Game Styles

[jctennis]

I've been waiting for Tennisplayer to take up gamestyles as a topic and really enjoyed Larry's treatments. I had not heard "sniper" used before and the pyramid idea makes sense.Is it true or false that most players though are more of a mix than these categories say? Would I want to have as wide a range as possible if I were not (which I am not) Pete Sampras?

[dipperhitter]

Larry, wonder if you have an opinion why Roger Federer never seems to go to the net much anymore? It's almost like Nadal comes in more frequently.

[stotty]

I believe game style is governed by the playing surface. When Wimbledon slowed down their grass courts it took away the need to serve volley in order to be in with a chance of winning. Once players could win from the back it changed everything.

Players aren't stupid, they do what is needed. Speed up those grass courts at Wimbledon and you will soon see a new breed of tennis players emerging - serve volleyers will be springing up everywhere!

[llll]

here is something to read about playing styles

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=58284

[llll]

don yes i have to agree the main style today is baseline bashing and serve.
we make a big deal when someone hits a shot the opponent barely gets to and COMES IN!!!!!!!!!!! YIKES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
there are some who occasionally serve and volley for variety and those that play what i call opportunistic all court game( federer now??)
on the other hand
when you can hit a one hundere mile an hour forehand with pinpoint accuracy why do anything else??
just for the good old days???
dont shoot the messenger.
as a senior (58) player starting ten years ago i play an "all court "style game
using ground strokes to set up the point look for the short ball to appraoch then looking to finish points at the net , serve and volley
the balls i see are conducive to playing my style

but if i could hit a winner by hitting a rediculous angled winner from a ridiculous spot on the court and
bypass the approach and end the point with a volley part
why not??
just sayin

[larryjurovich]

I've been waiting for Tennisplayer to take up gamestyles as a topic and really enjoyed Larry's treatments. I had not heard "sniper" used before and the pyramid idea makes sense.Is it true or false that most players though are more of a mix than these categories say? Would I want to have as wide a range as possible if I were not (which I am not) Pete Sampras?

JC,
In my opinion people have quite structured game styles. What you see is their ability to implement different strategies with their game style. For example, i remember hearing Federer relay a conversation he had with Sampras when Sampras asked him "when you beat me at Wimbledon you were coming to the net all the time, why dont you come forward as often anymore". Federer replied "i had to come to the net to beat you but i dont have to, to beat the others". I believe this illustrates that Federer is a Big Forehand player who, everything else equal looks to build and finish points that way but he has the ability to adjust his tactics based on the strategy of the day. Unlike club players whose game styles are often determined by their weaknesses (they become a forehand dominant player because their backhand is terrible) obviously the pros have many more skills and therefore more options when they need to adjust strategies. That said in most cases they will still use the strengths from their game style to determine the patterns they use to implement the new strategy. For example Federer will look to use his forehand to put himself in a dominant position at the net where someone like Rafter would have come in off a slice backhand as much as a forehand as he had a net rusher game style.

I hope that clarifies some things.

Larry

[larryjurovich]

Larry, wonder if you have an opinion why Roger Federer never seems to go to the net much anymore? It's almost like Nadal comes in more frequently.

I guess it depends on what you mean by "anymore". I have not seen any statistics other then one a couple years ago from Wimbldon that showed he was coming to the net at Wimbledon less at the end of his dominance there then he did at the start. Overall i have the sense that since he brought Paul Annacone onto his team he has been coming forward more then he had been. As for the Wimbledon stat i think it has to do with the changing style of his opponents and the courts. As mentioned in my reply to a previous post i believe Federer believed the best strategy against a net rushing Sampras of Krajicek was to beat them to the net. As he played people that didn't come forward he used more strategies that highlighted his pure game style of Big Forehand. Of course the slowing down of the courts made all of this more possible.

Larry

[worldsbestcoach]

holes in the games of today's pros

A few thoughts: Federer specifically said that when he improves his volley, he will come to the net more frequently. Right now you will see Fed blow a lot of volleys due to poor technique. On the forehand, Roger prepares the racket immediately out to the side of his body, so that he cannot track the ball well with his strings . .and so that he does not prepare his wrist well for the forehand volley. (Rafael Nadal has learned to prepare his racket for forehand volleys much better than Roger does. Rafa does not have to make the adjustments from prep to impact that Fed has to make.)

Another weakness in Fed's preparation for the forehand volley is that his elbow is away from the solidity of the hitting side of his abdominal muscles. At contact point (when racket & ball meet), the ideal place for the elbow is kinda close to the abdominals (or coming out from there). The area between belly button and hip is what I mean by the hitting side of the abs. The way Fed prepares his racket, it is often difficult for him to get his elbow in proper position by the time of impact (contact point). Players who prepare the racket for a forehand volley the way Roger does are setting themselves up for flapping their arms during the volley the way birds flap their wings during flight. Birds' arms are built for such flapping flight. Human arms are not built for such a motion. Fed and many top pros today use such a bird-flapping motion on forehand volleys. And the flapping motion also leads to sloppy follow throughs and unforced errors .and to shots that are not accurately placed.

