Backswings

[don_budge]

Hard forehand half-volleys.

Verbally to the student as I am feeding balls...it is simply put, something like this:

1. Push the racquet with your free hand and create the wrist position and forehand grip (with the initial turn towards the ball) strings pointing at the ball
2. Continue to turn and push the racquet back
3. Create the three lines with the feet, shoulders and the racquet
4. Initiate the swing with a "pull" of the hips and shoulders, then the racquet handle to the ball
5. Swing the "released" racquet head through the path of the ball

gsheiner and Dr. WBC...today I had a chance to play for an hour after three hours of hitting orange and green balls to the kids. I have been having this later in life epiphany about my forehand...tennis_chiro style. I wrote about my 5 point explanation to my students and I have modified for the time being my point number 5...at least for myself. I am afraid the kids don't know how to hit half volleys yet. It now reads...

5. Swing the "released" racquet head through the path of the ball and feel like hitting a hard topspin half volley.

I think that I may of hit my forehand as well as I ever have today...besides serving rather well. My forehand has been improving and this last thought may of been the piece of the puzzle that I have been looking for. Pounded my 17 year old protege, Gustaf into tomorrow 6-2. He and I are playing doubles together in a match against another club tomorrow.

[gsheiner]

DonB,

Now it's my turn to congratulate you. I'm trying to incorporate the same feel on my 2 handed backhand but it's more of a struggle there.

I would like to ask you a question though. When you hit your real half volley, do you set the wrist back or do you just keep it neutral and then get wristy at the last second?

For me, I have a natural neutral wrist on my half volley but have always sort of fixed my wrist back in my forehand takeback. Now, I'm trying to hit my forehand with more of the neutral wrist takeback ( a la Agassi)

Glenn

[don_budge]

my "real" half-volley...the reality is still Tilden.

I would like to ask you a question though. When you hit your real half volley, do you set the wrist back or do you just keep it neutral and then get wristy at the last second?

The book is Tilden, the model is Gonzalez with the Budge backhand, the coach is Hopman...Federer is living proof.

Such a great question Glenn. From the book, "How to Play Better Tennis, a complete guide to technique and tactics" by Tilden. This is the only "truth" that I need to know.

Tilden discusses the half volley so why not quote him...he says on page 91:

"We come to the trimmings, the shots that are the last word in the game and the strokes that need not be taught. When a player reaches the place where he should use them, he is good enough to evolve his own way to play them, because they are largely a matter of "feel" or tennis instinct. These shots are the half-volley or pickup and the drop shot."

1. The Half-volley or Pickup. Its very name is confusing, and really a misnomer. It is actually a drive, not a volley at all. It is a rising bounce drive, not a volley at all. It is a rising bounce drive played just as the ball starts to rise from the ground, and should be hit with the grip, footwork, backswing, and complete stroke production of the drive...forehand or backhand. Except of course, the ball can't be taken waist-high. The real secret in hitting a half-volley lies in bending the knees, so you crouch over the ball, leaning into the shot and following through to the end of your swing with a flat racquet face and a stiff wrist.

further...

"Since the half-volley is more or less a desperation shot made under pressure, play it for attack, not defense. Hit it firmly, decisively, and fairly hard, moving in with your shot as you make it. If you always regard the shot as a rising bounce drive, played at the earliest possible moment, you can at times use a half-volley as an advancing shot to go to the net behind, but it should only be done if your opponent is far out of court and you are attempting to hurry him to the limit."

further still...

"There is no shot in tennis that requires the perfect split-second timing that the half-volley does. Above all, it demands perfect vision, with the eye never leaving the ball for even an instant."

PS From the comments of Tilden we can see the merit in what WBC's tip offers us...it is grounded in sound tennis fundamentals...especially if you factor in the equipment. The larger racquets, therefore bigger racquet faces, facilitate making the more difficult shots in tennis easier by a factor of some 30% if we use size as the determining factor. Actually its closer to 50% than 30%...isn't it? Even 30% percent in the hands of professionals is a universe of difference...and immoral. Without standardized equipment the game of tennis has lost it's integrity to the discerning aficionado...or "true" student of the game.

