Some videos of my game

[don_budge]

Skip the moralizing 10splayer...

This is actually pretty easy to see if you actually no what your talking about.

Why do you feel the need 10splayer? Why don't you comment on the video instead? I noticed that about you. You would rather to assume a superior attitude than make a constructive contribution. Why does it always have to be at somebodies expense? He's just stating his case...he is entitled to his opinion. Talk about arrogance...talk about the kettle calling the pot black.

By the way...it's know not no. Talk about pretty basic stuff. If you know what I mean.

[10splayer]

No, I just have no patience for those who misrepresent others work. Especially when they have no idea what they're talking about. Know what I mean? What am I saying, sure u do.

P.S. Since when are you the forum police. HE is the one that cast dispersions on individuals and a profession. Let him back up his position. In this case, i don't think he can....OK?

[worldsbesttenniscoach]

I notice many bad topspin forehands in the modern pro game. The rallies are short because the technique is flawed. And it is a boring game to watch.
Yes, many players on the pro circuits today have their racket back to early & too far, then they have to start up the racket motion again as the ball arrives, which is difficult to do. Let's call it what it really is. It is like a kink in the serve. Kinks should be avoided in both the serve & forehand.
The reason Azarenka has improved her tennis game is because she has tweaked her technique to become more consistent. She used to hit her forehand in the Macci Nainkin manner, & with the poor Macci Nainkin timing. But now she tracks the ball more out front, she starts her swing later & swings with an all-at-once continuous motion, has a more compact backswing with a more foreward-flowing motion, & positions herself behind the ball better.
Similarly, Serena Williams used to throw away so many more points than she does now. Consciously or unconsciously, Serena has tweaked her forehand away from the misguided Macci Nainkin model more toward the forward-emphasis model that I espouse
The reason that the great Roger Federer mishits so many forehands & makes so many unforced errors on that wing is because Roger has a little bit too much of the Macci Nainkin model in his technique.
I am happy to kiss the feet of Federer, Macci, Nainkin, et al. They are good in many ways. All I say is that the state of tennis coaching still needs to improve a lot , even at the highest levels......& that the supposed great level of play on the WTA & ATP cicuits today also has significant room for improvement.

[worldsbesttenniscoach]

Anyway, I think that nikae understandably is trying to imitate the topspin forehand that many pro players use today, & is listening to what many of today's alleged expert coaches promote.
However, just as the Macci Nainkin forehand model limits many of today's pros, so does it limit nikae. Nikae seems to have a good heart & work ethic. I just have some suggestions that will help mikae escape from the Macci Nainkin rut.

[stroke]

Hmmm, where to begin? My opinion is that your arrogance is only surpassed by your inability to understand even basic concepts as per the Gordon/Macci piece.

First of all, the very premise of the "flip" is to delay the backward rotation of the arm and or racquet, until the body starts to rotate forward. So no, they are not advocating running around the court with the racquet back as you claim. In fact, when the arm stays internally rotated (as they have mentioned)in the backswing, THE RACQUET CANNOT GO BACKWARDS. ITS THE ANTITHESIS OF A BACKWARD EMPHASIS. It leads to a more compact backswing, and straighter, more direct swing line. This is actually pretty easy to see if you actually no what your talking about. I would certainly expect this from the best coach in the world. Pretty basic stuff.

P.s Would you please post a video of your game. I always love to see the game of someone who can lambast the forehands of a tour player.

Amen

[nikae]

Thanks for replys all!

Worldsbestcoach, I am still waiting for the video you promised me long time ago

I am very interested in what kind of forehand model do you like, can you please give me some videos to work on? Azarenka is great model in your book?

What do you think on ATP forehand articles from this site? I am experimenting with it lately, but all that wrist flipping makes timing hard!

I am also interested what others have to say about ATP forehand articles...Don_budge? I think you would agree that all that wrist flipping and violent movements make timing hard, for average too good club players (NTRP 4.0+)?

