yuck - federer's slice backhand and topspin forehand are not to be emulated

[worldsbestcoach]

i like Fed

Roger Federer is a great man. But Fed does not think of himself as a god. For instance, when Fed was asked why he does not serve & volley more at Wimbledon, his reply was that when his volley improves, then maybe he will start coming to the net more. (Roger prepares his racket to the side too much, on both his forehand & backhand volleys . .so he sometimes makes bad mistakes with his volleys.) In other words, Roger is in better touch with his game than are his idolizers.

Roger is smart. He knows that he is not a god, and that he has flaws in his game. He does not like all the errors that he makes. He knows he can get better. But, as with almost all players, he is not receiving the proper guidance. All players are many flaws in their games. Some day in the future, in the far future, I think players will be taught more biomechanically efficient techniques than they are taught nowadays. But we are far from that day. Today, we teach players wrong. We teach them bad stuff.

[worldsbestcoach]

reactions . . & reflections on the modern backward-forehand

I saw both Rosewall & Roche play in person many times. I agree that Roche had the better reputation for his backhand volley, but I was more amazed by Rosewall's backhand volley. Of course, I could be wrong. Maybe Roche's was better.

I was sitting on the sideline, with a sightline directly down the baseline, during a Federer-Nadal match recently. To my eye, Roger has a weak backhand grip. For both his topspin backhand, & his slice backhand, to my eye his hand was too much in front of the racket to hit great backhands. I do not like weak backhand grips unless the player is attempting a spectacular backhand drop shot. But if we disagree about the strength of Roger's grip, it is ok to disagree.

You know what an illegal backhand punch is in boxing? That is how strong I like the 1-handed backhand grip to be. Roger often overcomes his weak grip and hits some nice topspin backhands. The guy who always had weak grips but was pretty good from the baseline was John McEnroe. Mac used the continental grip, so he often had to bend his wrist in a funny way to hit backhand groundies & volleys . .but he usually did it.

Most great 1-hand topspin backhands use that strong grip . .but when the opponent hits hard quickly to their backhand, they do not have time to change their grip . .so they hit a weak slice with that weak backhand grip. In certain situations, Roger's backhand slice can be pretty good, but it is not consistently good. Often his slice sits up for the opponent and is easy-pickings.

About Roger's topspin forehand, there is too much of an element of "current thinking" in his forehand -- the thinking of getting sideways, getting the racket way back, getting it back well early, with racket tip up, racket unsupported by the free hand so that the racket arm tightens up. It can be called a backwards-set forehand . .or a backwards-emphasis forehand. Most of the motion in such a forehand is closer to the back fence than it is to the net.

Also, in the backwards-emphasis forehand, the player must fight against his body and often has difficulty getting the hitting shoulder through the shot. The player with such forehand technique often has a hard time getting the racket out front towards the ball. The player using such poor technique must postion himself too much to the side of the ball, instead of behind the ball. Therefore, the player cannot lean into the ball during the stroke, and he or she cannot recover their court positioning as well for the next shot.

When the player uses such poor technique, he or she is not lining up the ball, not tracking the ball well. The wrist is not close to the proper hitting position, so that too many wrist adjustments must be made during the swing. And without tracking the ball well, without preparing the wrist well, the player usually is relatively weak at handling balls when the approaching ball is low, or short, or hit extremely hard, or hit at the player. Also, the backwards-emphasis forehand that current players use, which I described above, prevents players from bunting the ball into the open court quickly on passing shots and other situations, and from half-volleying the ball well when the approaching shot lands hard and deep near the baseline, and from standing inside the baseline to take the ball early.

Players using the backwards-emphasis forehand often catch the ball late in their stokes, so they are actually kinda pulling the racket during the stroke. In fact, their swings are set so backwards that they often end up falling backwards after they swing, so that they are out of position and cannot recover well for the next shot by the opponent. Also, sadly, with the flaws in their backwards-emphasis forehands, today's pro players are almost forced by their techniques to stand well behind the baseline.

The backwards-emphasis forehand can also be considered a forehand that stops in mid-swing, because there is not true continuous motion. It is kinda like a kink or hitch that breaks up the continuous motion of a serve. I am trying to figure out why someone came up with the idea of the backwards-emphasis forehand, and how it came to be taught globally. Maybe what happened is that slow-motion analysis indicated that during a nice, smooth, continuous forehand swing, the racket seemed to pass through that point (racket back with tip up, while free hand is balancing). However, having a smooth, continuous, efficient 1-piece swing pass through that point during an instant in a continuous stroke is not the same as getting the racket back too early at that point, as is taught today.

Another flaw in the 2-piece hitched backwards-emphasis topspin forehand is that it messes up the player's timing for a natural forehand stroke. I will talk about timing of strokes at some later point. However, most WTA & ATP players do not understand true proper timing for groundstrokes.