On his backhand volley preparation, Roger also has weakness. Instead of preparing his racket in front, Roger often takes a huge backswing to the side of himself, and sometimes somewhat behind him. And his grip for the backhand volley is so weak that he usually has to drop his racket head a tremendous amount after contact point. He cannot really hold his form after impact. For all these reasons, Roger has difficulty hitting a reverse court backhand volley . .which should be an essential shot for a good volleyer.

On both his forehand & backhand volleys, Roger does not catch the ball early enough, does not pounce forward enough. Fed lets the ball come to him too much when he plays net. Fed has poor technique, so he cannot help it.

Also, it is my observation that modern pro players do not hit very accurately on balls short or midcourt, which they hit with forehands. They also blow a lot of their topspin forehand approach shots. If you read all my comments about the epidemic in today's pro tennis of the backwards-emphasis topspin forehand, you will see why today's "modern" technique leads to many unforced, even wild, errors on forehand approach shots or forehand midcourt shots. I have recorded 1000s of such mistakes by even the greatest of today's pros.

[ccrood]

Guys, I think everyone here has great comments and reasoning behind the change in game style to more baseline play. The real change is in the technology with the frames and string. It is very difficult to inforce a net game when it is met with so much power and control of baseline shots.

[stotty]

Times change, Don_Budge. Players do wonderful things today as the players did back then. You will get serve and volley players back on the scene if Wimbledon decide to speed up their grass courts again. But until that day, where is the need? Players aren't stupid. They play the game where the odds on the surface they are playing stack in their favour. Today's hard courts aren't suited to serve and volley or touch play....that's why we don't see it.

Game style comes down to court surface, that's it. And, of course, equipment has had a lot to do with the power aspect.

The days of Nastase, Mecir, Roswall are gone, never to return. But we do have Nadal, Federer, Murray...doesn't seem a bad exchange to me.

[chuck62]

What about Doubles ?

Seems like all you guys watch and play is singles. Whenever I watch the Bryan brothers it seems like they are serving and volleying on every point. Of course in doubles the net game still works which is why it has more strategy and is more interesting to watch. Something tells me the net game is going to come back into play for singles too only this time more in the form of a swing volley after guys like Soderling and Del Potro get tired of losing to faster players they are going to start coming up to just beyond the service line to wack swinging volleys that finish off the retrievers.

[worldsbestcoach]

players today do not know how to volley well

I have watched a lot of pro tennis since the open era started in 1968. I could see the game improving, yearly. Over time, pro players were learning to get more leverage into their groundstrokes. Young kids started practicing their groundstrokes more, and neglecting their volleys. Also, the tennis higher-ups moved away from grass, and more towards hard courts . .and even the surface of the hard courts was made rougher with more sand put into the coating surface. Also, the balls have gotten slower.

ATP and WTA players today have difficulty hitting passing shots, because they rarely see an opponent come to the net. No player today hits passing shots better than Borg did.

Pro players today have lost the feel about how to situate themselves properly on the court. . . .mainly because they are not under much pressure today. They know the opponent will almost never come to net, so they can afford to stay way back. But thank goodness that the pros have finally started to use more drop shots to make their opponents at least sometimes pay for such stupid court positioning.

Court coverage today is SO MUCH WORSE on the pro circuits today, compared to how it used to be. The pros today are like a center fielder in baseball who stays so far back that that a triple never goes over his head, yet 1000s of singles needlessly fall in front of him.

Sure, the pros hustle great once they see where the ball is going. But hustle does not make up for poor anticipation and poor court positioning. Who thought up the "zones of the court" idea, anyway? Yuck. Go back to video of yesteryear . .Nastase vs. Smith . . Agassi vs. Becker . . . Mecir vs. Edberg . .etc. Those players got to balls that NO players today can get to. When those players were in trouble, they were smart enough to move forward.

The smartest rule in court positioning is . . .when you are in trouble . . move forward and expect a kinda short shot to the open court. (That rule works on every type of court surface, and is an important rule for the pro circuits.) Even the best pros, yes even today, hit mostly short approaches and short volleys. By the way, you are in trouble when you hit a short ball, with you hit a ball that sits up for your opponent, when the opponent is coming to net, or when the opponent is already at net. Those are the times when you are in trouble, and you must move forward as a soccer (futbol) or hockey goalie does when in trouble.