[10splayer]

Nikae, you are a good player for having played for so few years as you have.

You hit a lot of topspin forehands, so you must make sure that your forehand is good. But most coaches today, even the supposed most "expert" coahes on the pro tours & at elite tennis academies, teach inefficient technique for the topspin forehand. Today's pros on ATP & WTA, even the most highly ranked, often have gaping flaws in their topspin forehand groundstokes. So be careful not to automatically imitate what you see on TV.

It is important to be a skeptic, & think for yourself, as you learn the game......because "expert" coaches often promote wrong ideas. Tennis has aways been a poorly coached sport, & it still is.

On your forehand, you get the racket back too early, & you prepare too far back. I call that a backwards-set forehand, or a backwards-emphasis forehand. Many of the circuit pros have the same problem, which leads to inaccuracy & inconsistency. On a side view, there is a lot of motion behind your body towards the back wall, & very little motion towards the net. Your technique (& many pros' technique) on the forehand has a kink in it. In other words, you get the racket ball, then stop the racket, then try to get the racket started again. You must try for a more fluid continuous motion on your forehand, just as players must avoid kinks in their serves.

You need to set the racket out towards the net more, as the ball approaches. Oscar Wegner, at www.tennisteacher.com , can demonstrate to you how to track the ball better with your racket -- in other words, how to set your racket more properly, in preparation for the stroke.

If u set the racket as Wegner suggests, then you can swing all at once in a continuous motion, as opposed to the start-stop-start kink motion you now have.

Wegner's preparation will allow you to run behind the ball more in preparation for your stroke, as opposed to running from beside to the ball as you do now.
Wegner's preparation will encourage you to have a more compact, more powerful backswing, & allow the racket to flow foreward throught the ball more.

I notice a few more flaws in your game, but I suggest for now improving your forehand. I was teaching a preparation similar to Wegner's type of prep a long time before Wegner promoted his ideas. But at least Wegner is a good site for you to go to, to learn how to prepare the racket more properly, which in turn lead to better overall technique for you.

Most of the things Wegner says, I disagree with. But Wegner is correctly adamant about preparing the racket forward in tracking the ball. Today's dumb dumb coaches actually think it is wise to "track" the ball with the racket back.

"Experts" like Rick Macci & David Nainkin do a disservice to so many players by teaching the forehand improperly. Today's pros often have inconsistent forehands because they were taught wrong.

Serious question here. I just watched an Oscar forehand lesson, and the whole "track the ball in front" emphasis. Can you not see how teh forehands as proposed by Macci and Gordon also track "inline"? The difference (as i see it) is that Oscar really doesn't teach/mention/demonstrate a unit turn/ coil of the shoulders.(at least the video I saw)

Make no mistake about it though, the Macci model allows for the straight line/in front tracking of the ball. But when you turn (which Oscar glosses over) the "front" becomes the "side". However, the arm/racquet are still on the chest side/flight line of the incoming ball. (hence, the outside loop emphasis) As a result, the swing path is very short/and linear. That is, the hand can track very straight!!!
It certainly isn't, as you mentioned, a "backward emphasis", curved tracking model.

Did you read/ listen to the pieces?

P.s I've seen (on video) even Oscar "advanced" players making poor/incomplete turns which is mistake, as racquet head speed is derived principally from rotational speed on an axis. (angular)

Also, would you pretty please tell your bodyguard (Mr T) aka, Don Budge, that i did my bestestest speling ever, an was on my goodestest behavior. I don't know what id do if he puts me on "time out" again. I don't ever want to feel that kind of pain again.

[don_budge]

What a Great Question...many thanks.

What do you think on ATP forehand articles from this site? I am experimenting with it lately, but all that wrist flipping makes timing hard!

I am also interested what others have to say about ATP forehand articles...Don_budge? I think you would agree that all that wrist flipping and violent movements make timing hard, for average too good club players (NTRP 4.0+)?