PSS Maybe the difficulty in applying this technique on your backhand could be found in the reason that you do not play your half volleys with two hands.

And that's the "truth" according to yours truly don_budge via Bill Tilden...and great question Glenn!

[gsheiner]

DonB,

"Classic answer"

But, my interest in picking your brain, leads me to post this question which has puzzled me for a long time, and is based on the following observation which I have made.

I'll use agassi's forehand as an example --here is a rear view of arm action.

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/...ctionRear2.mov

My interpretation is that Agassi takes back his racket with an angle of racket to forearm of approximately 45%. As he gets into the loop the angle increases to 90%.

When you say take back with a fixed wrist are you advocating the take back angle of 45 or 90?

From my look at Tilden's forehand , it looks like Big Bill took it back closer to the 45% angle.

Glenn

[don_budge]

The "truth" of the matter...is

The answer in tennis is never fixed...unlike the state of the wrist according to Tilden in his description of the half volley. Every player develops what is right and what feels natural for them.

There are fundamentals to be observed and perhaps there are limits to how far something is fundamentally correct until it reaches the point of being "unorthodox" or "quirky" as bottle likes to term it. Even then it may work for the individual. Even being unorthodox is not a reflection of "bad" coaching, it is a reflection on the nature of the game...and the species that plays it. It is an art...and Tilden says as much. Even the limits can be broached effectively. When the Big Guy designed and bequeathed the game for the human race he never said..."Thou shall" or "Thou shalt not". I am not talking about Bill Tilden or even the "other" Bill, when I reference the Big Guy.

I feel that Agassi is very much fundamentally correct in the technique that he produces his forehand and it seems like it is natural for him to take the racquet back and to let the racquet increase its angle gradually without contorting anything about his production. The weight of the racquet head seems to be dictating the flex in his wrist...and it does not seem to be a conscious movement on his part. In fact...the closer that I study this video it looks to me that this additional angle is a result on his "pulling" on the handle of his racquet at the beginning of his forward swing. This also tells us that the backswing is indeed a swing in itself. This may give some credibility to the three parts of the swing theory...where the initiating pull forward or the "gravity drop" is a separate part of the swing in itself. Perhaps this flexing in the backswing is an indication of what will happen eventually in the forward swing after he strikes the ball as the wrist rolls through the action like a hinge. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction...some smart guy said something to that effect once...long ago.

You notice that I put the words of Tilden "stiff wrist" in italics in my original comment. I anticipated your issue. Tilden's concepts were written in ancient times when only wood racquets were in play. Perhaps one of the biggest fundamental differences in stroking tennis balls with a classic wood racquet and the modern equipment of today is the liberal use of the wrist and the manner in which it flexes throughout the stroke. My comments about the "margin for error" meant something to me other than just being glib. These two words seemed to me...a bit outdated. Perhaps he is in error. Perhaps he is wording the instruction for beginners. Perhaps in those days without high speed video this is what it felt like. Whatever the reason...stiff, as a term describing the action of the wrist, even for half volleys, seems a bit inflexible...today.

But then again we were talking about half volleys weren't we? And so was Tilden. Actually we were talking about two different things and perhaps how one is related to the other via WBC's tip. The half volley take away is not as long as the take away for the full stroke and this additional flexing in Agassi's forehand seems to be taking place outside of the parameters of the half volley stroke which may account for the additional flexing as well. I would say the shorter the stroke, the less flexing takes place going back and going through. The shorter the stroke, the quieter the wrist. I'd be willing to bet you that when Agassi is hitting a half volley his angle is approximately 45 degrees...give or take the margin of "artistic license".

This is a good example of one of the golf axioms. It goes as follows that all good golfers look the same at the bottom of their swings...just before and just after striking the ball. They may take it back with some sort of individual deviation or follow through with some bit of a flourish but down at the bottom it is virtually the same for all.

By the way...I am not advocating using the style of the twenties to hit the tennis ball in the present. What I do advocate is teaching solid fundamentals to beginners until they reach the point where they are capable of responsibly "evolving in their own way"...at the point that students have evolved to this extent they are entering the world of tennis somewhat on their own. Left to their own devices. Flying by the seat of their pants...dependent on their ability to maneuver tactically. They definitely become discoverers. Hopefully adhering to the fundamentals technically...which basically have not changed very much as far as I can see. Tennis is not as "weird" a science as it is being made up to be.

