Footwork...Swedish Style?

[DougEng]

This is a great thread, but I think the heart of the question is much deeper than whether the style of footwork advocated in the Swedish video clips is appropriate of not. I don't think so many optional footwork patterns should be "taught". As I understand it, David Bailey's work came out of his many years of working with players at the Bollettierri Academy in Bradenton. But I doubt if anyone ever taught Andre Agassi or Pete Sampras a "mogul" footwork move. Probably early on in his development, Robert Lansdorp taught Pete to set his plant foot down pointed to the side fence, but I would bet he taught him to set up as early as possible to hit the ball from a balanced platform and then simply marveled that Pete could hit the ball so well even when he wasn't on the ground.
...



don

Tom Allsopp's thread:

http://www.tennisplayer.net/bulletin/showthread.php?p=21189#post21189

Spartak Tennis Club: Larisa Preobrazhenskaya

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/04/sports/playmagazine/04play-talent.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Pato Alvarez's Spanish coaching system by Martin Balbridge

http://www.soyouwanttowinwimbledon.com/TG%20INSIDE%20THE%20SPANISH%20COACHNG%20SYSTEM.pdf

"forward and backward V-shape using the double-rhythm footwork pattern"

Jelena Gencic(also coached Seles and Ivanisevic) or Niki Pilic with Djokovic

http://novakdjokovic.com/en/novak-djokovic/

pictures of Jelena hitting with young Novak
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HH_3zzqReZg

Interesting view and good points with champions!

Some coaches may agree with you on letting players make do. Even a top
college coach friend suggested good players/athletes find a way. But in my experience it does the player a disservice. Some good players/athletes develop great footwork. Others don't. I've seen many strong players develop poor footwork simply because they were either taught incorrectly or were never taught.

A better question might be comparative analysis of players in the top 10 vs players ranked 500-1000. What was emphasized in junior development, etc. But also, one has to consider highly ranked players who don't have great physical talents. What made them great? What was special?

One difference between top players and lesser players is coachability and desire to experiment and challenge themselves. The best players recognize what they need to work on. They seek help and listen to coaches. They are more attuned to what worked and what didn't. Lesser players don't recognize that. They tend to play and work on strengths (which gives them confidence).
There are studies showing this as the development of expertise is a hot topic in learning and psychology. Better players remain longer in the learning stage. Lesser players are more likely to just compete rather than learn or experiment. Hence, lesser players don't work on weaknesses.

Teaching footwork and movement is just like the serve. You might have a great athlete serve using a poor technique and wrong grip. He might serve 110 mph and you figure he's doing great. But if you work with it to reach his potential, he might serve more spin and add 15 mph to the serve.

Not everyone can figure out things. We should not assume because Einstein discovered the Theory of Relativity, everyone can do it on their own. Sampras and Federer didn't do it naturally. It took years of hard work and coaching. It's rare that an athlete develops naturally on their own. So leaving it to chance isn't good coaching.

One should keep in mind, that a coach's ignorance of footwork doesn't mean bad coaching. Many coaches in the past believed mostly in technique. Or teaching footwork in a certain way (e.g, Tom Stowe). However, if no one is teaching it, then there is no true disadvantage. If no runner in a 100m sprint is wearing the latest shoe technology, it becomes a even playing field. But if you have the latest technology which can cut 0.15 seconds off your time, then use it.

As for teaching what to do in emergency situations, I think most players were coached in it. It's hard to imagine a player not being drilled with low wide balls. Boris Becker was actually taught how to dive. Richard Schönborn actually has such a drill. Despite being responsible for Germany's ascent to greatness in tennis (Becker, Graf, Stich, etc), politics didn't keep him in charge. However, was time spent on emergencies a major portion of training? No. Perhaps only 10% of the time was spent for a certain player on difficult defensive situations. Perhaps 40% of the time was spent on the forehand weapon. How a coach and player choose to use the time wisely is very important. That concept invovles periodization and planning.

