chris lewit visits spain

[chuckkoton]

John and Chris,
I really love this about this site, the way you develop ideas from new sources and you seem to have the knack of finding new voices like the spanish forehand. Stimulating of thought and inspiration. It's great to see players doing what their coach is talking about too. Cheers for the holidays.
ck

[bman]

Actually, i sort of disagree. On one hand, you have Robert Lansdorp all over this site saying that the most important thing is to hit through the ball, you need weapons, etc, and saying that "the academy ball" is overrated. The this guy comes in and seems to advocate the opposite. I think Lansdorp would think that "the spanish forehand" article is garbage. An interesting article for next month would be to ask Lansdorp for his review of the article.

It seems as though the site is turning a bit into "tennis one" with so many different voices with (often conflicting) ideas.

For instance, another example is an outdated article on the site called "Forehand Made Easy" that begins with talking about the importance of "stepping in" to your forehand for power. Then it goes on to show Jimmy Connors and then John McEnroe as forehand models to emulate. Would have been cutting edge stuff in 1981.

Will the site have of one unifying philosophy or set of ideas, or will it be a warehouse of all tennis ideas that leaves it up to the viewer to decide what is right and what is not?

[uspta146749877]

John is the best person to respond IMHO

Actually, i sort of disagree. On one hand, you have Robert Lansdorp all over this site saying that the most important thing is to hit through the ball, you need weapons, etc, and saying that "the academy ball" is overrated. The this guy comes in and seems to advocate the opposite. I think Lansdorp would think that "the spanish forehand" article is garbage. An interesting article for next month would be to ask Lansdorp for his review of the article.

It seems as though the site is turning a bit into "tennis one" with so many different voices with (often conflicting) ideas.

For instance, another example is an outdated article on the site called "Forehand Made Easy" that begins with talking about the importance of "stepping in" to your forehand for power. Then it goes on to show Jimmy Connors and then John McEnroe as forehand models to emulate. Would have been cutting edge stuff in 1981.

Will the site have of one unifying philosophy or set of ideas, or will it be a warehouse of all tennis ideas that leaves it up to the viewer to decide what is right and what is not?

John is the best person to respond IMHO

[johnyandell]

Some interesting points!

First if you look at Robert's most recent stroke articles you'll see that he is actuallly training 3 finishes, the classic hit thru, the reverse, and what he calls the downward finish which is basically the wiper Chris is talking about.

He calls it the dominant finish in the modern game and I think that's true. And, as we've seen in the Advanced Tennis articles you can certainly extend and wiper at the same time (or not.)

I think the idea of a "unified voice" sounds good in principle but it's not reality. The issue I think is the credibility of the voices. I hope that it is obvious that there is a difference in the stature and the quality of our writers when compared to other sites.

I think that the reality is that virtually every coach is in some fundamental ways different from every other. Players have different goals and proclivities as well and what makes sense for one coach and one player doesn't to others.

The place I try to draw the line is correspondence to reality. If what a coach is advocating corresponds to what the video or biomechanical data shows, and if players at all levels are using it and succeeding, then I think that really adds to the site.

When I was younger I was pretty sure that what I thought was the only source of universal truth. Now I know that what I value the most is learning from and being challenged by the players and other coaches as the game evolves.

Even Lansdorp has said: "leave me some of those high speed DVDs maybe I'll learn something..."

Here's the Lansdorp link:

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/famouscoach/robert_lansdorp/lansdorp_three_forhand_finishes/lansdorp_three_forhand_finishes.html

[chrislewit]

Thanks

Thanks for the compliments.

I have always been attracted to Tennisplayer because of the quality of John's editing and the quality level of analysis. I've found many ideas and articles from Tennisplayer useful in helping me work on the court with students. I cannot say the same about other sites. I believe John's superior editing and intellect help make Tennisplayer the great resource that it is for students of the game.

If anyone has any technical questions from the article, I will check back on the forum from time to time this week and next

Happy holidays all!

Chris

[gsheiner]

Great article Chris.

I 'm curious as to what you think is the best approach for short mid-court balls.