Does this explanation even approach answering you question? Which continues to be a good one...and getting better. One of the best aspects of your question is that we are still dealing with the original subject of the thread...backswings. We have meandered a bit, but we are still on target.

I ended up playing singles today and I won my match at the club against a 20 year old...6-2, 6-0. Drank a bit of FitLine before and during the match...trying to revive myself. My energy was a bit low after yesterday. Come to think of it, it was a long week. I wonder how it feels to get beat so badly by a guy who is old enough to be your grandfather. He was a bit tired...but who wouldn't be considering how much he was running? The funny thing is that I never hit the ball harder than I needed to the whole match. I actually used a lot of underspin forehands...playing the tactic of change of speed, spin and direction. I make my opponents run when I could put the ball away...I love to hit the ball just so hard that they can just barely reach it and then I like to send them to the other corner of the court...one of the four. I drop shot and lobbed him at least a dozen times, probably more like twenty. I recognized in the warm up that his options were going to be limited in his answers to my drop shots due to his forehand grip. I set him up with deep balls to his backhand so that I could bring him scurrying forward. Legalized torture. I really had him dancing to my tune.

Nice kid though...he came into my office and we were talking about tennis, golf, American politics and conspiracy theories for a good half hour afterwards. I gave him a bit of coaching. I did correct him when he used the expression "conspiracy theory"...which is a term people generally use when you are getting too close to the "truth".

[gsheiner]

DonB,

Great answer and a few new tidbits to get my curiosity raging.

First, the wrist issue --your answer makes eminent sense,. I sense, to a degree, that this discussion is morphing (in a good way) into John's article about what is true. You say that after teaching the core basics that you allow, and expect, the student to do a little exploration. So, the final product has a degree of individual variation.

This does lead me to one more set of questions ( the final ones??) about the fixed wrist.

Do you have any experience with using the fixed wrist teaching devices such as the "wrist assist"? If you do, are they only good for beginners? How do you handle a student who is a good player but has excessive wrist action that robs them of consistency?

Now, onto the destruction of the youngster. Your tactics are brilliant and ruthless --
all said with admiration. But, how do you defend the youngster who hits with heavy topspin off both sides and , is so much faster, that they can run around almost anything to blast inside out forehands?

Do you play inside the court and take everything as early as possible? Do you serve and volley and chip and charge to keep the points short? Perhaps a steady dose of forehand slice and drop shots as you mention? Are you playing on hard court or clay?

By the way, we have a legend up in Canada named Bob Bedard --was Canada's best player for many years. Laver apparently had wonderful things to say about him. He was, and still is, a phenomenal athlete, close to 80 now, who in his 60's was still beating good younger players. I had the experience of playing him 15 years ago and after I lost, I walked off the court marvelling at how he had taken away every strength of my game with his tactics. He didn't even hit hard , but the precision and anticipation was stunning.


As for conspiracy theories, I have no great insights worthy of this forum. I do know, that a fellow member of my club , and a very good player, just published a book with his views on the matter.

Cheers,

Glenn

[tennis_chiro]

Use whatever works!

DonB,

Great answer and a few new tidbits to get my curiosity raging.

First, the wrist issue --your answer makes eminent sense,. I sense, to a degree, that this discussion is morphing (in a good way) into John's article about what is true. You say that after teaching the core basics that you allow, and expect, the student to do a little exploration. So, the final product has a degree of individual variation.

This does lead me to one more set of questions ( the final ones??) about the fixed wrist.

Do you have any experience with using the fixed wrist teaching devices such as the "wrist assist"? If you do, are they only good for beginners? How do you handle a student who is a good player but has excessive wrist action that robs them of consistency?

...
Cheers,

Glenn

I use the Wrist Assist, the Racket Bracket and even Greg Norman's "Secret" to try to get the feeling of hitting with a passive wrist, especially with advanced players. I find they usually hit the ball much better with the device, but then we are doing a limited range of shots and they are not going back and forth from forehand to backhand. But once they get the feel of hitting with the device on, then I am constantly asking them to put the device on "without putting the device on". That is, putting it on in their mind.

