David Ferrer's 2HBH vs Rafa

[tennis_chiro]

I have a question for you inquiring minds out there. One of my favorite models for my players is David Ferrer. There are so many good things you can take from everything David does on the court. In reality, he is a physical giant (in endurance, speed), but he doesn't look like one. Great model for kids, most of whom do not grow up to be 6' 2" tall or more.

Anyway, I'm watching the matches David played last weekend in Monte Carlo on TennisTV online and I realize David closes out his stance on his 2HBH whenever he has any opportunity to do so. I insist my players at least learn to hit with an open stance, even the one-handers, although it is less important for them. Doing so enables them to load and fire in less time and recover in less time in a game that is increasingly demanding in terms of time and the efficiency of your recovery after the hit. Well, here was David closing that stance up unless he absolutely couldn't. He is so fast, he can get away with it.

But I think Rafa made him pay for it. If you watch those exchanges they have where they are running like they are in a track meet (and they have plenty of those), you will see that David has to take those extra steps to close up the 2HBH and he also has to take the associated additional steps to recover and falls further and further behind. (I think this is the main reason the open stance forehand as well as backhand has begun to dominate pro tennis. When he has the time on a ball closer to the middle, you will even see Rafa square up his stance.) Moreover, because he is hitting those rushed 2HBHs from that closed stance, but without enough time to fully shift onto his front (right) foot, he is hitting those shots weaker and weaker as the rally goes on. If he would just load on his outside (left) foot and drive back through with an open-stanced 2HBH, David would not only save significant time (at least 2 steps), he would be able to load and return those tough 2HBHs with something on them.

I'm curious if anyone else out there has noticed the same thing.

don

[gzhpcu]

We can watch it live here today:

http://www.livescorehunter.com/Lives...re-Tennis.html

This is a great link BTW, you can see all matches which are not available on TV...

[nabrug]

I have a question for you inquiring minds out there. One of my favorite models for my players is David Ferrer. There are so many good things you can take from everything David does on the
.........
the rally goes on. If he would just load on his outside (left) foot and drive back through with an open-stanced 2HBH, David would not only save significant time (at least 2 steps), he would be able to load and return those tough 2HBHs with something on them.

I'm curious if anyone else out there has noticed the same thing.

don

Ofcourse this is noticed.

Read my earlier posts on the larger receiving area of Nadal (key words for search Bh2, Fh2).

In short Ferrer does not have the same contact point area like Nadal. Nadal covers at least 1,5 meter (!) more to each side and still has good power. Although you look at the feet first the answers lie in the different arm and racket action. And Ferrer doesn’t posess that like Nadal.

In short Ferrer is a slightly lighter version of Nadal. Like last final Nadal will move him into his favourite patterns and you see what you described. That is by the way the game plan of Nadal in general.
I always use the score out of 10 matches to compare technical possibilities and playstyles. Because Ferrer has nothing really better than Nadal the score will be 10-0 Nadal. He will never win a match against Nadal. But Nadal can always twist an ankle.

Imo Nadal is not worried about Ferrer. He knows this. Nadal is worried about Murray and Djokovic (Gasquet is not there yet.). I think that he knows that he will loose the majority of matches against them even on clay. My opinion 7-3 Djokovic; 6-4 Murray.

[gzhpcu]

Imo Nadal is not worried about Ferrer. He knows this. Nadal is worried about Murray and Djokovic (Gasquet is not there yet.). I think that he knows that he will loose the majority of matches against them even on clay. My opinion 7-3 Djokovic; 6-4 Murray.

You can't be serious!.....

[nabrug]

You can't be serious!.....

Well, it is my opinion. Not science. But I really think they found the weapons to beat him. Maybe it takes some time. Because you have that strange mental thing that sometimes a player has to convince himself that he can do it. Maybe Nadal will find new answers.

[gzhpcu]

They might be able to beat him on hard courts, but to beat him on red clay is a different ball game. But let's just let time tell...

[johnyandell]

The reason Nadal is winning isn't about closed versus open stance in my opinion. Virutally all the players hit closed stance whenever possible. It's just that the ball Nadal produces from similar stances is better than Ferrer or most any other player. Djok in the Stroke Archive hits a few open stances on wide balls but mostly closed as well.

[tennis_chiro]

Do you mean square as opposed to closed?

The reason Nadal is winning isn't about closed versus open stance in my opinion. Virutally all the players hit closed stance whenever possible. It's just that the ball Nadal produces from similar stances is better than Ferrer or most any other player. Djok in the Stroke Archive hits a few open stances on wide balls but mostly closed as well.

Yes, no question Nadal hits a better ball. But Ferrer does a pretty good job of neutralizing things with his speed and mobility. My point is he is giving up a little extra he can't afford to give up going for the closed (not square) stance when he would be better served with a loaded open-stance shot. He hits the open-stance shot almost exclusively as a defensive tool and rarely uses it offensively. On the other hand, Nole has really been outstanding with his flexibility and ability to turn nothing into something with his wide open-stance backhand this season. It's almost been a signature shot.

The other point I would ask about: do you mean closed as opposed to square? With a closed stance it makes it tough to get your hips through the shot on a 2HBH. I see a lot of players opting for that square stance closer to the center of the court when they have the chance, but not the closed stance. You look at the video more than anyone; am I wrong on that. Biomechanically, it just doesn't make sense to me. Any rear-shoulder powered 2HBH is going to be just like a FH...tough to get the hips through if you close the stance.

don

[johnyandell]

No I do mean closed. In general the hip rotation is less than the forehand. I can't explain the biomechanical mechanism the way Brian could, but there is a reason all the top guys and women also set up closed so much. Think it has to do with the increased shoulder turn. Not sure David could do better no matter what stance he used.

