What is "True" in Tennis

[johnyandell]

Love to hear what people thought about What is "True" in Tennis.

John Yandell

[tenstiger]

Your article on the forehand was outstanding. "You figure it out" or "I don't know" can be a great answer.

[wayneelderton]

John,

Just had to comment on your latest article, “What is true in Tennis?” I had the immediate reaction of, “He gets it!’ Your revelation is what we have been trying to express in our coaching education. Hopefully, your article will start coaches on their own journey towards these truths (the truth that the truth is not as clear cut as one may think).



I know from personal experience with hundreds and hundreds of coaches that this is one of the big “ah ha” moments they have in our courses that transforms their coaching for life. To move away from the ‘model methodology” (I affectionately call it the coaching disease of ‘modelitis’) to something more Game-based with the application of technical ‘principles’ and tactical connection is life altering. And to actually teach tennis as the ‘open skill’ it is rather than the way one would teach gymnastics make for a totally more effective coach.



I will definitely add this article to their list of required reading in our courses as it embodies something all coaches need to explore. Our goal is to have all our coaches ‘get it’.

Way to go! (again)

Wayne Elderton
Head of Tennis Canada Coaching Development & Certification – BC
Acecoach.com

[2728]

Hi John,

Great job, as usual on the articles. I really connect with What is True in Tennis. The more you know, the less you know...haha

Frank Giampaolo

[gazelle]

Probably the greatest article ever written about coaching and the dogmatic approach we take. I do greatly believe in the basic foundation and core of most strokes and the shocking lack of knowledge by "tennis pros" "good players" etc. always leaves me shaking my head. Your work over the past 20 plus years into visual tennis has disproved many myths of tennis and for that you should be NorCal hall of fame material. Best, Marc.

Marc Moran, USPTA Director of Tennis
Club Sport Pleasanton

[bman]

Tennis Lessons= Athletic people banging their head against the wall trying to make unathletic people do what the teachers do naturally.

[ufopie]

John,

Loved your article, its amazing that so many great strokes can be produced from some many different concepts but, i do believe their is one "truth" in tennis, well their are a few actually but this is probably the most important one, IF ITS NOT A STRENGTH, ITS A WEAKNESS. Now i can guarantee you a million people will disagree with me but think about it. If lets say a player attacks roger federers forehand, which most people will agree is his best shot, and breaks it down just consistently dominates his forehand what else would he have???? Yea he has a good serve but he cant just totally dominate everyone with his serve or his backhand alone. If every part of your game is a strength, what do you attack?????????? The number one reason what nadal dominates roger federer and alot of other players is because he attacks their backhand. So lets go to a alternate universe in which rogers backhand doesnt even budge when its attacked im pretty sure things would be alot different. People, for some reason, have come to accept that something in your game is going to be weaker than the other and maybe that is whats wrong with the game all together.

[teamstrager]

So Much to Think About

I agree with what John has written. In fact, it is irrefutable based on the evidence. The top players are not all doing the same thing—therefore there is no “ultimate, universal truth.” And the role of the coach is not to impose a blueprint or squeeze each player into a preexisting mold.

BUT, here’s where I think it gets even more interesting. John, who is truly seeking tennis truth, and doing it in part through extremely valuable, high-speed video analysis of top players, is starting at the culmination of the development of the world’s greatest players and saying, “look, there’s no one best way.” There is no absolute, ultimate truth. And he’s proven it. But, as the father of a 9-year-old just starting at the very beginning, I see that, while there are no ultimate truths, there are definitely fundamental truths that are absolute and universal.

