Interactive Forum August 2011: Bernard Tomic Slice Backhands

[johnyandell]

The backhand slice drive was one of the classic shot in the golden age of Australian tennis, with Ken Rosewall the glowing example. So let's check out the slice of the promising young Australian Bernard Tomic. He hits it a lot, and well. But how does the swing plane reflect the changes in the modern game? One key I think to understanding what is happening with the modern slice is the tip of the racket. Does it end up pointing directly down at the court? Does the timing of this position vary? What does that mean? And how does it affect the followthrough?

Bernard Tomic Slice Backhands

[johnyandell]

Quicktime version

Bernard Tomic Slice Backhands

[stotty]

I prefer Rosewall's lower take back for sliced b/h's compared to Tomic's and many other players in the world today. At Wimbledon this year I made a point of watching sliced backhands (you have to wait a long time to see one sometimes!). ALL the players seem to start too high for what are sometimes below knee-high balls. I prefer players who can vary the height of their backswing in relation to the predicted contact point. I seem to remember McEnroe being able to do this, and, of course, the great Ken too. You can get really good inside-out spin for approaching net with a lower take back on lower balls. I remember Ian Barclay demonstrating this on a coaches course in London some years ago, stating how difficult you can make life for western grip players on grass courts if players could only develop more effective sliced backhands.

[johnyandell]

Stotty,

I agree, but check out this month's Your Strokes. We plan eventually to do some tests on contact height and ball speed and spin to see if the flatter swings are even possible. I suspect it is very difficult to control the ball if not impossible in the modern game without the extreme downward swing angles.

[florian80]

Slice Drive

Interesting discussion. I teach the slice drive to all my students including some of Germany's best junior players. It is a very effective shot that most junior players do not know how to deal with these days since they see it so rarely. It will be interesting to see if these players start to naturally change the slice motion a bit more towards the Federer model once they get older and the speed of the game increases.

It makes sense that it is difficult to control a rather flat slice drive against super fast topspin shots coming in; but personally I doubt that it is necessary to the degree that Federer does it. I think a lot of pro players, including Federer and especially Nadal, would have a much better slice backhand if they would hit through the shot more rather than so much down and across. Of course it is always a question of how much which is difficult to answer for sure.

I like to hit a drive slice myself and about three years ago I was still hitting on a regular basis with players ranked inside the Top300 on the men's tour. It certainly did not feel like I was not able to hit relatively flat slice drives, but of course I can never know for sure unless I take some video, which I did not do at the time.

[johnyandell]

Florian,

Great points and great questions. They may be more of a gray area. Philippoussis hit it flatter I think, and maybe Taylor Dent as well. Would be great to see some high level players experiment with it now wouldn't it?

John

[humildad]

Slice backhand

Hello guys! In my own personal experience working with a World Class ATP tour player, Peruvian Luis Horna,when he was a junior player; I did teach him to hit through when going cross court, and more across (side spin) when going down the line, especially from inside the court; when he was changing the direction down the line from outside of the court he had to go through any way.
The high take back is a natural swing for a one handed backhand player who is already using the loop for the topspin backhand; it is also a nice disguise when trying the drop shot. Jana Novotna (great slicer!!!) was also using a very high take back. You can absorb the pace (slice) much easier with a high take back! since the racket meets the fast oncoming ball from high to low, so naturally we use gravity with no effort!
Just wanted to share with all of you something real from the Pro tour!

Regards!

Daniel Spatz

https://www.spatztennis.com

[florian80]

Experimentation

John,

Yes it would be great to see top players experiment with it. I have often seen Federer hit down on that slice so much in certain situations like approach shots for example and thought that he would be better off hitting it a bit flatter. We won't know unless he starts trying it though, which is unlikely and he hasn't called me up to coach him yet either, which is even more unlikely

I believe it depends a lot on the situation. Is your goal with the shot to make the ball skid and take time away from the opponent, then the flatter one is probably better. If you are trying to defend with the slice and get back in the court from a defensive position, then the "slower" slice where you hit down a bit more probably gives you more time to recover to the middle.

I believe teaching the flatter slice to players as a base model is the way to go and they will figure out the rest usually. What do you think ?

Florian

[johnyandell]

Florian,

Yes definitely the flatter slice to start at the very least--and for club play I think it can be as effective or more effective as a drive than a flatter or light topspin drive. Even works as a pass. Check out Your Strokes this month.

John

[stotty]

John

Interesting that YOUR STROKES post on the sliced backhand. I never considered the reason why players start so high is because of the way the game has evolved. I still teach the lower take back and flatter hitting to my students which, as you say, works well at club level and even quite a bit higher.

It's a dilemma for coaches teaching top junior players, though - when to start teaching a higher take back. It' so important coaches know these things.

[johnyandell]

I'd say if and when they can't control the ball with slice! I think many players will do this naturally--not to have a higher tacke back but in order to facilitate the more radical downward swing.

