A New Teaching System: The Serve: Swing Path

[julian1]

Better?

Does having a deeper racket drop result in more power? I was looking through a couple of BG's articles and he seems to suggest it does. Is it a case of the deeper, the better?

Also, how significant is the angle of the bend/break at the elbow as the racket hits the bottom of the racket drop and starts the upward swing? A video taken from above would reveal this best, but there are two clips in the archive that reveal enough...and have intrigued me for some time.

Both players in the clips, Ferrero and Murray, bend very moderately at the elbow in the trophy position, but Murray's elbow is breaking far more than Ferrero's as the upward swing commences. You have to toggle through the clips and pause them at the start of the upward swing to view what I mean. I wondered if this is a factor with players in terms of power or even spin? I wonder if any research has ever been done in this area as, generally speaking, this takes place out of eyeshot of the observer and requires shots taken from directly above the player's head to truly reveal the angle of the bend?

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/strokearchive/pro_men/andy_murray/am_serve/am_arm_action/am_arm_action.html?AM1stSDeuceArmActionSide1.mov

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/...LevelSide1.mov

The basic difficulty with a LARGE vertical drop is that it takes time.
The second issue is keeping the serve motion
CONTINUOUS in terms of the head racket speed

PS One of reasons that the toss is of Zoe is so high is that she needs
enough time to get into a significant vertical drop and back.
Whether it is "CONVOLUTED" is a matter of opinion
(see the corresponding post by don_budge on this subject)
Doug Eng is a very good person to talk about this subject

[julian1]

Please see post #16

First of all...thanks for sharing mlogarzo. It's very generous of you.

One of the major problems in the tennis world today is that coaches seem to be unable to "build" a sound service motion. A big reason for that is that motions are no longer designed to be followed into the net. Instead the server tries for the big delivery then backs up. This kind of behavior is a fundamental change...much as society has changed with the use of the cell phone. Now you must begin to ask yourself what are the ramifications of such behavior changes. Here is a very good example. I wonder if there are problems in the second serve delivery. I imagine that there are.

It's no wonder that this girl is suffering from major confidence issues because she has some major mechanical issues going on in her service motion. tennis_chiro attributes it to rhythm. GeoffWilliams attributes it to lack of shoulder rotation. klacr adds that more weight should be placed on the front foot...or front leg. Stotty shows the most acumen...he suggests calling in the good doctor don_budge, the metaphysical engineer. They are all right but there is more.

Whenever this young lady is in a tight situation she is going to have an anxiety attack because she knows...her body knows that there is something really wrong here with the rhythm. She is going to struggle to hold on to the faulty rhythm that she uses...although that being said she very well may get away with it most of the time, more often than not, because the lack of significance that the serve has on the way the game is being played today. Particularly on the woman's side. But things can get a bit dicey once that confidence in your rhythm goes...the rest of the game can go right down with it.

The proof is in the video...do you see that 18 story building directly behind her? Her toss goes above that structure and probably 3 or 4 stories higher than that but that is something that we will never know. She has thrown the ball completely out of the view of the camera. Yet, she is making contact with the ball at the level of the 12th story. Just imagine the effect that the wind alone could play havoc with the timing of the swing, the contact and the toss. Sometimes it pays to pay attention to what is in the background. Most people see what they want to see and disregard the rest.

The ball should only drop a maximum of a decimeter and to me there is absolutely no reason for the ball to not be struck at practically the precise apex of the toss. When teaching the overhead smash I begin with the tennis student bouncing the ball as opposed to hitting on the fly...and this is what I would compare this young ladies service motion to. She is attempting to smash a very high lob as opposed to letting the ball bounce. The significance of her high toss has some really bad implications for the motion. The question is why does she throw it so high. The answer...to compensate for the rest of the convoluted motion. I like to think of the serve as an upside down golf swing in some respects and if you are going to tee it up why not tee it up where you are going to make contact. A lot of problems in golf swings come from compensating moves and the same can be safely said with tennis service motions.

