. thank you very much