Mats Wilander and recreational tennis

[julian1]

http://live.wsj.com/video/dont-play-like-a-pro/D45137E8-AD9F-4E86-978C-837AF2057CB1.html?mod=wsj_article_tboright

[bman]

Disagree a bit on serve. fed's arms are staggered.

[stotty]

Spot on

I agree with every word. He's absolutely spot on when it comes to coaching regular club players.

And Fed's arms definitely go up together, bman.

[DougEng]

Wilander's Comments

He's correct on Federer in one sense...classical motion (but classical is actually slightly staggered by my definition). However, I would disagree with several points. For example, using open stances. Club players may need open stances just as much as pros. It depends on the time to hit the ball vs speed of the player or let's call it T/V(p). Time is dictated by f(ball velocity, spin ball height, ball depth, ball width). A good example, is a wide crosscourt hit with pace. That gives the player very little time to run, hit and recover. The higher the value, the more likely an open stance must be used regardless of skill level. If the value is too high, the player is forced to stretch and even a different set of footwork (no longer open stance) is used (more a full stride). Club players need a bit of time to learn a proper open since it requires coordination of shoulders, hips and legs. A very quick club player whose opponent does not hit hard should use more square stances since he/she can set up quicker. Short balls are difficult for club players not because of open stances but because they don't recognize the ball nor do they practice (deliberate practice) playing short balls (unless they are versed in classical doubles).

Doug

[klacr]

Club players

Doug, all great points!

Having taught at clubs for most of my career, and currently teaching at an active "tennis-centric" club in South Florida I concur.

on the open stance /closed stance issue. Although I ideally like to start out teaching a closed or neutral stance, just so they can get the feeling of the shoulder turn I know eventually as they improve and play better competition an open stance will need to be activated as the receiving ball becomes faster, wider, heavier, deeper. Many club players do not possess and will never possess the quickness and footwork patterns of the pros so it's tough for them to get a closed/neutral stance on a tougher ball.

As for the short balls and approach shots, the anticipation and reaction skills are not world class at the club level either. Many club players either run straight through the ball with chest facing the net, or they stay glued to the baseline, giving them time to take a bigger backswing but also allowing the ball to drop out of their strike zone and losing opportunity to be aggressive.

But of course, very rarely, if ever, on their own accord, do they practice the short ball. Unless they are my students.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

[bottle]

"Unless they are my students." I like that. I was thinking about Don Brosseau's discussions of inside out swing, and Steve Navarro's observations about Federer's open stanced or semi-open forehands-- where his left foot coming forward at last instant turns these shots into a square shot facsimile...right during contact.

The whole thing about inside out swing in tennis or golf is that the player creates an arc that briefly coincides with the line of intended flight. "Coincides with" is the key phrase. The racket head or club face does not cross the line of intended flight right to left or left to right, with a crossing mistake apt to become ingrained rather early in the player's development (Brosseau on Roddick's backhand. I wonder if Andy was thinking about this in his U.S. Open match with Bernard Tomic yesterday. Very doubtful).

But if someone is courageous enough to prioritize better stroke efficiency, they can change. And when anyone steps across they add backward turn component like a pinch of spice to whatever amount they already used in their stroke. Don Brosseau suggested small hip nudge to prolong the point of "coincision" in a one-hander topspin backhand (my word, made up by me, according to the red line my computer puts under it).

And I've tried to consider and be open minded about any other means of improving "dwell"-- the same thing really, no?-- in some of my shots in some of my posts. If one were stepping across residually like Federer one might put a bit more stick on the ball (or maybe slow down shoulders just then or both-- not a bad idea?).

Could a recreational player learn this? Who precisely is qualified to say (and perhaps those who would most readily say are arrogant punks)?

Understanding of this point about inside out swing would come first in the case of someone who wanted to try this.

Without understanding there can be no clarity of purpose, and in this way the most arrogant judges can always be right. Yes, I've been watching The Republican Convention.

[klacr]

Good post bottle.

My last comment "Unless they're my students" was of course said in a joking, yet serious tone. I'm proud of my teaching skills and I have this website and this forum to partially thank. Knowing what I've learned just on tennisplayer.net alone gives my students the comfort and confidence in their coach.