What is more...I know exactly why her toss is too high. I beg to differ...this serve needs to be rethought, retooled and rebuilt from scratch. Rebuilt on the lost art of the fundamental service motion. Anything less will be a disSERVICE to this tennis student.

Please see post #16

[don_budge]

Convoluted...by definition extremely complex and difficult to follow

Please see post #16

Yep...I saw it.

Hey mlogarzo...take this with a grain of salt or a beer or two.

Attached Files
Zoe.mov (1.86 MB, 72 views)

Set Up Position...

I would like to see the pre-shot routine also. Without a doubt I would change that too. That said without even seeing it. I want to see the hands setup a bit higher. As it looks here, her hands begin their motion at the level of her upper thigh and I would like to see them at her waist or just below and just a bit more forwards...this will give her just a bit of bend in her elbows. It will encourage her to "drop" the racquet head into motion. This will also encourage some nice gentle flexing and give her a bit more play in the entire swinging motion. It looks to me as if there is far too much tension in the racquet forearm which is moving down into the wrist, hand and racquet...I want to see some little tiny “waggling” with her arm and racquet structure to demonstrate a relaxed engagement in coordination with the entire body. Waggling is a micro demonstration of the swing to come in its entirety. The weight shifted just a bit more forwards over the front foot.

The setup position is a dynamic part of the service motion as it sets the body up to make the first movement which will of course setup the next movement. It is a chain reaction and it won’t do any good to have the body set up in the wrong position. Get your ducks in a row...in a line.

The Back Swing...

The first fifteen clicks by dragging the mouse evidence zero motion with the racquet and arm structure. The only movement is a lateral movement backwards that shifts the weight entirely back on to the back foot without swinging the racquet at all. This is to me a total violation of fundamental service motions.

The backswing should be initiated with a movement of the hands and arms that travels into the shoulders and then into the body and legs. The order of movement in the backswing is a mirror opposite of what transpires in the forward motion...which is legs, torso, shoulders and then arm and racquet. What I would like to see as her initial movement is a dropping motion of the hands and arms in a free fall movement towards the ground...particularly with the racquet head being set in motion as a rollercoaster car beginning its initial descent down the track of a thrilling ride.

At click #15 she has created her position by rocking backwards with a lateral move of about two decimeters with 90% of her weight back on her back foot and with a rather stiff straight front leg. Her back leg is bearing way too much weight so early in the swing. The initial motion should be slightly downwards with a gravitational influence dipping the shoulders in order to set up for the next part of the backswing...the lifting motion that is accomplished with the turning shoulders and lifting of the chest to the sky. Both arms lifting to the sky...the tossing hand and the backswing simultaneously lifting.

The racquet and arm structure should not have lost any of its original shape at this point. However, the angle of her structure has been reduced from an angle of more than 100 degrees to something that is less than 90 degrees before she finally makes an ascending movement with the arm and racquet structure. Changing parts in a moving motion equals increasing margin for error...which is the equivalent of uncertainty in the emotional state of the player. Statistically speaking...a recipe for inconsistency.

The backwards movement is particularly bothersome as it sets off a whole chain reaction of events that are not in the servers best interests. In golf...the swing is sometimes said to be accomplished within the confines of a barrel. The golfer tries to stay in the barrel without moving about laterally as the energy is best generated with a turning movement backwards that winds the body up as a rubber band...which is only setting up the whole thing to unwind. That is the whole purpose of the backswing. To wind up. If you want to hit the ball further you rotate your shoulders more. If you want more power on the serve do the same thing. This backward movement is also going to inhibit the shoulder turn. An initial downward motion will on the other hand encourage more rotation.