The backwards-emphasis forehand creates a premature backswing so that it is hard to create a natural, easy amount of racket-head speed. It is hard to get the racket started forwards again from that point that is taught for the forehand. The theory is that if the racket head is up and back, then the racket head can be dropped to pick up racket head speed . . . . but of course, more racket head speed can be generated by tracking the ball with the racket out in front of the body . .waiting a little longer to take the racket back . .& then swinging in one natural, continuous motion.

(The theory behind the backwards-emphasis forehand is misguided, and certainly has not been put to any scientific test. But in tennis, too often coaches & players are like sheep, and follow the latest ideas, no matter what. Once an expert has muddled thinking, others follow the muddled thinking.)

Let me emphasize also the importance of lining up the ball well. In golf, the player lines his club up to the ball. In tennis, we should do the same thing, as much as possible. It is important that we be able to hit the ball on the strings exactly at the location we want, with the spin action we want. The backwards-emphasis forehand sabotages this notion. I see all the time players on the WTA & ATP using backwards-emphasis forehands. They have to muscle the ball too much, and hit the ball close to the frame, and then they hit slow shots, or shots that fall halfway between net & service line. They aim crosscourt, but have such little control over their aim that the ball goes up the middle of the court. They mishit many shots & make too many errors. You can hear and see it.

Yes, Federer has a great forehand in some ways. Sometimes I love the way that he can half-volley his forehands and take the ball early. He is the best in the world at hitting crosscourt passing shots with good angles. But he hits a lot (far too many) ugly forehands, also. I love Fed, but he could be even so much better.

[bocage]

worlds best tennis coach might be be the biggest idiot i have ever hear on here.you must be from the 1960's. you have no idea of the modern game.

[gzhpcu]

Agree with Don about name calling. No need for that on this forum.

As far as "modern game" is concerned, what I consider "modern" is the way tennis racket technology has promoted topspin and faster strokes (due to the lightness of the racket). There is less temporizing nowadays, they just go full power all the time. The technique for all shots, seems to me, can be seen all through history, only the predominance of topspin in the game is modern.

[stotty]

I agree. We regulars on the forum fully respect each, no matter what our age differences or opinions....very important policy here on the forum.

[johnyandell]

Well said gentlemen. Let's leave he invective for our personal lives (just kidding).

Bo, admittedly that was a provocative post by wbc and many people dissagree(myself included). It would be more positive for you to explicate your views, and just leave the name calling out please.

[worldsbestcoach]

backwards-emphasis topspin forehand . . .hmmm

I am trying to make up a new term . .I also used backwards-set forehand. I might search for a better term for my conceprt. Thank you. Some of my comments about it were too short, probably, for many readers here to understand. But the my comments can serve me as an outline for my ideas for future books or videos.

Here is another explanation: The backwards-emphasis forehand is kinda like Thomas Berdich's forehand. I do not want to cast dispersions, but I have seen that type of forehand taught by a world-famous coach, and seen it taught by many other reputable coaches. (That is why so many players use it. Players do as they are taught.)

Berdich's forehand is reputed to be good, but he makes many unforced errors. He often hits so short when he aims deep. He often hits up middle of court when he aims crosscourt. Berdich blows many approach shots because his premature backswing, & his big backwing, & his emphasis on getting sideways, all prevent him from flowing forward, naturally. He seems like a nice guy. But the flaws in his forehand are exactly the same as I have described in my earlier comments about the backwards-emphasis forehand.

Federer has a little bit of Berdich's backwards-emphais forehand in his game, also. That is why Fed's forehand can sometimes go through patchy periods, and why Fed often mishits his forehand. Many current pros have that backwards-emphasis forehand.

Let's say there is a bright sun, very low in the sky, at the side of the tennis court. Of course, there will be a strong shadow of the tennis player. As the tennis player strokes the ball, you can see the shadow of the stroke in the shadow. If most of the shadow in the stroke appears behind the player (towards the back fence), then the stroke is a backwards-emphasis forehand. Too many pros today have such a backwards-emphasis forehand that they fall backwards for no good reason as they stroke the ball. A good example is Serena Williams, who will often stumble backwards when she returns a non-challenging shot. We have all seen Serena's struggles with the forehand at many times. But Serena is just doing as she has been taught.

My heart cries for many of these players. A good example is Nicole Vaidisova. Nicole had a great heart & work ethic. But she was trapped into making so many mistakes because she only followed what she was taught. She was not a head case, as everyone presumes. Instead, she did not receive the proper instruction.

Dinara Safina was not really a head case. She had atrocious strokes that were bound to create many embarrassing mistakes. She needed some coach who could guide her better, teach her better.