Looking at the archives, it seems to me that someone like Sampras for example has a different technique than a Spanish player like Nadal. Sampras seems to have an over the shoulder finish ( or at times a reverse finish as Robert Lansdorp pointed out) which seems to produce a flatter ball and quicker movement to the net.

Nadal has the full wiper and tends to rely more on winners than on following in to the net.

If a kid is a good volleyer and a natural attack player, what would you teach him?

Thanks,

Glenn S.

[bman]

I think the real issue is not "What do the pros do?" It is obvious that they finish low, around the elbow or the waist on most shots. For less spin, they finish higher. We can all see what the pros look like.

The real issue is progression. With low level younger players, should one teach a finish that is by the waist? Over the shoulder? Out in front, like Lansdorp? In my experience, it is essential that kids hit a good topspin drive before you teach them to finish low for heavy topspin. To teach weak, younger kids to finish low can be a recipe for disaster...they may not extend and may never learn to lift, either. If they do get the ball over the net, it will fall like a dying quail. On the other hand, good athletes who are small and weak can do both effectively, but the problem is that they may fall in love with the "roll" because it works so well in the 10's and 12's, but never get good with the drive, which one needs in the later age groups.

Another issue is male vs. female. Lansdorp notes that the women's game is more about pure ball striking and the men's game is about spin, angles, variety, etc. I think a core question is this: Can women hit through the court with a heavy ball? I would tend to say...not really. While Oudin models her game to be heavy, the best women players seem to win by hitting through the court with a relatively flat ball. I look at that girl in the clip, with grip fairy under the handle, and wonder if Lansdorp and Macci would approve.

[chrislewit]

Finishes for mid court attack

Hi Glenn,

This is a good question. I think the finish on an attack shot will vary depending on player preference. Most students who learn a modern swing, in my experience, tend to attack with a lower finish. They prefer the lower finish because it gives them more racquet speed. Most modern forehands on the men's tour are the same way.

I don't believe a wiper finish will necessarily hinder movement towards the net. I believe the footwork (whether using a front foot hop or open stance, for example) will determine the movement efficiency towards the net. A classic open stance (Nadal frequently) from midcourt will usually hinder movement forwards to the net, although some variations of the open stance--those with forward transfer, do not.

Therefore, I would focus more on the stances and the variations that allow forward transfer if working with a player with a predilection for attacking.

I've written about these footwork approaches in my book and also David Bailey has done some excellent work describing some of the forward transfers in his system, which I highly recommend.

In my opinion, there is no reason why a player cannot have a modern forehand with a low finish and a great attacking net game; the two are not mutually exclusive. Just because the finish is low, doesn't mean the ball cannot be hit hard and mostly flat when attacking.

For me, the style of Sampras is very classic and good, but ultimately outdated in the today's modern men's game.

Federer is a pretty good model forehand--he tends to finish lower and transitions very quickly.

The reason many Spanish players can transition slowly, I would argue, is mainly a function of their footwork and stances, not finishes

Hope that helps.

Chris

Great article Chris.

I 'm curious as to what you think is the best approach for short mid-court balls.

Looking at the archives, it seems to me that someone like Sampras for example has a different technique than a Spanish player like Nadal. Sampras seems to have an over the shoulder finish ( or at times a reverse finish as Robert Lansdorp pointed out) which seems to produce a flatter ball and quicker movement to the net.

Nadal has the full wiper and tends to rely more on winners than on following in to the net.

If a kid is a good volleyer and a natural attack player, what would you teach him?

Thanks,

Glenn S.

[chrislewit]

some food for thought

Hello

Actually, I would disagree with the basic premise that low finish=spin and high finish=flat. This is an oversimplification and a partial myth in my opinion.

I have many students who prefer to finish low even on hard hit drives. They feel it gives them more racquet speed. Maybe it's an area for more research.

Female vs Male is another area that is open to significant debate and you raise some good points. Another great area for research.

The girl you mentioned is struggling a bit with her grip. I'm concerned about it myself. But to say that women cannot hit a heavy spin ball is not true. Some women cannot, but many can. I believe that the flat, power paradigm of women's tennis will be transcended in the next 20-30, even 50 years. In other words, I expect to see many more women players on the professional tour using more wipers on their forehands, spin, angles--basically playing more and more like men. Of course, this is just my opinion, my prediction looking into my crystal ball.