Clicks #15 through #30 are the evidence of faulty set-up and the fruits of which are a very convoluted backswing that will require all kinds of compensation which the result of which is the super high toss of the ball. Instead of allowing the racquet to freely swing back and up into position where it should be with the original shape of the racquet and arm...our young Aussie princess has managed to attempt to direct things with an over abundance of her own invention. From the point where she has completed her backwards rocking motion she proceeds to take matters into her own hands...instead of allowing the one force that you can depend on in all given situations, gravity, to work its magic. Somehow she looks to be pushing the racquet away from her body and then has to reign things back into alignment by redirecting her arm back in line with her shoulders. This has taken precious time...and she knows it as she heaves the ball high into the air to compensate for all of the extra convolutions.

The Forward Swing...

There is really no point in discussing her serve further as her backswing and setup are the problems. She clearly has an abundance of athletic ability. She only needs to be set up properly to go forwards and there isn’t any doubt that she will be able to do this. It is only that her set up fails to produce the proper initial motion and then she further complicates things with a backswing that is far more complicated and misdirected than it needs to be or should be. The sum of the motions should always be in line with the target and the push away of her racquet from her body instead of allowing the racquet to freely swing along the line of her feet is the worst culprit here. This movement will prevent her from feeling any sense of rhythm or freedom of movement.

The Footwork...

I teach footwork. You bet I do. On every single shot. The serve is no exception I feel that the footwork in this example is real suspect as well. I really don't like the big shift of weight with the lateral movement backwards and this movement has killed any chance and all of the impetus of the momentum needed to go forwards effectively and efficiently. I am not really crazy about the movement of the back foot coming forwards like it does. There is a lot of coming and going...going on in this motion. This is another time consumer and the pin point seems to encourage a higher toss of the ball as well. I have noticed that many players with pin point motions seem to throw the ball significantly higher. I like to see the feet lined up with a line directly at the end of the toes pointing at the target. Particularly with beginners or those with service motions that are being redirected along fundamental lines. This line serves as the “track” of the racquet head to follow down, back and finally up into position. I like to keep the backswing on a line in front of the body so that the racquet can "fall" down behind the server with the last turning of the shoulders. The first step in a good solid, fundamental service motion is to get all of your ducks in a row. John Yandell´s service model verifies all of this.

The Toss Itself...

The rocking motion backwards really complicates delivering the ball consistently in the same place every time under any and all circumstances. The wind and the nerves are going to take their due effect on the accuracy and ability to consistently put the ball in position to get in the way of the racquet head. Due to all of the funny business in the backswing our student makes the only compensation that will allow for her to meet the ball and even so she does not meet the ball at full extension. Instead she is leaving the ground in a rather futile attempt to appear to be doing so. In the setup position the tossing hand is basically directly below the point where you want to deliver the ball and the simplest way to think of throwing the ball up...is to simply lift it into position to the point where you intend to strike it. With the lateral movement backwards and then forwards this becomes an impossibility.

Convoluted...

Convoluted? Not as a matter of opinion...but as a matter of fact. Convolution means extremely complex and difficult to follow. I guess we might say that the service motion in general is convoluted. The best way to describe our Aussie tennis student here is overly convoluted. Excessively convoluted. Unnecessarily convoluted. That is a criticism...not to be misconstrued as an insult. She is creating more complexity in her service motion when the object of such a difficult and complex motion is to simplify. Tennis isn't for sissies...there is a lot of bad news involved. A lot of people don't like to hear it...and resist change as a consequence.

julian1

Go ahead julian1...call in DougEng. Call the police while you are at it. You probably will feel more secure hearing virtually the same thing from him in twice the words and more scientific lingo. He'll throw in some gadgets and computer generated lines for good measure. Birds of a feather flock together and as fellow Phd’s you can probably find great solace in one another. Which makes me happy to no end. Trust me.

Stotty...

Thank you.

[bottle]

Re # 12, "major confidence issues...it's no wonder"

Sex never hurt nobody. And rebuilding a stroke from scratch is nothing if you do it every day. Oh, I know, then you'll be a complete beginner all over again, thoroughly de-chunked.

Reader, I'd like to debunk your de-chunk. Because, in the meantime, tennis will be coming to you.

I'm sorry, Matthew Syed, former table tennis champion of Great Britain, that you couldn't return Michael Stich's serve, not once, despite the excellent shot you devised.