I understand if some here think I am wrong. I understand where you are coming from. You think I am wrong. I think most coaching today is wrong. . . not that the status of tennis coaching has ever been really great. There is tennis greatness in almost everyone, if the tennis student can find a very very very rare good tennis teacher to help bring out that greatness. When the field of tennis coaching improves, then there will be many more good coaches, and many more great players as a result.

About the modern game: Most pros today use head-light rackets that are skinny, & not that powerful. (See Federer.) I have read about, and have had conversations with Agassi's sweet father Mike, about testing -- fresh wood rackets vs. modern "players" racket in terms of how hard the rackets hit the ball. There is no significant difference. By the way, Mike Agassi is an example of a good coach in at least one way -- that all 4 of his children became great tennis players. That is one sign of a great coach. Most kids can become great, if only they are taught well.

Also, it does not matter whether a player uses an old racket or a modern racket. If the player has poor technique, then the racket will not save him or her. An example is Nadal's slice backhand service return. He has such a weak grip on that return that his return will float high almost all the time, and sit up for the opponent to make a good shot, whether Rafa uses his Babolat or an old wooden frame. (Yes, Rafa is so nice, and he is a great player, but even Rafa can improve in many ways.)

[nabrug]

If the player has poor technique, then the racket will not save him or her.

Bjorn Borg in his youth was not famous for his technique. A fellow coach asked his coach why do you keep him in your elite group? He admitted that he wasn't that great technically. "But you know, he wins all his matches!"

[tennisplayer]

Hi WBC, you have a way of wording your posts that makes me feel that the holy grail is just one mental leap away. Thank you for the interesting information and ideas.

Could you provide an example of a player who has a forehand with forward emphasis? One current player who comes close, based on my understanding of your posts, is Kimiko Date. She puts the racquet behind the ball and pulls back in a short and straight swing without a loop, and then swings forward along the same path. I agree it's simple and effective, but surely, such a stroke is not going to produce much in the power or spin department... or is it?

[tennisplayer]

An update on my previous post...

I tried WBC's forward emphasis method this morning (as I understood it, as described in the post above). I have to confess, I have never hit a better forehand! Power didn't seem to be a problem, nor spin (I play at the 4.0 level). I got the feeling that I was taking the ball really early and putting a lot more body into the shot, and it felt very effortless. Needless to say, lining up the racquet with the ball cut down my errors considerably.

I guess I have to learn to hold back judgment on different methods until I actually try them out!

WBC, please correct me if I am wrong, but this method does require a very open stance, and not that much body turn. The left hand (the non-dominant side for me) releases a lot earlier than in the backward emphasis method (as you call it).

I am impressed enough that I am going to pursue this seriously! I would appreciate it very much if you could post how this applies to a two handed backhand, and other strokes. Thanks again!

[worldsbestcoach]

you all are right

tennisplayer, you are correct. Often, if a player (hitting a topspin forehand) focuses too much on getting the shoulders & hips sideways . . . then the player struggles to face the net as the forehand stroke progresses, and cannot get the hitting shoulder through the stroke properly, which is important to do so. If the focus is too much on getting sideways, then the player often aligns himself to the ball so that the the contact point is at the side of the body instead of out in front. And with such a "get sideways" emphasis, the player then has difficulty recovering to a good court position for the next shot by the opponent.

nabrug, I appreciated your comments on Borg. Thank you. I started reading Borg's autobiography one time. It was a busy time in my life. I did not finish it, and I misplaced it. hahaha. One of these days, I will find it, and finish it. But I can remember Borg's advice of not listening to instructors. I am serious. He was adamant about that. He thought that what tennis instructors offered was wrong.

Don Budge & others -- you are right. I need to get my act together, and offer some videos and articles. If you readers do not understand what I am saying, it is my fault. It will take work on my part, but I will try to produce some videos and articles that do a better job of sharing my ideas. I have much work ahead of me.

About rackets: I know many modern greats in tennis use skinny "players rackets" that do not have big heads, and are flexible and head light. In other words, the rackets are far less powerful than the expensive rackets that are geared for recreational & club players. And the top players add weight to their rackets, so that the rackets are similar in weight to the heavier, head-light rackets of yesteryear. Federer's rackets are somewhat old school. Sampras did ok with old-style sticks. I must admit that I analyze players' techniques & court-coverage more than I analyze rackets. But we also must remember that rackets are like razors and cars, in that the companies must always claim to come out with improved products. Every year, the companies must create new sales.

Also, remember that promoters of tennis always must sell the sport as more exciting and better than ever. In some ways, the level of the sport might have gotten better (& in some ways not). However, today's players are not as exciting as were Jimmy Connors and the wild Andrew Ilie. Modern players are not the combination of comedic & shot-making genius as was Mansour Bahrami.

