Interactive Forum August 2011: Bernard Tomic Slice Backhands

[tpatennis]

Federer's Volleys

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.

I agree mate, Federer's forehand is very ordinary, it definitely isn't tight enough, almost like his wrist collapses on the shot or maybe he is not close enough to it, not sure, i've not fully studies it. I didn't mention the F volley because this thread was about Tomic's slice backhand and I didn't want to be that guy that started changing the subject. I thought what everyone was saying applied to Fed's backhand volley.

Tom Allsopp

https://www.tpatennis.net

[don_budge]

The bounce, the equipment and the ability to spin the ball...a sequel to Tilden

The comment that I made about the "velcro" effect of slow tennis courts, combined with the comment that bottle made about the wherefor's and why's, combined with an image I had in my mind from a posting that westcoast777 made one time where he had a slow motion video of one of his strokes, combined with this ensuing discussion about the evolution of the modern day slice backhand which is not a slice at all, combined with all of the infinite discussions about the evolution of the modern day forehand...made me think of something that I find peculiar about the evolution of modern day tennis.

In westcoast777's video there was a slow motion image of the ball bouncing on the court and it appeared to me that the ball was perceptively "grabbed" by the court and it bounced at a distinctly steeper angle than I would of instinctively anticipated. Combined with the images of todays backhand slices that are so steeply and severely struck they are no longer slices...Tomic's, Federer's and the way Dolgopolov was playing his backhand to Djokovic, it made me wonder about the evolution of today's strokes and the technique it requires to play these shots.

Today's strokes are all played with steeper angles...whether it be forehand or backhand, or top spin or under spin, or even volleys that are not hit on the bounce...and that leads me to believe that it is a result of the engineering in the game and has nothing to do with evolution. The combination of the steeper bounce, the larger frames and the strings that are designed to produce ungodly spin is the recipe and the proof is in the pudding...modern tennis.

Whether or not that is good thing or a bad thing, I will leave up to you readers, but be aware of one thing...it is impossible going forward to compare the players of the past with the players of the modern game because by definition the game is not the same game. This I find regrettable. Anticipation of the future of the game becomes another thing. If the tennis audience is not being adequately entertained by the product the ITF is dishing up then it may be safe to speculate that changes will be made and we will see a reversal of field sometime in the near future. It may be subtle and the powers that be won't necessarily keep us informed about them.

TommyEnglish...The road that is our lives, like our threads on the forum, like tennis matches, with all of the twists and turns is a meandering thing. If it were so straight that we always knew what was coming or where it was going, we’d all be bored to death. When you feel it goes left...take us there so that we feel the thrill of the ride as you perceive it. When you feel it goes right...we’re still with you, it’s within our capacity...to go with the flow.

[jmtennis]

Jmtennis

I Teach A Slice Backhand To All My Recreational Studenta And Tournament And League Players. I See Many Players When They Attempt A Slice Backhand They Come Under The Ball Too Much And The Ball Sails High And Soft Mostly Out Or It Lands Mid Court And Sit Up And Says Hit Me Hit Me. I Prefer They Aim For The Forhead Of The Ball With A Slight High To Low Racquet Trajectory To More Of The Ball On Contact And Hit Through To Their Target. The Ball Has A Lower Clearance To The Net And Will Skid On Contact. Wht Do U Guys Think
Thanks,
Jack

[johnyandell]

This is my friend and a Texas USPTA pro Jack Foster. Jack, what you say is pretty much exactly what I believe below quite a high level.

[explorequotes]

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.

[explorequotes]

I agree mate, Federer's forehand is very ordinary, it definitely isn't tight enough, almost like his wrist collapses on the shot or maybe he is not close enough to it, not sure, i've not fully studies it. I didn't mention the F volley because this thread was about Tomic's slice backhand and I didn't want to be that guy that started changing the subject. I thought what everyone was saying applied to Fed's backhand volley.

[don_budge]

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.

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.

Interesting. Don't you think so? Nearly every one or it may be every one of explorequotes is a quote of you know who. So what is the message we are receiving and who is sending it? It's interesting.

But he does highlight a couple of posts that I made in this thread that I think are worth reading...underspin. It's a clever way of perceiving the game.