For instance, to succeed at return of serve you have to move. That may sound stupid, but consider this: A baseball player at the highest level of the sport can get on base by standing completely still in the batter’s box. In fact, as the book (and movie) Moneyball revealed, it was somewhat revolutionary when baseball’s decision-makers realized that on-base percentage (OBP) is a better predictor of a player’s success than batting average—the difference being that OBP takes walks into account. Players improve their OBP in large part by NOT swinging. But no one is going to improve their return of serve percentage by not swinging. The rules are different, and therefore the truths are different. So the fact that you can’t stand stock still and succeed at returning serve is a fundamental truth of tennis (and it has consequences). Another one: In tennis, you have to prepare. You can’t wait for the ball to be one inch away from your body before you bring your racket back. No one has ever or will ever build a successful groundstroke game based on waiting for the ball to be one inch from the body before bringing the racket back. Another one: On the serve, you must throw the ball above the top of your head if you want to advance and dominate. That is a truth. There’s no rule against serving underhand. But the overhead serve definitely presents many more advantages. No one has ever or will ever develop a dominant serve without tossing the ball above their head. SO…here’s where it gets interesting. If it’s true that you have an advantage tossing the ball over your head to serve, now you must start to look for ways to build out on that truth. Here’s a consequent truth that builds on the first: You want to place the ball as precisely as possible for each individual serve. You can't be accurate in your serve if your toss is flying hither and yon. And another consequence (here we start to see a tennis serve taking shape based on universal, fundamental truths): You are not going to be as precise if you release the toss at your toes (the way a bowler releases a bowling ball), or your ankles, knees or waist and try to flick it up to the proper height. The more you increase the distance between release point and where you want the ball to go, the more you will decrease accuracy (a pitcher pitching from 2 feet away is going to be way more accurate than one pitching from 60’6”). Therefore, you are going to want to hold the ball in your hand as long as possible to get it as close to where you want it to be.

So we have a truth (you must strike the serve overhead to be consistently dominant) that leads to another truth (you must be as precise as possible in your toss), which leads to another truth (the closer your release point is to where you want the ball to be, the more accurate the result), which leads to another truth (you want to hold the ball in your hand as long as possible)—that all come together to shape the service toss in tennis. This 'train of truths" could be built out with every stroke (return of serve: you have to move to return; it’s easier to move if you’re already moving, therefore, you need to move as the server is in motion). So there are a lot of truths there. BUT, here’s where the fine points start to emerge. Staying with the toss: How EXACTLY are you going to hold the ball in your hand to adapt to these service-toss truths? In the traditional “ice cream cone” grip? More in the fingertips? More into the palm? Lifting your hand sideways to the court? Three-quarters to the court? With your palm facing completely up? How about lifting the ball into the air with the palm facing down and the back of your hand facing up so the wrist gently lofts the ball into the air with backspin? Here’s where we start to cross the border into the territory of John’s excellent article: there are truths, fundamental truths, but their firmness starts to dissolve the more you build away from them. You can build out on these fundamental truths quite far—but you will eventually enter that ephemeral gray, misty area that John is so astutely examining, where only the player can find his truth. Having put in place that universally true foundation (you have to hit your serve overhead to succeed in this sport), and then pursuing the consequences of that truth quite far, the coach must understand that, at a certain point, as each player builds away from the basic premises, he or she is going to enter that ephemeral area in which they must find their own truths (what works best for them). My question is: HOW does a coach help each player find his or her personal truth once they enter that arena of ephemera? I expect that John will be covering that in his subsequent articles. I have my own ideas, but I’d love to hear others’. Because, in my opinion, that is where truly “elite” coaching technique emerges. Not in studying and then applying the Rafa blueprint, or the Roger blueprint, or the Djokovic blueprint, but in developing the blueprint for each player, building out from tennis science (the fundamental truths) to tennis magic on a case by case basis.

[zbor]

What is ,,true,, in tennis

Hi John,
Bayo Friscic from Croatia is responding. Remember, we met in London where we discussed my book for China market. It is still just a project.

Your wonderful article ,,what is true in tennis,, finally opened the eyes of most coaches who still teach dogmas, who do not dare to say ,,I am not sure,, or I do not know exactly,, or let us go to tennisplayer.net and see if we can learn something.

I was also especially dogmatic about the importance of keeping the head still at impact. Roger Federer was my idol until I myself found out on the court that this is just his way of watching the ball so unusually long.

Of course I noticed that Djokovic does not keep his head still at contact and still plays the best tennis. I started to wonder and found out that I was exaggerated the thing. In this struggle to keep my eyes on the hitting point until the stroke is finished I found out something very simple that is common to all forehands and backhands and what more, to all top players including Rafa,Roger and Novak.

Reading your article in which you look for one thing that all three champions are doing the same way....I thought, maybe it so simple that even you overlooked it.

Here is the answer.
The common truth to all of their forehands or backhands, what all of them are doing the same way is.....THEY WATCH THE FALLING AND RISING OF THE BALL.......popularly known as ,,bounce-hit,,.