Hello there nikae...I read most everything with a degree of healthy skepticism. Whether it is about tennis or about the radioactivity leaking into the environment from the tsunami accident in Japan a couple of years ago. Keep in mind that the driving force these days is money...not enlightenment. Most of todays gurus and charlatans are merely repeating some form or variation of what has already been established.

For instance...the ATP forehand is merely a product of the engineering of the sport. Larger racquets, suped up strings, grittier court surfaces have all contributed to the "discovery" of the ATP forehand. Believe me...there is nothing new under the sun.

One cannot argue that the ATP forehand model of the aforementioned coaches whom I will not mention by name just in case someone will take offense as if I were purposely stepping on their toes or their claim to fame, is the predominate model of stroke currently in vogue on the professional tour. But is it a good teaching model for beginners? Intermediates? Advanced players? Or does it simply evolve within a player if one allows such evolution to be based in good sound fundamentals? All good questions...I believe. I ask them of myself from time to time when doing my periodic reality check.

I really don't care for the term "flipping" and I certainly don't like the gut feeling that term gives me when I think about a sound fundamental forehand. I don't believe that there is a flip and if there is such a motion it should be a "roll" as opposed to a flip. Words can be very misleading...as some of the less grammatically correct contributors on this forum demonstrate from time to time. The action of the wrist is a product or the sum of many movements within the being of a tennis player starting with the brain, quite possibly the soul. Flip? Flipping? Why not just substitute any other "f" word?

Another factor that is currently contributing to the use of the current ATP model of forehands is the prevailing use of strong gripped forehands. This is another aspect that I don't like to see in the game of tennis...particularly in the professional game. Why not? Because it produces a product that is boring beyond all comprehension to a game that originally was as fascinating as it was limitless in the variations of style that it was designed...or not designed...to be played. The current edition of modern tennis almost dictates that the game must be played in this mode. That of the ATP forehand mode.

With the engineering of the game it is almost dictated that net play is obsolete. The play is all about power and speed which sort of rules out the necessary second or so that it takes to transition from the backcourt to the net. This is the real shame. So in conjunction with the strong grips and the suped up strings you get ungodly amounts of topspin...and since the split second that is necessary to transition is gone, players do not have the opportunity to choose a style other than ATP forehand play because they will end up trying to volley dipping bullets at their feet. This is not the percentage play to beat the current breed of players that are permanently glued to the baseline with their shiny racquets, suped up strings and their fancy shmancy ATP forehand.

So what do I think. I think it is a shame. I think that wbtc is right about a couple of things. One should be skeptical about fads and fashions. They are often fleeting. For instance...if anyone would have the common sense to reengineer the game back to something that resembles the original you might just find that the ATP method of hitting forehands may become somewhat less prevailing as evolution might dictate getting to the net to preclude things. Thus rendering the strong grips to be a bit of liability when it comes to transition shots or net play.

I feel that wbtc has some valid feelings about the coaching and teaching of tennis. But if I were him...and I am not...I would probably have the same feeling for anything being taught. Teaching is an art and unfortunately not all teachers are artists...nor do the artistic get the credit that they deserve. These days there is more emphasis on science and technique whereas this is only a part of the equation... a fundamental part...but only a part nonetheless. Engineering is the order of the day...a guy like Brian Gordon may be worshiped whereas a traditionalist with a true feeling and understanding of the total game of tennis will only be served as the whipping boy. Like the bearer of bad news. Brian deserves a lot of credit by the way for his contributions so hold your fire all of you ATP technique sniper wannabes. It's just that his is only part of the story. Only a part.