Because you didn't practice the devising of new service returns in tennis every day so that you had at least ten to try. That is where you should have put your 10,000 hours, a thousand hours apiece, instead of playing all that ping-pong.

[10splayer]

Yep...I saw it.

Hey mlogarzo...take this with a grain of salt or a beer or two.

Attached Files
Zoe.mov (1.86 MB, 72 views)

Set Up Position...

I would like to see the pre-shot routine also. Without a doubt I would change that too. That said without even seeing it. I want to see the hands setup a bit higher. As it looks here, her hands begin their motion at the level of her upper thigh and I would like to see them at her waist or just below and just a bit more forwards...this will give her just a bit of bend in her elbows. It will encourage her to "drop" the racquet head into motion. This will also encourage some nice gentle flexing and give her a bit more play in the entire swinging motion. It looks to me as if there is far too much tension in the racquet forearm which is moving down into the wrist, hand and racquet...I want to see some little tiny “waggling” with her arm and racquet structure to demonstrate a relaxed engagement in coordination with the entire body. Waggling is a micro demonstration of the swing to come in its entirety. The weight shifted just a bit more forwards over the front foot.

The setup position is a dynamic part of the service motion as it sets the body up to make the first movement which will of course setup the next movement. It is a chain reaction and it won’t do any good to have the body set up in the wrong position. Get your ducks in a row...in a line.

The Back Swing...

The first fifteen clicks by dragging the mouse evidence zero motion with the racquet and arm structure. The only movement is a lateral movement backwards that shifts the weight entirely back on to the back foot without swinging the racquet at all. This is to me a total violation of fundamental service motions.

The backswing should be initiated with a movement of the hands and arms that travels into the shoulders and then into the body and legs. The order of movement in the backswing is a mirror opposite of what transpires in the forward motion...which is legs, torso, shoulders and then arm and racquet. What I would like to see as her initial movement is a dropping motion of the hands and arms in a free fall movement towards the ground...particularly with the racquet head being set in motion as a rollercoaster car beginning its initial descent down the track of a thrilling ride.

At click #15 she has created her position by rocking backwards with a lateral move of about two decimeters with 90% of her weight back on her back foot and with a rather stiff straight front leg. Her back leg is bearing way too much weight so early in the swing. The initial motion should be slightly downwards with a gravitational influence dipping the shoulders in order to set up for the next part of the backswing...the lifting motion that is accomplished with the turning shoulders and lifting of the chest to the sky. Both arms lifting to the sky...the tossing hand and the backswing simultaneously lifting.

The racquet and arm structure should not have lost any of its original shape at this point. However, the angle of her structure has been reduced from an angle of more than 100 degrees to something that is less than 90 degrees before she finally makes an ascending movement with the arm and racquet structure. Changing parts in a moving motion equals increasing margin for error...which is the equivalent of uncertainty in the emotional state of the player. Statistically speaking...a recipe for inconsistency.

The backwards movement is particularly bothersome as it sets off a whole chain reaction of events that are not in the servers best interests. In golf...the swing is sometimes said to be accomplished within the confines of a barrel. The golfer tries to stay in the barrel without moving about laterally as the energy is best generated with a turning movement backwards that winds the body up as a rubber band...which is only setting up the whole thing to unwind. That is the whole purpose of the backswing. To wind up. If you want to hit the ball further you rotate your shoulders more. If you want more power on the serve do the same thing. This backward movement is also going to inhibit the shoulder turn. An initial downward motion will on the other hand encourage more rotation.

Clicks #15 through #30 are the evidence of faulty set-up and the fruits of which are a very convoluted backswing that will require all kinds of compensation which the result of which is the super high toss of the ball. Instead of allowing the racquet to freely swing back and up into position where it should be with the original shape of the racquet and arm...our young Aussie princess has managed to attempt to direct things with an over abundance of her own invention. From the point where she has completed her backwards rocking motion she proceeds to take matters into her own hands...instead of allowing the one force that you can depend on in all given situations, gravity, to work its magic. Somehow she looks to be pushing the racquet away from her body and then has to reign things back into alignment by redirecting her arm back in line with her shoulders. This has taken precious time...and she knows it as she heaves the ball high into the air to compensate for all of the extra convolutions.