Moving on, your statements, or should I say Mr. Brosseau's ideas and Mr. Navarro's are things I have thought about often. Deep stuff.

I'm a bit of a perfectionist and although my students dont have the talent of a Federer I certainly try to simplify their swings and thought processes so they can better understand exactly how to hit the ball and actually enjoy it. The key word I look for my students to say when I ask them how hitting a ball feels is "effortless". Once in a while I have a pretty eager and motivated student that is gung-ho for all the technical mumbo-jumbo and geeks out to it. I love sharing that information with them and in return receiving feedback and learning myself.

I've often wondered why there is not a tennis book out that actually explains the science of hitting a ball. The actual process and why it is so. There are books about mental tennis, tennis technique, tactics, history and conditioning etc. What about a book on the proper way to hit a ball. Maybe a topic like how to hit the ball just 10% harder than when it came to you in a rally instead of going from 20% to 100% in 1 shot. Maybe a basic system 5 idea in some way. Ideas like that. Just thinking out loud. sorry. Maybe there is a book like that already out that I don't have or that I have not come across. I'm just thinking in terms of many club and recreational players, who seem to wanna hit the ball with no idea, regard, or respect for physics, percentages, and geometry. Maybe I'm just rambling after a long, hot, productive morning on court.

All the best,

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

[julian1]

Books

Good post bottle.

My last comment "Unless they're my students" was of course said in a joking, yet serious tone. I'm proud of my teaching skills and I have this website and this forum to partially thank. Knowing what I've learned just on tennisplayer.net alone gives my students the comfort and confidence in their coach.

Moving on, your statements, or should I say Mr. Brosseau's ideas and Mr. Navarro's are things I have thought about often. Deep stuff.

I'm a bit of a perfectionist and although my students dont have the talent of a Federer I certainly try to simplify their swings and thought processes so they can better understand exactly how to hit the ball and actually enjoy it. The key word I look for my students to say when I ask them how hitting a ball feels is "effortless". Once in a while I have a pretty eager and motivated student that is gung-ho for all the technical mumbo-jumbo and geeks out to it. I love sharing that information with them and in return receiving feedback and learning myself.

I've often wondered why there is not a tennis book out that actually explains the science of hitting a ball. The actual process and why it is so. There are books about mental tennis, tennis technique, tactics, history and conditioning etc. What about a book on the proper way to hit a ball. Maybe a topic like how to hit the ball just 10% harder than when it came to you in a rally instead of going from 20% to 100% in 1 shot. Maybe a basic system 5 idea in some way. Ideas like that. Just thinking out loud. sorry. Maybe there is a book like that already out that I don't have or that I have not come across. I'm just thinking in terms of many club and recreational players, who seem to wanna hit the ball with no idea, regard, or respect for physics, percentages, and geometry. Maybe I'm just rambling after a long, hot, productive morning on court.

All the best,

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

Biomechanics of Advanced Tennis (2003) ITF covers some parts of
your request for a book
However,it is NOT directed at club players

[klacr]

Thanks Julian. Will take a look at it. Greatly appreciate it.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

[don_budge]

Steinback...Of Mice and Men or "It's a tangent, Stupid!"

The whole thing about inside out swing in tennis or golf is that the player creates an arc that briefly coincides with the line of intended flight.

I love that statement "the player creates an arc that briefly coincides with the line of intended flight"...it sounds like something Bobby Jones would say in his classic golf instructional films and now videos...or it reminds me of something that I learned in trigonometry or algebra. I can't remember which. Or was it geometry?

Ok...it was geometry. No...it was trigonometry. Nobody ever accused me of being a genius mathematically speaking. This coming from the son of a mathematics professor. A tangent is a straight line touching, but not intersecting, a curve or curved surface. Brilliant...bottle! With a touch of Bobby Jones thrown in.

It reminds me of what and everything that can go wrong with those intentions when you are playing golf or playing tennis. Or if you are just simply trying to maintain your sanity in the modern world. Afterall, "The best laid plans of mice and men often go astray"...according to John Steinback and don_budge. I love that statement equally as much as bottle's.