But most people will go along with what is served to them as the truth these days. Whether they get it from the propaganda mouthpiece such as CNN or one of the current pimps or whores in the tennis biz is one thing. Sometimes even this forum can turn into a bit of a dog and pony show. I guess that is one of the reasons why I am here. don_quixote. The world is really a "now" reality. It's all about money in the end...money, illusions and images. Even though the future will always be in doubt...everyone is so sure of themselves. Science, gizmos and group think has certainly trumped anything that was once deemed wisdom from the past. The direction and speed with which this kind of living and thinking is advancing or evolving is happening so fast and gathering momentum, renders conventional wisdom to be a momentary and fleeting illusion. Who knows?

I don't teach the ATP forehand. But I certainly pay attention to those that do. If only out of curiosity...respect? Some may accuse me of being something of a traditionalist when it comes to tennis. Hmmm...I still teach volleys and approach shots using underspin with elongated volley strokes. I am heavy into tactics. I am a tactical genius I have been told. A real spin doctor.

Yesterday I had a wonderful session with some 13 year old to 15 year old students...backhand volleys with underspin combined with approach shots. You know...the backhand volley is a fascinating stroke. Nobody talks too much about that stroke. I was demonstrating against the wall and introduced my students to Mr. Wall...the world's greatest volleyer. After my demonstration...I asked the kids, what did Mr. Wall do? Nothing they said. Ahhhh...when hitting a backhand volley make yourself into a wall and meet the ball early with a slightly descending motion of the back of your hand. Eureka!!!

We worked on my "up to the net and back to the baseline drills". We were so happy after our sessions. You could feel the love. None of these young tennis players use the ATP forehand...yet. Although there are some of the ingredients...there were some of the fundamental similarities that have always been good sound forehand fundamentals. I worked a bit on their forehands too. Tweeking them. Too early for the ATP concept though...way too early. I talk about the wrist too. It's a hinge...I tell them. It's a natural motion for the hand to roll over the ball with the upward motion and the wrist laid back a bit. Backswings are my thing too. So is getting into position. Don't forget to sit into your butt a bit.

I never used the word flipped. I am not compelled. They are hitting flatter balls...with topspin though. But not excessively. They listen to me. They trust me. I would never lead them astray. I will teach them topspin with an open stance eventually. When they are ready. I will be the judge of that. They do it anyways...on their own. They are evolving too. People evolve...if you nurture them. You know...give them viable options. The object of the game is to get them to make decisions. On the other hand...there are robots...and reptiles.

I loved the question...nikae. I wonder if I answered it. Great thread by the way. It's evolving...over the ages that have transpired since you started it. I am too...I noticed.

[bottle]

Toward More Reasonable Orchestration

I, too, like to think about this subject. And I absolutely agree with the Alphabet Soup World's Best Tennis Coach And Thinker In General (ASWBTCATIG), that, most tennis instruction is bad. Or if not bad, incomplete. Or over-detailed. Or basically ignorant of too many possibilities.

This feeling of mine, with other permutations expressed before, has led to my daily self feed program which some readers may believe they have already heard too much about.

Nevertheless, I propose more self feed for anybody. Why go for so much consensus? When did consensus ever produce a great tennis player other than Pete Sampras? (But there there was a lot of quirkiness in his sponsoring backers' choice of a full complement of specializing coaches.) We should carefully evaluate the personal declarations of independence issued by Ivan Lendl, Martina Navratilova, and in play (i.e., the racket talks) by John McEnroe. Think I'm name-dropping?

I'm being accused of name-dropping and therefore narcissism right now at the Common Dreams website, so it must be true that I am a narcissist. Like Narcissus, I gaze downward into limpid forest pools, but Narcissus was a good-looking dude probably in his late teens or early twenties, and I'm 73 so I don't mind.

I had heard before that Oscar Wegner doesn't emphasize gargantuan shoulders turn in his forehand instruction, so I wasn't surprised by this accusation (and it is an accusation) by 10splayer. But I am not aware of Oscar ever discouraging, in his materials, gargantuan shoulders turn. He does encourage great ease and feel in tennis. From studying theory of criticism, I don't believe it's ever fair or productive to judge somebody for not saying or suggesting something. You start with what is on the page.