The Forward Swing...

There is really no point in discussing her serve further as her backswing and setup are the problems. She clearly has an abundance of athletic ability. She only needs to be set up properly to go forwards and there isn’t any doubt that she will be able to do this. It is only that her set up fails to produce the proper initial motion and then she further complicates things with a backswing that is far more complicated and misdirected than it needs to be or should be. The sum of the motions should always be in line with the target and the push away of her racquet from her body instead of allowing the racquet to freely swing along the line of her feet is the worst culprit here. This movement will prevent her from feeling any sense of rhythm or freedom of movement.

The Footwork...

I teach footwork. You bet I do. On every single shot. The serve is no exception I feel that the footwork in this example is real suspect as well. I really don't like the big shift of weight with the lateral movement backwards and this movement has killed any chance and all of the impetus of the momentum needed to go forwards effectively and efficiently. I am not really crazy about the movement of the back foot coming forwards like it does. There is a lot of coming and going...going on in this motion. This is another time consumer and the pin point seems to encourage a higher toss of the ball as well. I have noticed that many players with pin point motions seem to throw the ball significantly higher. I like to see the feet lined up with a line directly at the end of the toes pointing at the target. Particularly with beginners or those with service motions that are being redirected along fundamental lines. This line serves as the “track” of the racquet head to follow down, back and finally up into position. I like to keep the backswing on a line in front of the body so that the racquet can "fall" down behind the server with the last turning of the shoulders. The first step in a good solid, fundamental service motion is to get all of your ducks in a row. John Yandell´s service model verifies all of this.

The Toss Itself...

The rocking motion backwards really complicates delivering the ball consistently in the same place every time under any and all circumstances. The wind and the nerves are going to take their due effect on the accuracy and ability to consistently put the ball in position to get in the way of the racquet head. Due to all of the funny business in the backswing our student makes the only compensation that will allow for her to meet the ball and even so she does not meet the ball at full extension. Instead she is leaving the ground in a rather futile attempt to appear to be doing so. In the setup position the tossing hand is basically directly below the point where you want to deliver the ball and the simplest way to think of throwing the ball up...is to simply lift it into position to the point where you intend to strike it. With the lateral movement backwards and then forwards this becomes an impossibility.

Convoluted...

Convoluted? Not as a matter of opinion...but as a matter of fact. Convolution means extremely complex and difficult to follow. I guess we might say that the service motion in general is convoluted. The best way to describe our Aussie tennis student here is overly convoluted. Excessively convoluted. Unnecessarily convoluted. That is a criticism...not to be misconstrued as an insult. She is creating more complexity in her service motion when the object of such a difficult and complex motion is to simplify. Tennis isn't for sissies...there is a lot of bad news involved. A lot of people don't like to hear it...and resist change as a consequence.

julian1

Go ahead julian1...call in DougEng. Call the police while you are at it. You probably will feel more secure hearing virtually the same thing from him in twice the words and more scientific lingo. He'll throw in some gadgets and computer generated lines for good measure. Birds of a feather flock together and as fellow Phd’s you can probably find great solace in one another. Which makes me happy to no end. Trust me.

Stotty...

Thank you.

there's really no need for this. Doug has forgotten more about tennis than you know. Really. I enjoy his posts and think this is a ridiculous cheap shot. Get over yourself.

Btw, I'll take empirical, gadgets, etc. over song lyrics any day.

[bottle]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4-w2FYIJbw

[10splayer]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4-w2FYIJbw

I think it's sweet how you defend your buddy DB. BTW, is the release date of this song when you first started changing your serve?

[mlogarzo]

Guys,

Thanks for your responses and feedback on your opinions. The beauty of tennis is that everyone sees things differently and as such your thoughts are all welcome.