Some coaches were very successful since they instilled discipline and hard work. (Robert Lansdorp is such an example). Quite frankly, sometimes good technique might not be instilled but rather a less-than-ideal technique might be instilled. However, the discipline, athleticism and hard work overrides the technical flaws. For example, Elena Dementieva's serve. It did get better after working with Andy Brandi. But for her to get to the finals of Roland Garros without a good serve is a remarkable testament to her tenacity, hard work, great court movement and powerful groundstrokes. Brenda Schultz-McCarthy after her career felt had she developed a better technical game, she would have been top 5 in the world. She reached #9. The same for Tim Mayotte who reached #7 in the world. He mentioned later, after his retirement, he wished someone pointed out the flaw in his serve.

Footwork technique is important and we know Andy Roddick wasn't the best at moving forward. Or his backhand which got better with coaching from Jimmy Connors. Nadal is constantly tweaking his game. With both Roddick and Nadal, they did receive considerable advice on how to develop more offensive footwork. I think David Bailey would probably agree many players need to learn footwork. I know some coaches use Bailey's system and find it very valuable. USTA adopted much of the Spanish footwork movement drills and in their coaching philosophy it is very clear ("hands, feet and mind").

However, Bailey's method is very comprehensive/catalogued. I don't think a player should be taught all the footwork since the technical style of play often dictates footwork. There are several ways of moving forward just like there are several ways of hitting the ball. Learning 1-2 of them is likely good enough. As I mentioned, using a two-handed backhand requires different movement than a one-hander. The same for slice and topspin. An ATP player who stands 5'9" and weighs 150 pounds and hits with significant topspin will move quite differently from a WTA player standing 6'2" who hits flat and big. Years ago, players hit flatter, used eastern/continental grips, and the game was slower. Hence, footwork involved more square and even closed stances although semi-open and open were also used.

For example, a coach who teaches shuffling and stepping into every ball probably is limiting his student assuming he and the student are very disciplined. The student might get to an ITF ranking of 400 but won't achieve a top 150 ranking which may be possible with better movement.

As good as Sampras was, we need to keep in mind that he didn't win Roland Garros. He didn't develop the ideal footwork or groundstrokes for the game. The same for Andre Agassi who preferred to shuffle rather than slide on the clay. His talent in ball-striking, however, did allow him to win Roland Garros, unlike Pete. Perhaps if Andre was coached on clay at a young age, he would have mastered the surface and have 3-4 Roland Garros titles (which he nearly did anyhow).

We often discuss a player may be limited by his or her technique (for example the serve or backhand). For example, Djokovic was #3 in the world for a while despite a relatively weak serve. Once he overcame that, he reached #1 (along with the gluten-free diet, improved fitness and confidence).

We also often discuss a player's unwillingness to improve discipline and focus as a limiting factor. For example, Safin, Rios or Gulbis. Or we discuss a player's limiting mental abilities, for example Novotna, Mandikova, Coria, etc. It is, of course, relative since they did quite well on the tour. So perhaps a more disciplined Safin would have won 1-2 more major titles but there is a limit.

And we discuss a player's limitations in fitness.

So why not discuss a player's footwork? It really isn't a mysterious natural consequence. Rather it often requires nurture.

But just as some people naturally develop a great serve, there are a few who will develop great footwork on their own. As the Europeans presently dominate tennis, they had an advantage over their American counterparts in playing significantly more soccer in their youth. Vic Braden noted that juniors who play soccer move significantly better (1.5 steps quicker to the ball, I think...and also probably more efficient in recovery, etc). Personally I have noted it as well and prefer tennis players with a background in soccer for development of skills.

Overall, technique is only one part of tennis. Whatever the technique, if the fighting spirit isn't there, the player won't rise to the top. However, it is a tool for every player. The role of a good coach is 1) provide the player the best technical and tactical tools to win, 2) help instill the work ethic, confidence and understanding of the game, and 3) a respect and love for the game.

[GeoffWilliams]

"We often discuss a player may be limited by his or her technique (for example the serve or backhand). For example, Djokovic was #3 in the world for a while despite a relatively weak serve. Once he overcame that, he reached #1 (along with the gluten-free diet, improved fitness and confidence)."