I have never really made a student wear one of these things constantly for an extended period of time (weeks or months), but I suspect it might be a good way to break a bad habit, but only if you mixed the discipline with the effort to "put it on without putting it on".

don

[10splayer]

10sPlayer -- I have watched pro tennis closely, a lot, in person and on tv, since 1968 when tennis went open. I have seen most aspect of pro tennis improve, but some aspects are slipping.

The best player in the women's game, Serena. is liable to go on streaks of mistakes because of the problems of her technique in topspin forehand (which I have described in above posts in this thread), and because of her backhand finish that sometimes does not follow through and roll forward enough through the ball (so the skimmed ball dribbles weakly into the bottom of the net).

And if you have not seen Federer go through stretches of embarassing forehands, you must not know what to look for. In most aspects, tennis is improving somewhat, but playing and coaching still have a long ways to go. The levels are not good. Tennis is just about the most poorly taught sport, even by the supposedly world class "experts." Right now, pro tennis is a boring game, replete with frequent mistakes, and much too frequent instances in which the shot does not go close to where the player was aiming.

Let's look at Coco Vandeweghe. I feel so sorry for her. She is receiving the best coaching that America has to offer, but she is a walking mistake factory. Are her coaches bad? Are her coaches afraid to teach her? I feel sorry for Coco and all the other pro players. Yes, I can even feel sorry for Fed, Novak, and Rafa, because they have never received some important instruction that would really help them.

Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree on the Fed, Nadal, and Novak issue. In fact, I find your claim to be laughable. These are three of the best forehands the atp has ever seen, and I'm certain that you would do nothing but screw them up by micromanaging.

As far as the issue of American teaching------the criticism of American teaching is that too much emphasis is placed on the striking/sending skills and not enough on the receiving/footwork/defensive skills. (and I tend to agree, btw) And the players we have produced in the last ten-fifteen years, (the likes of Agassi, Davenport,Blake,Roddick, Fish, Sampras, etc.) would tend to bear that out.

[don_budge]

The Kitchen Sink...

I sense, to a degree, that this discussion is morphing (in a good way) into John's article about what is true.

I have been wondering what John might say about what my take on the "truth" in tennis is. I wonder if he would still be speaking to me...not that he does now.

You say that after teaching the core basics that you allow, and expect, the student to do a little exploration. So, the final product has a degree of individual variation.

Actually I believe that the final product is all about the individual with the coach playing the role of facilitator.

Do you have any experience with using the fixed wrist teaching devices such as the "wrist assist"? If you do, are they only good for beginners?

No experience...but have always liked Greg Norman's golf clothing line, and trust tennis_chiro's recommendations.

How do you handle a student who is a good player but has excessive wrist action that robs them of consistency?

First, they must be convinced that the excessive wrist contributes to the lack of ability to implement tactics...because of unreliable strokes. Second, educate them in Part 3 of Tilden's book..."Match Play Tactics and Tennis Psychology". Finally...a detailed demonstration of how the wrist "works" as a hinge must be clarified to the "wristy" student. Ironically, my epiphany about the wrist came from my golf odyssey...and I could not of had a better teacher, and it has made me a better teacher.

But, how do you defend the youngster who hits with heavy topspin off both sides and , is so much faster, that they can run around almost anything to blast inside out forehands?

My two lone victories in the last twenty years have come on carpet. I have no preference to surface, except that I like clay because of the less destructive tendencies on my fragile body. My tactics are arguably old fashioned clay court which are modified to different surfaces and different opponents. I am comfortable hitting overspin and underspin off of both the forehand and the backhand...heavy topspin on the forehand and heavy underspin on the backhand.. I always tell my students that I am a great lobber and I feel very comfortable hitting the ball softly with placement anywhere in the court. I can drive the ball very effectively and my assortment of off speed stuff makes my drive seem a bit quicker than it actually is. My serve is the keystone to my game and used to be my knockout shot...left handed with a lot of options, including the big slice to the ad court...effective on the deuce as well. Somehow I don't seem to have the huge kick and the flat cannonball that I used to...a result of deteriorating physical condition and possibly the new equipment. I still believe, however, that I can hold my serve.