My hunch is that women like Sam Stosur, Justin Henin, and Sveta Kuznetsova, Serena to some extent, for example, give us perhaps a glimpse of what this more athletic, heavier spin game, might look like decades from now. As women become more athletic, physical and strong, this will only accelerate the change to the new professional paradigm.


So when you build technique in a young player, you can teach them the game of the last decade, or the current game, or you can try to anticipate the next wave in technical evolution. In fact, one major goal when I write is encourage more coaches to be open minded, especially when coaching young girls.

It is personally sad to me to see so many girls boxed into a flat, monotonous technical game. Go to a high level girls junior tournament in the US and they almost all play the same way: straight and flat. It's depressing for me to see that. In Europe it is not this way and you see a larger percentage of girls with heavier spin, with slice backhands, with kick serves, with sharp angles. Many of the up and coming ITF French girls play with more whip, and many of the ITF junior Spanish girls even emulate technically some of the men like Nadal. It is cool to see that women can indeed hit this way because many elite coaches in today's game (not just American) insist that women are just not capable of doing this, that they are not strong enough (a common refrain).

Still, the percentage of women who play this way overall is small and I think that will change in the coming decades as more coaches open their minds to teaching some of the techniques I'm outlining in this series.

I expect to see a women's game with a broader mix of technical styles in the coming decades. Will the WTA look like today's ATP? Probably not. But I believe a significantly larger percentage of women pros will be hitting that Spanish forehand.

By the way, just to be clear, I have never advocated ONLY teaching a heavy spin ball. This will create a very good 12 year old, but potentially leave that kid without a big weapon to attack with when he or she is 18.

As I've discussed in previous articles, it is very important to develop a strong powerful drive (a la Landsorp). I just believe that many of the great players of the future will have a Spanish style heavy ball AND a great flatter power drive, and I don't think the two skills are mutually exclusive.

You implied in a previous post that my article was in direct contradiction to Lansdorp's work here on Tennisplayer. I don't see it that way. It is very important to teach a kid to extend, and drive the ball hard and deep, the Lansdorp way, but I believe that modern players should be able to defend and attack with heavy spin forehands as well as drive the ball like a laser. They are two separate technical skills that should be taught to develop a complete world-class forehand in today's modern game.

Chris

I think the real issue is not "What do the pros do?" It is obvious that they finish low, around the elbow or the waist on most shots. For less spin, they finish higher. We can all see what the pros look like.

The real issue is progression. With low level younger players, should one teach a finish that is by the waist? Over the shoulder? Out in front, like Lansdorp? In my experience, it is essential that kids hit a good topspin drive before you teach them to finish low for heavy topspin. To teach weak, younger kids to finish low can be a recipe for disaster...they may not extend and may never learn to lift, either. If they do get the ball over the net, it will fall like a dying quail. On the other hand, good athletes who are small and weak can do both effectively, but the problem is that they may fall in love with the "roll" because it works so well in the 10's and 12's, but never get good with the drive, which one needs in the later age groups.

Another issue is male vs. female. Lansdorp notes that the women's game is more about pure ball striking and the men's game is about spin, angles, variety, etc. I think a core question is this: Can women hit through the court with a heavy ball? I would tend to say...not really. While Oudin models her game to be heavy, the best women players seem to win by hitting through the court with a relatively flat ball. I look at that girl in the clip, with grip fairy under the handle, and wonder if Lansdorp and Macci would approve.

[tennis_chiro]

Chris, I really liked the article

Chris, I thought this was a great article. The background of the way you developed your philosophy working with Gilad and Pato (in a linked article) added a lot of texture to the understanding of where you were coming from. I've got to go over it a couple of more times to really digest it all and see where it fits with what I am doing and where it doesn't. Then I may have more questions, but in the meantime I have a couple of questions for you.

I'm a little of an "old schooler" and I've insisted my students learn to hit through the ball before they start to work on the wiper. Some of them seem to arrive there despite my trying to discourage them from that path until I think they are ready, but once they make that transition it is difficult to hold them back. And recently, I have been using the wiper as cure for not staying on the ball enough because the nature of the stroke allows the player to keep the racket face parallel to the net for a longer period of time. It seems like I get a lot of players who were taught the Oscar Wegner MTM finish to the opposite ear with the back of the hand, but can't hit through the ball to save their lives. They really seem to benefit from trying to finish at the opposite hip in an exaggerated wiper followthrough. (To a certain degree, what I just said is in direct contradiction to what I am about to say.)