I've been flat out with work at the moment so haven't had a real chance to sit down and write a longer post but will do so as soon as I get a chance.

Funnily enough since i posted that video, she went out and won the 16s Clay court Nationals not losing more than 3 games in any match. As for her serve, she was serving a high percentage of first serves in, serving a lot bigger and felt a lot better about her serve. Would love to say it was something technical, but it was totally her mental approach to the serve. Having only just started working with her for 3 weeks and in middle of tournaments, i worked on her mind and thought processes and they seemed to make a big difference.

Having said that though, there are definitely things we will be working on to improve the serve. As coaches, it's also very important to be aware of where the serve has come from. The video i posted was the serve as I saw it for the first time. What I haven't seen is where the serve was 12 months prior. I've been made aware that corrections have been made eg. her elbow position in trophy position was very very low. As i get the knuckle down into her game when the tournaments are over I'll discover more and where she's come from and set goals for the future.

Perhaps I should put my serve up and you can all critique away!!!


John,

Good to be in touch again. I'm well. back in Australia now, started my own Tennis Academy for the biggest sporting club in Australia, and things all going well. Will be in the US in the summer. I think my arm is still recovering from all the kick serves we hit that day for the article!!!

[don_budge]

Sorry to keep you waiting...10splayer

there's really no need for this. Doug has forgotten more about tennis than you know. Really. I enjoy his posts and think this is a ridiculous cheap shot. Get over yourself.

Btw, I'll take empirical, gadgets, etc. over song lyrics any day.

Sorry to keep you waiting...10splayer. It wasn't my intention as that would be gamesmanship. Alright...I think the pause serves it's purpose. An acute sense of timing is not lost on me. Dramatic timing. McEnroe was a wizard at it. But in the end it's a good idea to think before you speak...especially in public where you might make a fool of yourself should you make some sort of blunder or foolish comment.

But anyways, I was out of town and away from my keyboard...I had to go and see a man about a dog. But here I am and I would really like to respond to your post here...afterall it is a forum. This is the way this thing works...as I recollect you advising someone a while back. I think it was bottle...my friend bottle...aka John Escher.

But anyways...that wasn't a "ridiculous cheap shot" at Doug. I am going to address your comment a little later in another post..after I have had a chance to unpack. You might want to reread my comment in the meantime. I will accept your apology and refrain from making further comment about your comment if you do so. I don't expect that to happen either...I think that monkey's may fly out of my butt first before a proud individual such as "yourself" would apologize for being so righteous. In the meantime...I am measuring my words to minimize the damage...damage control. For your sake.

But please tell me 10splayer...did you even read my analysis of the Aussie Princess Zoe's serve? If so...what did you think? In my estimation it was quite brilliant but it is hard to be objective about one's self, particularly when one is making a great effort to be perfect. To be a perfectionist. Isn't that what a tennis player aspires to? And the coach...isn't that what they do to enable the player to achieve that goal. At least to approach their limits. I worked particularly hard on my analysis for Zoe and watched her motion many, many times...just hoping for the chance to be of some service to a young student of the game. There are no ulterior motives here...except for trying to improve myself by helping others...just a tiny bit every day. It all adds up you know.

It is a tough road to hoe...especially if one finds it difficult to get over one's self. And just who doesn't find it hard to get over one's self btw (by the way)? Afterall if you get over yourself...who are you? Nobody...or somebody else?

But first things first...what did you think? Of the serve analysis? Then we can address your comment...and your issues.

I am curious to death if mlogarzo will find any merit in any of my analysis as well when he begins to knuckle down on the service technique of Zoe...the Australian 16 and under clay court champion. Big congratulations on that and the rest of the program...mlogarzo. Very impressive stuff!