Also, another factor is the poor preparation to the forehand power position that is taught today, and used by so many players. (That is why so many pros have lousy forehands. I call such forehands the backward-emphsis topspin forehand.) Preparing to that power position means that the pros are not able to stand in to take the ball early. They are trapped by their bad technique into standing much too far behind the baseline. Today's players, using that forehand power position, have their whoosh and power behind them . .not in front of them. Today's tennis coaches should wake up and teach the whoosh in front of the body, more similar to golf and baseball.

I do not think players today play so great with the new rackets and the new strings. And the players purposely use somewhat underpowered rackets and strings so that they can keep the their shots in the court.

Today's game at the international pro level? Inconsistent, inaccurate topspin forehand, nonexistent underspin forehands, pretty good topspin backands (both 1-hand & 2-hand), pathetic backhand slices, weak volleys (even the Bryans hit many weak, poor volleys), overall lack of consistency, too many unforced errors, and pathetic court coverage due to pathetic anticipation and pathetic court positioning. Tennis is not nearly as entertaining as it used to be in the days of Connors vs. Borg, for instance. Not even close. Today's game is so far from great. Why is eveyone saying how great today's game is??

I hope the pro tennis players can improve a lot in the future, compared to today's low level of play. Also, the level of tennis coaching desperately needs to improve. Even the supposed best coaches in the world today have misanalyzed the sport, and do not teach well. If a coach is truly great, then all the pupils become great.

[bottle]

Yeah, don_budge, I like the idea of a 900-page chapter instead of a 900-page whole book.

[bottle]

WBC, I don't entirely buy your criticism of "the backward emphasis topspin forehand" although I enjoy the phrase and think all questers for consistency could employ loops, at least on some shots, that start closer to the net.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZrW-sIREZow

In the above video, having passed the service section, would you say that Rafa Nadal is swishing out in front? I would. But would you say that many imitators, unlike him, wipe forward rather than sideways? I would. And I also would say this video of Nadal is one obvious example of how to hit a tennis ball very well.

The player who aspires to hitting somewhat like Nadal must get his shoulders around (forward) much sooner and farther than in classical tennis, that's all. Then swish can be entirely sideways or even feel as if it's coming back toward the bod.

To add to this effect, I'm thinking of less "flip." You used the word "flip"-- usefully-- in our discussion of one hand backhand.

I do flip on backhand, i.e., roll the racket tip forward as part of everything that puts strings on outer edge of ball. But I appreciate your notion that flip happens from ball. In the new more simultaneous and integrated backhand that I'm proposing, a person won't know whether flip started before, during or after contact although the truth is certainly one of those choices. Overall feel is more important for sure, so...I don't want to know. I do want to keep elbow "in" as John McEnroe once advised on TV although I've never been completely sure about what he meant and therefore have come up with my own interpretations more than once.

For roll on a Nadal style forehand, I'm thinking about doing away with flip altogether. One would roll or wipe without sending the racket tip wildly ahead.

Look at how sideways Nadal's racket tip goes. I know that anybody could do this from my experience in feathering in rowing (crew). Reduced by fingers power (which you add more of after a few years), the wrist goes around the oar, not the oar around the wrist.

Let body provide weight but hand the spin? And keep the roll "in hand," as
Doug King has said?

Another interesting feature in this video is the way Nadal almost paws the court with his inside toes as he launches his shot.

This is far from a closed or neutral forehand, but this abrupt little move sure does trigger extra power, or at least did for me today when I was dropping and hitting balls in cold rain.

Maybe the improvement was because I felt like a bull about to charge, but I don't think so. It was something else having to do with neuroscience and physics.

[GeoffWilliams]

Equipment has dominated style change as much as technique. Will anyone argue that point here? Frames are better and string is better, for power, control, touch, feel, spin, and mojo. Yet, we have no equipment tab on this site!

Technique and equipment aside, the ante to play has gone up. Speed, split stepping, flexibility, dominant recovery, cross training, diet, mental strength, are all much more involved than the old days of "stylish" tennis.

It's a blue collar battle to the death out there, a penance to find form and kill your opponent before he kills you. It's the same all over the universe, kill and eat, or be killed and eaten.

Grunting, gloating, dancing, fist pumping psyches of all types have replaced the zen like motto of the old days, "Behave the same whether losing or winning." It's a more and more, athletically ruthless equation. Look at the old tapes. Any honest observer will see any of the top 100 guys would beat the top 10 from the old days. Frames have determined style. String has determined style. Even if you go into net at 4.5 level you get creamed unless it's a damn good approach, with your opp. off balance, off court. Even 4.0 players will pass at will without fear of errors. Who serves and volleys for an hour a day now in practice? Players return like demons when you come in off the serve, and hit harder than if you stay back. It's the patient net attack that wins now. Lull them to sleep, and come in off the same look, with a lot more on it, and read the dtl pass.

Jesse Owens won the 100 yd. dash in 10.49 sec. Now what does it take to win? 9.79? Tennis has evolved a great deal more than 8% in that time, and it's more like a factor of 100% or more.