His rise began when the doctor, Igor Cet. came onto the team, and with a SCIO machine, diagnosed an allergy to gluten. He also began to inject D. with electrical fields, and acupuncture needles. He used psychological nutrition, no white death: salt/fat/sugar/starch anymore. I sent Jy an article about it but he didn't buy it. Oh well. Nice post as always. You are one of the most enjoyable guys on here.

I have a degree in electricity and molecular vibration. I have seen fields in myself most people have not: the ability to project vibration from my own field into another, ie.

[vrc10s]

Footwork seminar?

I agree with vcr10s and John Yandell.

First, this should be taught. But how? Definitely not as shown.
Second, personally I like Bailey's footwork but I think it has to be taught in context of tactical and technical situations. The Swedish situation gives very basic situations and doesn't show development of racquet head speed or spin (tactical). Most of footwork depends on several factors:
1) directional forces on the body, 2) acceleration/velocity required to move to the ball and also in hitting the ball, 3) spin and grips types.

In also reference to Bailey's work. I've seen coaches try to teach Bailey's footwork to juniors but again, it's taken out of context, technical or tactical situations. Similar to this Swedish variation (which is a small piece of Bailey's).

I think a problem in coaching is to teach a model that you were shown without truly understanding the reasoning behind it. Hence, technique, games, drills are given to players without really trying to build a cohesive game. So it is important to have a clear reasoning behind what we teach. Science, videography, match charting, etc give very clear reasons to what we do and need to do. I agree, didactic teaching if misguided can lead down the wrong path (hence we get indoctrination).

For example, consider:
A) A player moving laterally hard using significant topspin. You will see a semi-open stance, not necessarily stepping backwards to the extend as shown. The player may use Bailey's spin move or mogul. Topspin (body rotation) and decelerative forces will force the body to come off the ground and landing forces on the outside foot. The fast lateral movement will necessitate those forces.

B) A player moving slowly to the ball (close by) using a moderate topspin and a relatively controlled swing. The stance may tend to be semi-open or square and the swing more classical (e.g., eastern and follow-through high and shorter body rotation) since racquet head speed may not be as significant. The player will only slightly step forward with the back foot. The forces on the body are not as great.

C) A player moving slowly to the ball (close by) using significant topspin and racquet head speed in an aggressive ATP type swing. The stance may tend to be semi-open (sometimes square depending on style). Racquet head is more significant and more body rotation and loading is required. Hence, the back foot will often come up significantly (ahead of the left/front foot). Forces are more significant.

D) A player moving backwards on a very deep high ball. The player should use a semi or fully open stance and use a backwards pivot or spin move to allow the racquet side of the body to accelerate since the player cannot step into the ball).
Forces are angular and even backwards. To hit hard, the player must rotate/spin with significant force and the front leg with come off the ground and often move backwards or stay in the air. A semi-western grip is often advantageous.

E) A player choosing to slice from the center of the court. Forces are more gentle on the body and less angular momentum is used. Instead a more linear, forward force is applied. The body does not rotate as much as during topspin strokes. Hence, feet tend to be grounded during the whole stroke as the upward vertical force is not major. Stances tend to be more square with the linear forces and less vertical force.


In addition, a counterattacking, heavily topspin style player (e.g, Ferrer or Nadal) will use more arial footwork than a flatter hitting, tall attacking player (e.g, Sharapova) meaning they will use more open stances, spin or mogul moves, rather than grounded (both feet usually remaining in contact with the ground) and more square stances. Men tend to use more spin and often more faster and develop greater forces so their footwork will differ from women's footwork. We often talk about the men's ground as more all-court, athletics and using spin, angles, etc whereas the women's especially late 1990s was dominated by big flatter hitters (Venus, Sharapova, Mary Pierce, Davenport, Ivanovic, etc). The more athletic women who are smaller and rely on movement and spin include Stosur, Henin, Schiavone use different footwork patterns. The latter type is more complex.

Club players if force-fed balls far away from them can learn more advanced footwork more easily. In doing so, they should also be encouraged to swing faster, etc to develop the natural forces on the body. Once they do so, movement, footwork types, recovery tend to become more natural. Often they don't and that becomes the teaching moment. If you feed balls near your student and they take easy strokes, they won't correctly develop the more advanced footwork. In doing so, have the players exaggerate the situations. Or give them relative extremes in cases (e.g, extremely short high ball or wide ball). Given that, physical training may be necessary with some players (e.g, core work, leg strength training, light plyometrics) but it becomes clearer what they need to do (to them).