The smart course is to be self-interested and steal the best from everybody without huge caveats, and actually, you can even do it without attribution. To a man the actual world's best tennis coaches encourage this. Very convenient for talking or thinking and it makes for pleasantness.

On the other hand, one can say like Delia Ephron reflecting on her late sister Nora, "I pine for fierce." What a great statement.

Main substance now: Give me the ATP Forehand to undo the opposition's topspin and provide my own, second for a remarkably consistent forehand service return in 90 per cent of all cases.

I've got mondo (or flip) in my ATP and no mondo in my forehand frisbee continental poptop.

Is this solution worthless since I came up with it by myself and it doesn't carry the Duncan Hines Seal of Approval? Of course not!

[stroke]

I just don't think there is any denying that the type 3 forehand, as explained by Brian and Rick, is simply a superior forehand. A type 3 that also includes the straight arm component that can most employ the shoulder, is the gold standard. All one has to do is look at the best forehands in men's tennis, Rafa, Roger, Del Potro, Verdasco, to see it. That does not mean more classic forehands can't be effective. I was watching the USOpen men's doubles final and Radek Stepanek, who has a very classic game, is still a tremendous doubles and singles player. But just as I think that one should start out newer tennis players volleying with a true continental grip instead of migrating to it, now that Brian has quantitatively measured and explained the advantages of the type 3 forehand, that just seems to me what one would desire to employ.

As for the wbc statement that Serena and Victoria are examples of a more "forward" forehand, to me they are just examples of type 2 forehands.

[worldsbesttenniscoach]

Nikae, I will do what I can to send u video.

I did not say Serena's & Vika's topspin forehands are great -- only a lot better than they used to be. Their forehands still have flaws.

The unit turn that top coaches teach today causes loss of power, bad timing, kinks in the stroke, too big of a backswing, less likelihood of meeting the ball early, & poor court positioning. When I see a pro using that technique, I know the pro will have an inconsistent, inaccurate forehand. It is one of the first things I look for when I analyze a match.

The immediate preparation that Macci & Nainkin teach is completely different than the one that Wegner espouses. To me, the Nainkin Macci model does not allow for tracking the ball well, & it causes lack of control of the racket.

The wise coach Peter Burwash teaches the importance of controlling the racket at the throat, with the fingertips of the free hand. I agree, Even if you prepare as Wegner suggests, & also control the throat of the racket with your free fingertips, during the stroke you still will have
your free arm extended towards the sideline, as the "experts" suggest. However, if you force that position too early in the swing, it causes major problems in the forehand. In other
words, that position happens naturally, but if you force it, it messes up the swing.

I will read about the type 1, 2, & 3 foehands. I probably analyze things differently, but I will see what others say. I have a different schema than other coaches have. I have been fortunate to have started with a great coach who thought outside the box, & have studied under & worked with arguably the world's top instructional designer whose insights are so advanced in comparison to other educators that they are too lazy to learn & fathom what that educator has to say.

Hehehehehe....I must look up what you all mean by tupe 1, 2, 3 forehands. This is rich.

[stroke]

Nikae, I will do what I can to send u video.

I did not say Serena's & Vika's topspin forehands are great -- only a lot better than they used to be. Their forehands still have flaws.

The unit turn that top coaches teach today causes loss of power, bad timing, kinks in the stroke, too big of a backswing, less likelihood of meeting the ball early, & poor court positioning. When I see a pro using that technique, I know the pro will have an inconsistent, inaccurate forehand. It is one of the first things I look for when I analyze a match.

The immediate preparation that Macci & Nainkin teach is completely different than the one that Wegner espouses. To me, the Nainkin Macci model does not allow for tracking the ball well, & it causes lack of control of the racket.