The sense I get from these comments as well as the article (and it may be hard for me to separate the two [and that's not fair to you, but that's the message that is stuck in my mind]) is that you can start the player on the wiper forehand as soon as he/she can hit it as long as you get them to hit the flat ball as well as the heavy topspin.

I don't see a that much difficulty getting kids to hit flat balls with the wiper and it lends itself best to the topspin forehand; the problem I see is that kids who adopt the wiper too soon don't hit through the ball with their core. Whether it's a roller or a relatively level drive (for my money, still with a good deal of topsin), I want the racket to go through the hitting zone the way Nalbandian demonstrates on the first page of Jeff Counts site (http://www.hi-techtennis.com/). From 9 o'clock to 12 o'clock as the racket face maintains the position relatively parallel to the net (or perpendicular to the intended path of the outgoing shot), you can clearly see the racket moves forward 8" to 12". Unfortunately, most of the wipers I see the kids using only move forward half that distance, at best. But when my students have a good sense of "hitting through the ball" with their core, it is relatively easy for me to get them to transfer to a heavier ball with the wiper. Likewise, if they have learned a conservative grip closer to the Eastern forehand, it is relatively easy to get them to hit a heavy ball with wiper-like stroke on short balls and they have little difficulty making the transition to a volley grip. But if they are hitting that heavy wiper stroke from the start, it is relatively tough to get them to change their habit and hit through the ball with their core. I can get them to do it for me in a lesson and even get them to like it, but when the pressure comes, they tend to revert to the old stroke without going through with enough pace. In addition, if they have a strong semi-Western grip or worse, yes, they can hit the short ball just fine, but they are in trouble as they have to transition to a volley grip and finish the point.

Do you see this kind of problem at all?

*********
*********

One of the other things I really like about your article is the footwork your young students demonstrate in the clips in the article. I like it, but…I also have a problem with it.

I used to ask students to tell me what Agassi did better than anyone else. Few, if any, would come up with what I think is the right answer. Andre's footwork was better than anyone else's. (They used to say most tennis players were pigeon-toed, because to hit the old style stroke stepping into every ball you had to have very quick footwork. We all got a little bit pigeon-toed, most not as bad as Andre and very, very few as bad as Segura, but Sherlock Holmes might have used this characteristic to identify a tennis player just from his walk.) Andre's feet were so quick to set up and that is what enabled him to take those balls early and still hit them with tremendous pace. He had those quick little steps that put him in such good position to apply a big hit to even the most aggressive shots that were hit at him. Your students demonstrate that quick footwork really well. Rafa also has phenomenal footwork. Most people don't realize how completely set he is for almost every ball he hits, especially those backhands that take him from defense to offense. And Andre certainly used the skip step to great effect, but he also almost always used a CROSSOVER STEP to recover when he was pulled wide; just one, but it was almost always there. I think this is a big shortcoming in the Spanish footwork "skip step only" philosophy. It is simply less efficient. Furthermore, as great as the specificity, control and discipline of the Spanish skip step only footwork may be, the efficiency of the giant step approach to footwork of Roger Federer simply is better. In the zone a step either side of your ready position or when you have time to set up and prepare for a wider ball, the Spanish "reception" of the ball is great; in fact, probably superior. But when the game is going full speed the way it does now more and more of the time, the ease and efficiency of the big steps far outstrips the little dance that is so appealing in the clips in your article. Simply get the plant foot and the racket behind the ball, and hit the damn thing. There simply isn't time to step into a lot of those balls, much less to do that beautiful 1-2-3 your students are demonstrating on those clips. Rafa seems to be able to pull it off most of the time, but even someone as quick as Ferrer doesn't seem to have time to pull that off (I haven't carefully examined the video; that's just my impression.)

So, Chris, how do you feel about this? Do you like the side skip even on balls in the corner?