My tactics against an opponent that you describe would be to first slip him a couple of tranquilizers before our match then I would try to proceed to bore him to death with my tactics.

Seriously, against the opponent you describe you first take away their number one option...much like Djokovic has done against Nadal. Take the air out of the ball. Assuming they have a big forehand, it is important to neutralize this as quickly as possible. Being left handed, whenever the ball is on my backhand I have a number of options because it is very difficult to read what I am going to do with the ball until the last moment. While I don't hit the ball very hard, my placement is very good. I can play the ball short, into the corners or skidding in the midcourt. Against big forehands generated by strong grips...I will give them the ball they least prefer...the low ball sliding away. Shoot for the ankles.

Against these types of players I like to get an idea in the warmup just exactly how far it is they are comfortable running around their forehand. When I come up with this "mark" then many times during points I will shoot for this mark with some combination of spin, speed and placement just beyond the point where they have demonstrated that they are comfortable. I want them to doubt what they believe to be their strongest weapon by rendering it somewhat neutered.

Most of these players are backcourt specialists...so guess what? I am going to bring them to the net whenever that opportunity is available. With their strong forehand grips, the volleys are usually not so dependable and since they are not used to coming to the net, their tactics and approach game tends to be suspect and unreliable. If I can get a few lobs over their heads...they are going to be doing a lot of chasing.

At my age I must put myself in the best possible position for any given response that my opponent can come up with. This involves surrendering a certain area of the court where if my opponent hits it...it is an outright winner for him, at which point I clap my hands and say "great shot". This, of course, I try to not let happen so often. So I surrender the part of the court that percentage wise they will have the least chance of success.

My service game is the key. If I can knock him off balance right away, I try to keep him off balance and make him struggle as much as possible to try and possibly weaken him for his service game. In this regard, some of the points that I lose, I consider won because I am trying to deplete my more energetic opponent to bring him down to my level.

Also remember that the tennis court extends upwards...the only limitation being the ceiling of an indoor court. I try to make use of this space as well. Many times these backcourt specialists are looking great if you try and pound the ball through them but sometimes they begin to look a bit like a fish out of water if you give them a steady diet of high balls at some point with the intent being to destroy their rhythm. Perhaps a combination of high balls and low balls. Once you do that, you have your foot in the door and at this point I am going to throw everything including the kitchen sink at them.


That being said, Glenn, I don't consider myself to be much of a tennis player these days. I had my day in the sun, but in many ways I was challenged in several departments,...economics being one. Tennis players, like race horses, are bought and paid for one way or another.

I am a teacher now and not a player. I love what I am doing. I really don't enjoy playing because of the possibility that I could hurt myself...which would impair my ability to teach. On the other hand, I have played some "lite" competitive doubles which is all kinds of fun. If I don't have to cover as much court and the game is being played at the net, I am a bit more effective. I am still a great lobber and my touch has yet to desert me.

Want to play sometime?

[gsheiner]

Don,

How often do you pull out these teaching devices? Only when there's an issue?

DonB,

I can tell that you would have me hitting my worst shots all day long and would destroy me. I'm not sure I could afford the therapy bills that would ensue!

[tennis_chiro]

Probably not as much as I should

Don,

How often do you pull out these teaching devices? Only when there's an issue?

DonB,

I can tell that you would have me hitting my worst shots all day long and would destroy me. I'm not sure I could afford the therapy bills that would ensue!

Glenn,
I always have a "bag of tricks" on the side of the court with me, but I really only use them to get a point across or to establish a "feel" for the correct hit. There have been a few students that I really wanted to use them on more often or for longer periods of time. So I have often sent the student home with one of the devices and the request to practice with it a little bit.