The wise coach Peter Burwash teaches the importance of controlling the racket at the throat, with the fingertips of the free hand. I agree, Even if you prepare as Wegner suggests, & also control the throat of the racket with your free fingertips, during the stroke you still will have
your free arm extended towards the sideline, as the "experts" suggest. However, if you force that position too early in the swing, it causes major problems in the forehand. In other
words, that position happens naturally, but if you force it, it messes up the swing.

I will read about the type 1, 2, & 3 foehands. I probably analyze things differently, but I will see what others say. I have a different schema than other coaches have. I have been fortunate to have started with a great coach who thought outside the box, & have studied under & worked with arguably the world's top instructional designer whose insights are so advanced in comparison to other educators that they are too lazy to learn & fathom what that educator has to say.

Hehehehehe....I must look up what you all mean by tupe 1, 2, 3 forehands. This is rich.

Wbc, I think you are on to something here.....perhaps you should read Brian's ATP forehand pieces.

[worldsbesttenniscoach]

Where is Brian's article about forehands?

[worldsbesttenniscoach]

Also, news flash. Many completely different kinds of forehands have the free arm straight pointing to the sideline during the backswing. I say let it hapen naturally & do not teach that unless the student does not do that naturally. Too many pros today force themselves into that position prematurely, & thereby lose control of the racket.

Coaches today teach players to get into that still position too early, & then the poor player has to break out of that inertia. The straight position of the free arm towards the sideline should be part of a natural, free-flowing, continuous motion, unlike the slot motions taught by Macci, Nainkin et al.

[worldsbesttenniscoach]

Nikae, this is for you. Maybe it can help others as well.

First of all, think of a first baseman, in baseball. As the first baseman waits for the thrown ball, the glove is way out front in the direction of the ball. That is the way you should track the ball in tennis. Leave the racket out in front, as though you are ready to catch the incoming ball in a butterfly net, or in a fisherman's net. All it takes is for you to lay back your wrist, cock your wrist. That should be your initial reaction, your initial preparation, when the tennis ball is coming to your forehand. In other words, you are setting the racket forward, where you intend to make contact with the ball, eventually. It is similar to golf, where you set the clubhead next to that intended contact point, before you begin your backswing.

Do not worry about the way coaches today try to teach. That unit turn & slot stuff can really mess up the forehand swing. It is hard to track the ball properly, with that slot, unit turn model, also.

Now try this drill. It will teach you a forward-emphasis forehand, with a more consistent,
compact backswing.

Have a pitcher or coach roll you a tennis ball on the floor or court. However, it should not be a true roll, but rather a slow & bouncy roll. (Old Americans like me who used to play kick ball in elementary school, a long time ago, will understand what I mean.) The bounces should be
very close to the court. Very low. Do not try to hit the ball on the first bounce. Let the ball
bounce a few times before you try to hit it.

If your initial reaction is to grt your racket back, get your rack back early & far, you will have a hard time with this slow & bouncy kickball tennis drill. Likewise, if your first reaction is to get your hips & shoulders sideways, you will have a hard time.

This simple, little drill will be difficult for you at first, because you have learned bad habits by copying the "modern" forehand that has led to so many unforced errors & such inaccuracy
on the WTA & ATP today.

Think of the forehand another way. Think that a half volley is the foundation for a forehand -- litlle backswing, but meeting the ball firmly, crisply out front towards the net. This half volley concept for the forehand will put you in good stead especially on serve returns, balls deep close to the baseline, on slick courts, and agaist hard hitters. There is no need to worry too much about getting sideways, big backswings, or wild followthroughs.

If the ball comes slowly to you, short to you, then it will be natural to increase the size of your backswing some & blast the ball. But on every forehand topspin, remember the foundation of that half volley concept. That tight feeling leads to consistency & to powerful leverage in the topspin forehand motion.

Anyway, do not be embarrassed to try that slow & bouncy drill. To change habits, sometimes you have to swallow your pride & go back to basics. If you do as I suggest, I believe that you can dramatically improve your forehand in a very short time.