[GeoffWilliams]

Do you ever see anybody throwing a frisbee from an open stance? Or a karate chop bh from open stance? If you do, there is no power, no coil, no pressure, no voltage, no potential compared to a closed stance bh, esp. one handers, who don't have the left hand fh to help the shot.

[tennis_chiro]

Not that long ago

No I do mean closed. In general the hip rotation is less than the forehand. I can't explain the biomechanical mechanism the way Brian could, but there is a reason all the top guys and women also set up closed so much. Think it has to do with the increased shoulder turn. Not sure David could do better no matter what stance he used.

You have to remember, not that long ago, open stance forehands were very rare; and, open-stance 2hbhs were almost non-existent, at least the way Rafa uses it as a weapon today.

I've insisted for a couple of years now, that my players learn how to hit an open-stance 2hbh. They don't have to use it, but they have to know how. And I really discourage the closed stance. I swear, they almost always look better to me hitting through the wide ball with the open stance. It also saves steps and makes their recovery quicker. More than that, they can hit a bigger reply in a situation under pressure. Obviously, with the "Twins", I have no problem creating that pressure situation. (The "Twins" are my ball machines. You can see them at GlobalTennisInstitute.com.)

So, although the players may be doing it now, I wonder if it isn't another evolutionary development that is just around the corner. Trying to hit a wide ball with a closed stance 2hbh just doesn't make any sense to me.

don

[tennis_chiro]

Doesn't really apply to a one hander

Do you ever see anybody throwing a frisbee from an open stance? Or a karate chop bh from open stance? If you do, there is no power, no coil, no pressure, no voltage, no potential compared to a closed stance bh, esp. one handers, who don't have the left hand fh to help the shot.

Geoff,
I was really talking about a 2hbh, but I don't think it makes sense to close up your stance too much on a 1hbh either, if you can help it. Big difference is once you put your weight on the front foot for a 1hbh, it's almost the same as a square stance anyway, once the weight settles over the front foot, even if the weightless back foot is tucked back a little. You don't want the belly button to turn forward as you hit a 1hbh like you do on a 2hbh. The extreme topspin shots tend to do this a little in the modern game, but I prefer the bullets that came off Petr Korda's backhand for a good model. Saw some great ones down the line last week from Almagro.

don

[johnyandell]

Don, think the closed stance is actually the evolution. Allows the same thing on the backhand side as the open on the forehand. More total body.

BUT totally agree that players need that open stance option and it can be great. You can't get the same degree of turn though and I have seen too many players work to go closed. It means something. Venus is an exception and she has a very weak grip on bottom hand. But for two-handers who use the front arm more and have stronger grips it seems to work tremendously well. As for recovery, it can't be that bad--it's the dominant stance on wide balls with a lot of recovery distance--more steps? one more maybe but it would be interesting to time the difference.

NOW for the average player, big closed stance bh, hell no.

[tennis_chiro]

I'm really struggling with this

Don, think the closed stance is actually the evolution. Allows the same thing on the backhand side as the open on the forehand. More total body.

BUT totally agree that players need that open stance option and it can be great. You can't get the same degree of turn though and I have seen too many players work to go closed. It means something. Venus is an exception and she has a very weak grip on bottom hand. But for two-handers who use the front arm more and have stronger grips it seems to work tremendously well. As for recovery, it can't be that bad--it's the dominant stance on wide balls with a lot of recovery distance--more steps? one more maybe but it would be interesting to time the difference.

NOW for the average player, big closed stance bh, hell no.

The usual 2hbh is biomechanically a lefty fh, at least as far as hips and shoulders power generation, one difference being the ability to flip crosscourt with the top hand very effectively in touch shots (not forceful drives). So, if the open-stance fh is so prevalent and important on wide fhs, why not on wide 2hbhs? I could have sworn that is what Rafa is doing when he is pulled wide. I understand that your experience with reviewing the video shows that the closed stance is clearly more prevalent; but that doesn't make it right for me. We have all done a lot of things wrong for a long time before we found out there was a better way.

I guess I'm going to be watching a lot of clay court tennis very carefully in the bh corner this year.

Plus I have to tell my kids my 2hbh philosophy on open stance is counter to the prevailing model in the pro game. I have been adamant that they not hit the wide ball with a closed stance 2hbh. I'll have to give them the choice, but I still think the open is preferable

don

[tennis_chiro]

Getting really depressed/upset

Or as Norton would have said to Ralph Kramden: "What a revolting development this is!" (Actually, it was the catchphrase from Gleason's first show "Life of Riley" in 1949)

Went through a few dozen wide backhands in the archives. No support for my view. Better than 9 out of 10 times they are hitting open stances 2hbhs, they are floating in the air and going further out to the side. I swear I've seen Rafa move hard right, plant his right foot and nail the open stance 2hbh as he came back towards the center of the court. Serena was close. Dementieva was close. But I couldn't find a single example of what I see and have been getting my students to do, quite successfully, I will add. Maybe I should start calling it 2hbh-IIopen as opposed to 2hbh-Iopen so I can get some traction here.

Here's what I've been pushing. Moving to the left for a righty 2hbh...in a hurry: come out of the split landing on the right foot and pushing hard left reaching with the left foot just a little, springing off the left foot, landing on the right foot which is crossing over and beginning to decelerate so you can plant on the final step on the left foot with the racket in position to swing forward, and bringing your weight back towards the center as you hit the backhand. You land hard on that outside left foot so you can stop your movement and momentum to the left and bring it back to the direction you want to hit the ball. And you load the left leg as you do this. This is what I see Rafa doing (as a lefty on the opposite side) when he is really pressed, instantaneously turning defense into offense.

I guess it's late enough I should be able to sleep anyway. But this is upsetting!

don
anyone out there see it my way??