I've seen pros teach Bailey's or similar to the Swedish movement without the accelerative/decelerative forces which makes it very artificial. In addition, they learn not only to be artificial (and as vcr10s points out, the kinetic chain is released incorrectly), but their technical approach to a tactical situation becomes flawed. Hence you see open stances when it should be square (e.g, short balls in the center of the court), square and (trying to) stepping in when it should be open, etc (e.g, wide balls).

I now use an integrated approach to footwork, technique, tactics and court position (or integrating the hitting cycle with tactical/court position) which is easy to learn. Even advanced beginners (2.0-2.5 in US) and definitely intermediate players (2.5-3.5 NTRP) can use develop correct tactics with appropriate footwork. Often we think it is too complex. Given that, I have gotten away from the teach one thing at a time (or one correction at a time). The human body and mind actually learns more than one thing and we are capable of multi-tasking. However, verbalizing this should be limited and progressions should be logical. Let the body learn the 3-4 things together. A problem in teaching is that we teach a player to hit a forehand. And we make them do it many times over. Then they believe that the forehand is just that one stroke and they try the same thing all over the court. We sometimes do the same thing with footwork and they only learn a couple ways to move. When they have those limited choices, they make technical mistakes from different parts on the court. When that happens, it becomes a tactical mistake (e.g, open stance with weight going back on an approach shot). Great athletes often override those mistakes (e.g, Nadal) since they have other ways to compensate (Nadal's tenacity, footspeed, topspin and consistency). Emilio Sanchez said a couple years back he was consulting with the Nadals and trying to get Rafa to move more forward in aggressive shots. Tim Mayotte (once ATP #7 in the 1980s) used to double fault frequently. But no one told him about his flawed footwork/stance on the serve. He corrected it after retiring and when starting to coach (you often learn more then even about your own game!). But when playing, he got enough aces and played aggressively enough that he was tough to break.

When I show this integrated system of learning in seminars or training, it's extremely well received. It's simple, elegant and easier to learn than people think. A bit like Grand Unification Theory in physics. So a good-hitting 10-year old can learn it in a few lessons.

Hope this is clear.

Doug

Do you have the seminar you mention above on DVD or You Tube, I would love to see it.

Mark

[DougEng]

Doug

Do you have the seminar you mention above on DVD or You Tube, I would love to see it.

Mark

Hi Mark,

No. Sorry, the talks were not taped.

Doug

[klacr]

Here is a great clip of Laver playing Borg. The clip is good quality with the ball clearly visible. It’s a great clip because at times we get Borg moving at full pelt. (Just amazes me how Laver dangles his racket like that).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RiSakiF4jzk

Wow, This thread is awesome. learning with each post from you guys.

Not to get off topic, but did anyone else see that reverse forehand off the short ball that Borg hit at 2:15? I love watching these clips and reading the insights.
This should be required reading for every tennisplayer.net subscriber and every tennis teacher and coach out there.

We have a tendency to overemphasize stroke technique and sometimes are subject to paralysis by analysis. But as we all can admit, the best strokes in the world won't matter if you can't get to the ball effectively.

I have some thoughts on this footwork stuff that I will post soon when I manage to squeeze out some more time. Keep it coming though guys. I love to learn.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

[DougEng]

Wow, This thread is awesome. learning with each post from you guys.

Not to get off topic, but did anyone else see that reverse forehand off the short ball that Borg hit at 2:15? I love watching these clips and reading the insights.
This should be required reading for every tennisplayer.net subscriber and every tennis teacher and coach out there.

We have a tendency to overemphasize stroke technique and sometimes are subject to paralysis by analysis. But as we all can admit, the best strokes in the world won't matter if you can't get to the ball effectively.

I have some thoughts on this footwork stuff that I will post soon when I manage to squeeze out some more time. Keep it coming though guys. I love to learn.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

Like Pete Sampras...also used reverse on the approach shot.