[tennisplayer]

Thanks, WBC. Gaston Gaudio looks like he might be close to the forward emphasis model, although perhaps not the best exponent of this form from your point of view.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awlEJzAFu2U

Doesn't look like too huge a loop on the takeback, and he brings the racquet down to line up with the ball before swinging forward. Contact is well in front with eyes facing forward (as opposed to the side), and the stance is fully open with not too much shoulder turn. I have seen him play, and I remember thinking at that time that it would be hard to miss with that form.

Would greatly appreciate your comments - thanks in advance.

[bottle]

What we all want in discussions of technique, I think, is an opening up of possibilities. In other words, we want someone to tell us something we ourselves didn't think of before.

Then we can try it, imitate it, reject it perhaps. A friend who played on the tour told me that when a bunch of players are practicing on adjacent courts, if one tries something new they all try it in a matter of minutes. Then of course they go back to what they are used to since that caused them to go as far as they have come.

On the other hand, they're staying a little bit open all the time-- a mark of true intelligence.

About the ideas being discussed here: I can't see why anyone, recreational or not, wouldn't want to at least try to hit some huge forehands like Federer or Nadal.

The most distinguishing factor to me is the earliness of forward shoulder rotation, which I feel was innovated by Tom Okker.

But that doesn't mean that I, at 71, or anyone who has a reason for being a bit conservative, can't hit double bend shots involving less scope of the arm.
If the arm is bending-- and I'm thinking loop-- one can play with a lot of potential last second adjustment for weird bounces, imperfect set-up, etc.

One could use a tight loop in which the arm gradually extends. Or one could get the arm pretty straight first and then contract it during the loop by varying amounts.

Roughly, if the elbow came more toward the body, the arm would contract more. And the opposite. All possibilities can be carefully examined once one
accepts the principle of a gelatinous, variable loop, with the racket then seeming almost to disappear in a spring, don't swing type forehand.

Consistency has to be the first goal, before power, and this might be the way to go. Then when one is set up for a huge, full body pivot, let er rip.

Learn both ways. Why not? Why does everybody have to specialize so much? I know, I know, Vic Braden said to hit the same boring old shot.

But when players get bored, they leave the sport, so to hell with that.

[gzhpcu]

Right bottle. Down with boredom. I am excited everytime I go on court, and I always play full power, trying to whack the cover off the ball... always thinking what could I do better...

[worldsbestcoach]

replies and/or thoughts

tennisplayer -- as I remember, Gaston Gaudio had a nice one-handed topspin backhand. I think the backswing on the forehand was still a little too big for my taste. hahaha. (I look forward now to going back to viewing his old matches.) But I enjoyed watching him play.

One topspin forehand that is smooth is that of Dominika Cibulkova. She lines up & tracks the ball well. Her swing is smooth. Obviously, she hits her forehand as hard as any woman does. Sometimes she still can make a mistake if she flashes too fast to the finish over her shoulder, without paying enough attention to what her strings are doing to the ball. Also, she could have an even better forehand if she would use the same type of backswing, yet tighten it up some -- especially on short, or low, or fast-incoming balls. The backswing is always bigger than the player realizes. Even when the backswing feels only inches long, it is still much much longer in reality, and a full stroke.

Sometimes Cibulkova also blows the forehand by getting too sideways so that she is not behind the ball, but too much to the side of it.

But Cibulkova overall has a pretty good topspin forehand. It would be even greater if she could tighten the backswing up a little more. Tightening up the backswing actually might provide her with more power than she even has now. Tightening up the backswing would allow Cibulkova to stand forward more in the court, so that her shots would be easier for her . .and so that her shots would go back towards her opponent even faster.

Bottle -- you being 71, I am listening to what you say. I am sure that you have been exposed to tennis concepts and experiences that I have not. That is great that today's players are so open to new ideas. But I suspect that sometimes a good idea comes along, yet a player cannot necessarily pick it up on his own. Also, sometimes pros or otherwise accomplished players take bad ideas and actually incorporate those bad ideas into their tennis games!

The backwards-emphasis topspin forehand utilized by Berdich and many players today on the pro circuits have become the norm, the standard for teaching. So I would not worry that players will not try that kind of stroke. Even the top 3 players in the world now (Nadal, Federer, Djokovic) have elements of that backwards-emphasis topspin forehand. That is why they might have somewhat great forehands, but forehands that could be even better.

The forehand that I espouse does not have a tight arm. It has a very free arm. The forehand that I espouse creates more natural racket-head speed than does the swing of most pro players today. Today, many ATP & WTA players muscle the ball. They swing so hard, yet the ball often falls so short & sits up for the opponent to blast.