[tpatennis]

Federer's Volley

I think that Federer takes the racket too far above the ball on his backhand volley too, making it not as solid as some of the great volleyers. I liked Henman's volley technique, very simple and solid. I don't think Federer can be successful coming to the net as often as people want him to until he gets the racket behind the ball a little bit more. Thoughts?

Tom Allsopp

https://www.tpatennis.net

[stotty]

I hadn't noticed Feds b/h volley had a higher take back than other players. I quite like Feds b/h volley. It's his forehand volley that is more susceptible to error, for me...doesn't quite get down low enough on lower balls for my liking...he's slightly regal with his head on lower balls.

[don_budge]

Underspin...how much and when?

I do love a good discussion on underspin...because usually it will involve tactics. Technique discussions are more interesting when analyzed on the basis of tactical return on investment. Technique in itself is not the end...but it certainly is a means to the end. For instance, this conversation has evolved from one hand slice backhand...to backswings and volley technique. This is a meaningful discussion.

This business with the high backswing for a slice backhand has not merely evolved...it is a product of the court engineering and to a somewhat lesser extent racquet and string technology. It seems like a fad to me as it sort of appeared out of nowhere...around the time they started monkeying around with the courts and the strings. Certainly after the Sampras era.

My two favorite underspin backhands of all time were those of McEnroe and Nastase...you can throw in Sampras' backhand as well, although his may of been somewhat less elegant than the other two, but no less effective. Sampras' game was also more of a product of the "new" equipment as well...feathery touch was on the wane. The reason that I like these two characters backhands is because of the beautiful and simple motion that they used to produce them and the tactics that they employed as a result with lethal consequences...like deadly swordsmen. Thrust, parry...touche. Approach, volley...kill. McEnroe's backhand in particular was produced with a variety of backswings and follow throughs but generally speaking he kept his swing much shorter than the modern slice backhand.

The reason is because with the court surfaces of today, the McEnroe slice backhand may of had a tendency to "sit up" a bit, but back in his day the ball would "lay down" quite nicely...which was his intent. The McEnroe and the Nastase motions, and the slice backhands of previous eras for that matter, were all-purpose motions as well. They used this motion on their normal slice drives, on approach shots, on volleys, on lobs and on drop shots. It used to be a shot that could be played with great disguise using subtle changes in the angle of the racquet head and follow through. There were options. Some of these tactical shots are all but obsolete...from discontinued net play in the game.

In order to get the ball to behave and lay down today much more spin is needed to be generated...therefore the higher backswing with a chopping motion, which is not to be confused with the slicing motion according to Tilden. The action required by the body to produce this motion is probably not as conducive to moving forward either...which limits it's effectiveness as an approach shot. The exaggerated chopping motion is also probably a product of bigger frames as this motion attempted with smaller frames would of produced far too many mishits to be considered practical. Tomic's motion is not a slice backhand as much as it is a chop backhand. The modern slice backhand is not a slice at all...it's a chop. The courts are playing like velcro nowadays...although it looks to me as if they have speeded up the US Open venue just a bit.

When it comes to the volley technique...I very much like the idea of getting the racquet head behind the ball and "leaning" on the ball with a nice sound structure and combination of racquet, wrist and weight transfer in the placement of the feet and body. This description used to fit the bill of the classic slice backhand as well. Crisp volleying was the term that volley technique used to be referred to as. Applying this volley technique under the conditions that the modern game is being played today may produce a ball that sits up a bit too much to be effective, much like the classic slice backhand technique of a McEnroe or a Nastase.

Federer, it seems, has become a bit challenged with regard to his volley technique and his approach game as well...but a lot of it may be due to the combination of court surfaces and string technology. It's tough to crisply apply the racquet head to dipping bullets with classic volley technique therefore the bigger backswings, which is an attempt to "chop" at volleys, which is not a sound technique at all. I agree that Federer is not so fundamentally sound with his volley backswings on both sides...but it may be due to the physical limitations that have been imposed on him...and on modern tennis. He is not alone. There are no classic volleyers in the game today...although Mardy Fish may of revived this deceased art form just a little bit. Miniscuely.

Tomic on the other hand, has sort of disappeared from the radar screen.

[bottle]

I feel I've learned a lot from this backspin discussion as from others. And the more I read of authors like Gladwell, Coyle, Colvin, and Syed, the more I'm convinced that this problem-solving aspect of tennis-- this wish to figure out changes in the sport and how to react to them-- is beneficial to all athletes no matter what the anti-intellectuals among them think.

Maybe the technical puzzles in tennis are a way of keeping and developing interest. Or maybe we just love something-- tennis, boats, horses-- and so we learn what a rigger shim or a fescue is. We want to know all the details of the passion from large to small.

Well, problem-solving keeps the brain young if you are of a certain age. It keeps the brain alive if you are of any age. And if you don't do it enough you get a skimpy coating of myelin around your neuronal pathways, which is other language for saying that you'll be dumb, awkward and clumsy-- and by the way, you'll lose.