From my experience, if you just tell the player to be aware of the moment when the ball touches the ground and the moment it rises........everyone will sooner or later find out all fundamental technical elements....optimal hitting point, distance of the body to the ball, adjusting backswing, etc.

Being aware of falling and rising of the ball is something that can be compared to breathing.
It happens all the time whether we notice it or not. If we do not notice it, we are automatic pilots. If we notice it, and champions have discipline of noticing the falling and rising of the ball every time, or most of the time, they instinctively react to the constantly changing situations.
As you see, they do not watch the hitting point the same way....but they, for sure, watch the ball as it falls and rises to the impact.

For a talented young player....I work now with 15 years old Borna Coric, ITF 75, this awareness is enough to find out his or her own best way of hitting forehands or backhands. Of course, time is needed for that. At one moment there will be a click....Your player will say, I found it. I know what to do.

Remember it is not enough to tell the player to watch the ,,bounce-hit,,. The player must see what the ball is really doing before every stroke....it is falling and rising.......

The coaches role is just asking questions like.....,,do you feel you hit the ball effortlessly, ,,do you feel how the energy flows from the ground to your hips to your shoulders.....This I find creative.
The greatest reward is when you hear the player tell you....I found my forehand.

[GeoffWilliams]

The truth is always just a current consensus. Somewhere out there is a junior, who will make Federer's records look obsolete. There will always be a future reckoning, and the future of the game is 125mph forehands placed on the lines at will. Sideways serves, throwing themselves into the shots, with heavier frames, more powerful string, stiffer racquets.

Borg played at 410g, SAmpras at 385-389g, Becker at about 390-395g, etc. Edberg played heavy, and all of them (including Borg at Wimby) came to the net a lot and did not seem to have much of a problem with that mass. The rpms of the groundies were a lot lower. Nowadays, pros are heavy at 364g (Federer). The average serve speed is increasing yearly, as is the height of the players. Does anyone remember when only a third of the atp pros had a gunned speed of over 120mph on serve? Can you say Noah? Nadal is losing to Joker due to his lower serve speeds and not enough free points off the first strike of the ball.

It's the first strike that will always determines who wins. If you serve and return better than your opponent, you will never lose. First strike tennis is not the coming truth, it's always been the current truth. It's not the top servers who win the most. It's the top returners/servers in combination. Joker, Nadal, Murray are all top returners, while Fed is at 16th for breaking serve, and 20th for winning return points. Fed wins with his accurate serve more so than his return. He just blocks the return, while Joker explodes into the shot, hitting both directions, dtl, or cc at will off both wings on either side, deuce or ad. Depth and short angles, off both sides. That's why he is number one, the return, not the serve. He hits returns at your ankles, and he takes out your legs wide, and you don't know what's coming next off his bed. It's the vs team gut/alu combo, with a 360g frame, that spells rock solid confidence and penetration on demand.

If you are breaking 40% of the time, that means you can be broken 30% of the time and still win 4 and 4. And that's exactly what he did to Nadal. Nadal would break, and Joker would break right back, 4 times in a row. Those guys beat each other up so badly, neither one of them could hit a tough serve in the last set and a half. They ended up serving about 100 mph firsts and 80mph seconds. Hell, I can do that!

[johnyandell]

These responses are awesome! Really appreciate all the thought and the addtional contributions that have gone into them!

[happybhalla]

Hey John,


I would really like to congratulate you on your recent article.

The last time I met you you were very sure about technique and how to use it and this article reveals lots of doubt.


The ego wants knowledge and I always believed that your site was instrumental in raising a whole generation of coaches who were 'sure'. And now, I believe you have made an about face that much have taken a great deal of courage, but which must have become obvious the deeper you got into your analysis of top players.


I commend you on your honesty and courage,


best wishes always,


happy

[johnyandell]

Thanks Happy.

I think personally it's easier to follow the truth so far as you can ascertain it and keep trying to do that, as opposed to trying to defend something to the death that you may now believe is only partially true as well as false.

If anything the resources of Tennisplayer encourage uncertainty I feel--because you have so many different viewpoints from coaches and the opportunity to see the strokes of so many players in all their glorious variation.