So it goes with a tennis player. Trying to duplicate that motion on a moving and spinning sphere is like a snail crawling on the the razor's edge...effectively cutting itself in half for any progress that it may make. You have to love it or you will end up jumping off a bridge in then end. Ouch!

[don_budge]

Mats Wilander...the Swede.

But you can't really argue with Mats because he wouldn't argue with you...he's a Swede and they don't like to argue or to be confronted. He is difficult to disagree with in this clip. What he is saying is pretty "spot on" but of course there are those that want to extrapolate for him. He is talking about club players...probably very average to less than average club players.

Beginner tennis players end up using an "all arm" motion when they use open stances so it is best to get them closed in the beginning and let them evolve into the more advanced techniques when they have some of the fundamentals under control. I believe that is what he is getting at if I hear him correctly.

What is with that horrible music in the background though? "Would somebody please turn down that freaking music!!!"...in your best reverberating McEnroe voice.

I like Mats!!!

[bman]

When Fed releases the ball, his tossing hand is at about forehead height. His racket hand is about chest height. It's a small stagger, but a stagger nonetheless.

[tennis_chiro]

Which stagger?

When Fed releases the ball, his tossing hand is at about forehead height. His racket hand is about chest height. It's a small stagger, but a stagger nonetheless.

What I find is critical is the movement of the elbows relative to the "horizon" created by the line of the clavicles (line of the shoulders). It's very hard to find even an acknowledged "staggered" motion (at least a good one) where the elbows don't reverse their downward to upward motion at the same time, relative to that "horizon". I think Mardy Fish might be a good example of a true staggered motion where his right arm is significantly delayed, but we don't have a clip in the stroke archives here. Tsonga is another one that seems obvious in your terms, but not so obvious when you look at the motion in the perspective I am laying out here. His right hand lags behind the left, but they actually change direction (down to up) at the same time. Even when you look at an extreme tilt like Sampras, you can see that his arms both start that upward motion at the same time (relative to my "horizon" of the clavicles). The right forearm (righties) might be delayed and the racket head ends up having to speed up to catch up, but that forearm can never extend below the anatomical line of the humerus (upper arm). The wrist can drag the racket head below that line, but the radius and ulna don't get to go below it (question of anatomical range of motion). If you have enough flexibility to create a massive shoulder tilt like Sampras, that line of your clavicles is almost vertical, but those arms are actually level relative to the artificial "horizon" of the clavicles. This synchronized reversal of the downward motion of both hands (relative to that horizon) is present in the vast majority of decent service motions. Otherwise you are taking the old "tap the head and make circles on your stomach" coordination challenge of tossing the ball while making the backswing a whole lot tougher, and consequently, less consistent.

don

[stotty]

When Fed releases the ball, his tossing hand is at about forehead height. His racket hand is about chest height. It's a small stagger, but a stagger nonetheless.

Isn't this a case of the tossing arm moving at 4mph while the racket arm is moving at 2mph...in the initial early part of the swing? Both arms are working together but at different speeds? Isn't this how the shoulder tilt is created in most classic service actions?

Also, with all classic serves, both arms go on slightly different journeys. The tossing arm has a more direct journey to its ultimate destination than the racket arm. Plus the racket arm is carrying a heavier, more wieldy object. It stands to reason there is a good chance the racket arm will lag behind the tossing arm.

Anyone else care to pitch in? Does Federer stagger or simply delay?

I was looking through the archive and found this guy does things perfectly. The tossing arm is up and away ahead of the racket arm...the shoulder tilt is perfect...the rhythm so perfect...and it all looks so bloody simple. I could watch this serve all day long.

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/strokearchive/pro_men/richardkrajicek/richardkrajicek_serve/rk_1st_serve/rk_1st_serve.html?RK1stSAdCourtLevelSide1.mov

[bman]

I think we agree on what Fed does..we just call it different things.

I think the "down together, up together" is sort of a myth because with most servers, the front arm is going up while the hitting arm is going back in the initial part of the movement. They really don't go "up together". I think Roddick is an exception where both arms are at relatively the same height form most of the serve. Goran may have been like that as well. In my jargon, "stagger" means that the hands are at noticeably different heights for most of the serve.