Tweet
No. There is this thing called ability to swing an 11oz implement very fast and and very accurately. That can't be coached. The other belief is the myth of technique.
-
-
Higueras: US problems due to poor coaching?
John,
This is a bit different topic, but wonder if you have any thoughts on comments by Jose Higueras, former coach of Chang, Courier, Sampras and Federer, and the USTA's Director of Coaching Tennis Association of the United States for last 6 years.
As best I can understand (the interview is in Spanish and mine is admittedly poor), Higueras says the decline of American pro tennis is due to poor coaching.
Players know how to hit the ball, but not how to move. The American players' balance is worse and this drives poor shot selection. It will take years to fix because the coaching has to be fixed before the players can be coached.
thx/ jim
http://www.mihijoeltenista.com.ar/jo...-que-el-resto/Comment
-
Interesting question. But I am not sure footwork is the problem. I think it's just the fact that great players are rare. Still your question anticipates some new articles from Chris Lewit on the Spanish teaching systems. There is definitely a different emphasis on movement there, related in part to the red clay. More to come on that from Chris.Comment
-
Suggestion
Always glad to provide you with a good set up <g>.Originally posted by johnyandell View Post
One topic I'd like to see Lewit cover is whether the Spanish system is one-size-fits-all. I'm thinking specifically of the inside-out-forehand from the backhand corner -- a tactic that works splendidly for Rafa and Ferrer, and IMHO not so well for Raonic (who trained in Spain) and Isner who didn't. Seems to this spectator to emphasize their weaknesses of mobility and endurance, while minimizing their strengths.Comment
-
Not sure the weakness is tactical. The movement problem is the same all over the court. If anything inside out hides it.Comment
-
Confused?
I'm perplexed. Players that consistently run around their backhand have to run 20% further than those that have a more balanced mix of groundstrokes. Secondly, it's a lot harder to get to short balls, the net, drop shots from the far, back hand corner -- thus keeping the slower, big servers from closing out.Originally posted by johnyandell View Post
So, you have Isner completely exhausted in grand slam events, and Raonic trying to beat the likes of Giles Simon by running side-to-side {although now that he's with Ivan Ljubičić his tactics are changing and Raonic's results are improving}.Comment
-
Nope. There are reasons the inside out position is preferred by most players.
First everyone wants to hit forehands. Second they can hit on the diagonal forehand to backhand. Third to attack the so called open court against an inside player, the opponent has to hit a backhand down the line--the riskiest shot there is and the hardest to hit aggressively. Fourth, the inside in forehand is less risky and more aggressive than the backhand down the line. Fifth, to stay up on the baseline center and succeed means taking the ball Agassi early. The last player that could do that was Agassi. And he says with the modern string he couldn't today.
The distance to the net is a non factor in the modern game. As for short balls if the ball is short and weak (or weaker) it's not a problem to move up.
BTW this inside strategy is almost never used but works fantastically well in club tennis--probably better even at lower levels.Last edited by johnyandell; 10-20-2014, 12:28 PM.Comment
-
BH Stances/Swing Type & Shoulder's at impact
John - 2 Questions
1) Would you say it's fair conclude that because the women tend to have type 1 or 2 style backhand's w/ less or no independent arm movement in the forward swing and hit a lot more open stance BH's, that is why their shoulders are more open at impact than the men? More trunk rotation is required because of the lack of independent arm movement.
2) Particularly in the Men's 2 Handed BH (more extreme closed stance) what is the reason for the rear shoulder being so much higher than the front shoulder at impact?
Fascinated by all your research/articles and just trying to make sense of it all.
SeanComment
-
Sean,
Question 1: yes exactly.
Question 2: that's a good one. I will have to think about that and look at some backhands.
AND thanks for the good words!Comment
-
Rear Shoulder higher
John -
Would a possible reason for the rear shoulder being so much higher at impact be that;
The rear elbow raises up in the "flip" to produce even more racquet drop and stretch and then the left arm (right hander) straightens out to a contact more in front of the body, while the right arm is bent at impact?
SeanComment
-
Hey John,
What high speed video camera do you use?Comment
-
Sean,
Possibly. I got find time to look at that--it's an interesting point.
Bowt,
Different ones. The high speed archives is shot with a variety of high end cameras, primarily Phantoms. Some with the manually controlled Casios that are no longer available. The casios are what I use on court in analysis.Comment
-
Hi John,
What do you think of the Alexander technique in respect to tennis?
http://www.tenniswithouttension.com/article4.htmlComment
-
Phil,
I can't say I have a real opinion on the Alexander Technique per se. But I know Gary and in fact worked with him on those articles and I think the ideas in them are basically sound.Comment
-
Hi Phil
The principles of the Alexander Technique are the foundation of all the movements that you see in tennis , both in terms of stroking and footwork. Having worked with players of all levels with this technique for over 20 years, including the women's varsity tennis team at Princeton University, I have witnessed very positive changes over time in many of these players . It helps unify and coordinate all their movements, so that the body efficiently works as a whole. The technique is a way of helping all the biomechanical principles of sports work more effectively. Learning the technique takes time, patience and a willingness to change how you use and hold your body.Comment
Comment