I would love to see your service motion too, mlogarzo...perhaps I might see just a little something that might help you out just a bit. Afterall...that is what I do. I am a tennis coach, or rather a metaphysical engineer, who likes to help...wherever I go. Wherever I might be. It just so turned out that I was able to help this man out about his dog. But particularly when it comes to perfecting service techniques in aspiring tennis players. It is sort of a lost art...and something that I do. Just "for the bloody fun of it"!

[don_budge]

Cheap Shot Artist...DougEng the Victim? It's all in the game.

there's really no need for this. Doug has forgotten more about tennis than you know. Really. I enjoy his posts and think this is a ridiculous cheap shot. Get over yourself.

Btw, I'll take empirical, gadgets, etc. over song lyrics any day.

Yeah...it's ok 10splayer. It's no idea to sully this website with retorts or accusations. I will for my part try to be clear...for all of my sense of irony and clever double intendres complete with acerbic and sardonic wit it feels good to clear the air without any sense of vindictiveness...which is something that I have a hard time feeling after taking some deep breaths. I have a somewhat bad temper myself, mostly I either get mad at myself or my wife...owing to my Latin roots perhaps. But I am learning. So here are the facts...since you brought it up.

First of all with regards to my feelings about DougEng. I don't have any. I know that he is a Phd and I have read every single post that he has written since I started posting here back in February of 2011. That being said I have read every single post that you have written too...in fact I have read every single post. My feelings about the posts of DougEng? I feel that he and I are sort of diametrically opposed as to how we interpret the game of tennis...which is quite ok by me and I am quite certain that he feels the exact same way about me.

As far as his having forgotten more tennis than I ever knew. I suppose that is possible...well I always say to my wife that I am on a need to know basis. It's very possible he has forgotten as much. I know another thing about DougEng...he is a highly respected contributor here on the forum as a number of posters have made it a point to voice their respect for him. If we had an election he may be voted the supreme commanding coach of the site...I don't know. Stotty sort of nominated him for that in a post recently...I think. So you are not alone in your reading DougEng's posts. We all read him. I already answered your comment about getting over myself...and I thought my comment was extremely witty and just a little mystifying. Didn't you? Probably not. I probably only annoyed you. Ok...maybe I was trying to. Just a little bit.

So now I must answer to your comment about my comment being a ridiculous cheap shot. Here is the sequence of events that led me to make that comment.

First I used the word "convoluted" which julian1 sort of highlighted in his comment. Now julian1 and I have taken some light "shots" at each other in the past but I have always taken it in good nature as sort of a kidding or sparring between us. He largely ignores me now...we have traded emails in the past. I always welcome his comments though and find him to be amusing...most of the time. You can read in julian1's comment that he recommends consulting in DougEng...and I sort of read into that to bypass over me...as if I might not be qualified to answer any questions about the young ladies serve. Shouldn't any tennis coach or teacher or metaphysical engineer not be able to weigh in on something so simple as a service motion? Afterall, it is not rocket science and there is no clear prerequisite for a Phd as far as I know. I sort of took that as a bit of a challenge from julian1 and proceeded to write my analysis...with vigor. But this is how DougEng's name came up in the conversation.

PS One of reasons that the toss is of Zoe is so high is that she needs
enough time to get into a significant vertical drop and back.
Whether it is "CONVOLUTED" is a matter of opinion
(see the corresponding post by don_budge on this subject)
Doug Eng is a very good person to talk about this subject

So I followed up with my analysis and at the end in an attempt to inject a little ironic humor...plus a little entertainment for the readership here, I replied to julian1. What i said is not a "ridiculous cheap shot" and it certainly was not intended to be. Maybe it could have been construed as a left handed compliment...which it wasn't my intention. What it was...was an acknowledgement that DougEng probably knows at least as much about tennis as I do...or at least he thinks he does...and I said as much. I said that DougEng would probably say virtually the same thing...only he would make it sound more like a mathematical equation whereas my method is to try and paint a picture with my words. I am a "bottle" wannabe...in a way. In my own way...that is. I was also poking fun at the two...julian2 and DougEng by the comment that they are comfortable with each others language seeing as they are both Phd's. This may be a reasonable assumption in the end.

julian1

Go ahead julian1...call in DougEng. Call the police while you are at it. You probably will feel more secure hearing virtually the same thing from him in twice the words and more scientific lingo. He'll throw in some gadgets and computer generated lines for good measure. Birds of a feather flock together and as fellow Phd’s you can probably find great solace in one another. Which makes me happy to no end. Trust me.