The Racket Bracket is very effective, but a bit cumbersome and you have to choke up on the racket an inch or so; but it really locks the action of the wrist. The Wrist Assist is less cumbersome, but not as restrictive; perhaps in this way it is more beneficial; it only really limits excessive wrist flexion on the forehand; it can also effectively limit wrist extension on the backhand or non-dominant hand wrist flexion on the 2-handed backhand; I think it is an excellent device (children and teenagers may need to wear a wristlet). Greg Norman's Secret is just an adaptation of a gold teaching aid, but it is very effective for limiting wrist flexion; it limits the movement of the index finger and thereby the wrist as well; I found 14 of them on eBay today and they sell for about 1/5th of what they originally sold for at around $10 to $20; great inexpensive alternative; try to get the smaller size, especially if you want to use it for youngsters or ladies, and they will probably need to wear a wristlet.

I think I mentioned in an earlier post that once I have used one of these devices to get the feel across to the student, I will often ask them to put them on "virtually". Visualization is a wonderful tool; and you always have it handy in your "bag of tricks".

don

[worldsbestcoach]

wrist assist

Even the "expert" TV commentators often remark about Federer's topspin forehand groundstoke going astray during prolonged stretches during matches. Also, I have described, above, one reason for Djokovic's improved forehands. I am sure that as good as the forehands of Fed, Nole, and Rafa are, they want to and believe they can make their forehands even better. Their forehands are great, but not biomechanically perfect. Even the best players of all times can improve, and want to improve.

As far as that training aid, the wrist assist, goes: In my opinion, it puts the wrist in an improper position. The 90 degree (L) angle at impact point between forearm and racket is when the wrist is laid back to that L angle. If that 90 degree, perpendicular, "right" L angle is the same angle with which a drummer uses a drum stick, preparing to strike the drum, then that is the wrong type of L angle. In other words, the wrist assist device teaches the improper type of L angle.

If you use your fingers of your off hand to push the fingers of your hitting hand back, then your hitting hand will be in the proper L position for contact for the forehand. If you lock your hitting arm towards the net, with your racket at a 90 degree angle from that locked arm (racket tip towards sideline, strings facing net), that is the proper L position for a strong backhand. Note that neither of these proper L positions is the same L position that the "wrist assist" device promotes.

[westcoast777]

Given that the thread is focused on backswings, maybe a few posters with have ideas for me. I have drifted from the Federer model, returning to my original semi-western grip and imparting my own flair to the backswing that feels most natural to me. Below is footage of my forehand in tournament match play. A few in the warmup, and then three in match play beginning with the inside-out forehand.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iU49VD9oEgA

I think this is the style I will be following in the future - posting clips of my strokes to relevant threads rather than creating a new thread.

[gsheiner]

Don,

Thanks for the Ebay tip. This may not be the place for us to discuss tennis aids but what do you and the other guys think about Jack Broudy's 8board?

I have one and have recently pulled it out of storage and begun experimenting with it again, as it's finally sunken into my thick skull that my groundies are too linear.

It seems to give me a smoother, more rotational shot as compared to my regular forehand. Actually, it somewhat approximates the feel that I got using WBC's tip of thinking of the forehand as a hard half volley.

DonB,

Before running off to the therapist, I'd pull out my gameplan for lefties with one handed backhands. I suppose I would see what you did against high, kick slice serves to your backhand? I might follow them in and put away floating slice returns if there were any to be had.

And, off the ground I might see what you did with heavy topspin again to your backhand. Might you leave me short balls to attack? I'd like to see that backhand slice of yours in action.

And, of course, your lefty slice serve would be coming into my two handed backhand. I'd try and take it early and go back to your backhand. Perhaps come to net and get ready to hit overheads.

When all these plans failed, at least I'd be able to tell the therapist that I threw the kitchen sink at you.

And, as to what I'd like to do with my slice --I'd like to be able to neutralize topspinners who can pull me wide enough to have to go to one hand instead of two. My slice has more float to it than a Rose Bowl parade. That, and hit approach shots that are so knifed that I can draw blood from people on the next court.

[don_budge]

That Sinking Feeling...

gsheiner...beautiful!

Cyber tennis tactics! You sound formidable. If I throw the sink at you, if you are worth your salt as a tactician you are going to throw it right back, in my face. It's safer to play with racquets than swords...isn't it?

Game on...partner. Next time I am in Detroit let's get together. We've got bottle, all we need is a fourth for some doubles. Bring along the conspiracy theorist. Then we can go to the Windsor Ballet afterwards...for therapy!