And David Bailey, are you out there? We'd be very curious where you come down on the reality of the use of that split step for the whole recovery!

And again, thanks for a great article. Keep up the good work!
don

[gsheiner]

Great discussion. Thanks for your answer Chris. And, if I understood correctly, the modern player may use the forehand like a baseball player uses pitches -sometimes the flatter fastball and sometimes the heavy Spanish topspin( maybe from a defensive position or against someone who has particular trouble with high balls)

I'm going to have a look at the fed approach to the short ball and compare it to
Sampras.

By the way, I just bought your book and I'm really looking forward to it.

Glenn

[johnyandell]

I think it's a really interesting issue.

I haven't worked on court with many elite juniors recently, but from my limited experience they are usually easily able to combine the extension and the rotation. But you have to stress one half sometimes.

The one player I helped develop most recently--now in college--started with the old style lansdorp finish at age 10. I only worked with her for a year but have kept in touch as she played in our high school league. Huge forehand with massive wiper and semi-western grip and more extension than most of her contemporaries.

From filming at the easter bowl, even in the 14s, it is apparent that the big hand rotation has become virtually universal, but I do also see a lot of players who seem short on the outward dimension. Not sure there is one way to get both. But watching Chris's players they were all hitting with great velocity not just spin.

[10splayer]

I think it's a really interesting issue.

I haven't worked on court with many elite juniors recently, but from my

limited experience they are usually easily able to combine the extension and the rotation.

But you have to stress one half sometimes.

The one player I helped develop most recently--now in college--started with the old style lansdorp finish at age 10. I only worked with her for a year but have kept in touch as she played in our high school league. Huge forehand with massive wiper and semi-western grip and more extension than most of her contemporaries.

From filming at the easter bowl, even in the 14s, it is apparent that the big hand rotation has become virtually universal, but I do also see a lot of players who seem short on the outward dimension. Not sure there is one way to get both. But watching Chris's players they were all hitting with great velocity not just spin.

And to me, this is the issue. I try to get the kids to understand the two movements through contact. The shoulder driving the racquet through, while rotating/wiping. They are not mutually exclusive.

[gzhpcu]

Chris,
You have been to Spain: Any tennis camp there you could recommend? I have a nephew who is very keen on playing, and definitely has talent. He just wants to build up a good solid game, and play local Swiss tournaments. He is already 28 years old, but very athletic. Know of any good place to go train to get the fundamentals of Spanish tennis?
Thanks

[tennis_chiro]

Not only are they not mutually exclusive, they are inextricably intertwined

And to me, this is the issue. I try to get the kids to understand the two movements through contact. The shoulder driving the racquet through, while rotating/wiping. They are not mutually exclusive.

Not only are they not mutually exclusive, they are inextricably intertwined in correct execution of the stroke with real, repeatable, controllable power. And it is not just the shoulders, it is the hips that drive the shoulders as well. Remember that 1 mph in the hips is worth about 16 mph at the racket face/contact point. Somewhat less than that at the shoulders, but still a big multiplier and a greater range of motion.

I try to get my students to feel that power by throwing a medicine ball with the motion of their stroke, taking advantage of the gravity drop. They can usually then feel the involvement of the hips and are able to try to apply that feel to their forehands and two-handed backhands.

The problem comes with kids that start with a prior wiper-style forehand, usually with too little extension through the impact zone. I can get these kids to reproduce and feel and even like the increased extension they need in their groundstrokes, but when the ball gets fast and deep or they are moving a lot, they tend to revert to the relatively shallow extension and concommitant short balls of the "spinny wiper". So I don't want them doing this until they have a better feel for hitting through the ball and that is their predominant habit. But what I am picking up from the article and the comments from other instructors here is that it doesn't really matter.

I think John is saying the same thing. Not that it is a universal problem, but that a lot of very good players (Easter bowl competitors) are having problems getting enough extension on their strokes. By the time they are playing at that level, their basic strokes are tough to change. Or at least much tougher than earlier. I think that is indicated by the thread about players not knowing how they learned their strokes. By the time they are playing national tournaments, their strokes are pretty much set. Making it essential that they be set on a good path from the outset.

Hoping for a few more comments from other instructors that have had similar...or dissimilar experiences.

don