Stotty...

Thank you.

there's really no need for this. Doug has forgotten more about tennis than you know. Really. I enjoy his posts and think this is a ridiculous cheap shot. Get over yourself.

Btw, I'll take empirical, gadgets, etc. over song lyrics any day.

In the end 10splayer...I am doing as much with you. We are just playing around a bit and to tell you the truth I don't take your comment so seriously...because believe it or not I don't take myself so seriously. I figure we are both spin doctors and I spin to you...you spin to me. Perhaps we are not so far apart afterall. I have written well over 1,000 posts here on the forum and it amounts to over 1,500 pages of material. I know that because I have assembled much of it into a book which I intend to publish posthumously and posthumorously...just for the bloody fun of it.

But I truly appreciate your comments 10splayer because I believe in freedom of expression. I might not agree with what you say...but I will defend to the death your right to say it. I hope that this clears the air...just a tiny bit.

Peace be with you...and I am truly sorry if anything that I write offends you. I trust that you will get over it though. By the way...what did you think of my Zoe serve analysis? Just curious.

[stotty]

d_b, BG, and 10splayer

I agree with much of don_budge’s critique of the girl’s serve. Her problems start at the start.

I like don_budge’s approach to serving very much, and coaching in general. My only concern is that not all students can achieve a “classic” serve. Some cats have to skinned another way. I have a friend like don_budge. He’s 74 years old. He’s not interested in science because he says he knows a great stroke from a bad stroke, and it’s mechanics, when he sees it. Like don_budge he has unique views and an unshakeable belief in his opinions. He’s an excellent coach and a man to respect I might add...like d_b.

I think this thread has shown a lot. That we all see different things in the same thing. Look at all the different observations on the girl’s serve. But all this epitomizes what I like about Brian Gordon’s and others more scientific approach. Biomechanics gets to the facts. Okay, it may miss the nuances and the artistic side of the game...but you can’t have everything.

The biomechanical study of players is interesting and goes beyond observing with the naked eye and the misinterpretations that often come with it. Brian Gordon’s articles on Tennisplayer are exceptionally good. His articles on the ATP forehand are the finest coaching articles I have ever read. I felt completely ignorant after reading them for the first time. Many reads later I feel enlightened.

The more I surf Tennisplayer and interact with people in the forum, the more I am coming to the conclusion that coaching technique is mostly about checkpoints...making positions...trying to ensure fluency between those checkpoints. Individual style will spring up whether we like it or not.

I think 10splayer is an impressive coach. He doesn’t post as much or as long as some of us but when he does it has real content. It’s weighty stuff...always concise and to the point. He understands biomechanics. He’s enlightened me and others many times. I respect him and his knowledge of tennis technique a lot.

[stroke]

I think 10splayer is an impressive coach. He doesn’t post as much or as long as some of us but when he does it has real content. It’s weighty stuff...always concise and to the point. He understands biomechanics. He’s enlightened me and others many times. I respect him and his knowledge of tennis technique a lot.
__________________
Stotty


I agree completely with Stotty regarding 10splayer. Concise and weighty stuff pretty much says it all. Even Brian Gordon called him out on some thread we had going as "getting it". Now that's weighty stuff.

[10splayer]

Yeah...it's ok 10splayer. It's no idea to sully this website with retorts or accusations. I will for my part try to be clear...for all of my sense of irony and clever double intendres complete with acerbic and sardonic wit it feels good to clear the air without any sense of vindictiveness...which is something that I have a hard time feeling after taking some deep breaths. I have a somewhat bad temper myself, mostly I either get mad at myself or my wife...owing to my Latin roots perhaps. But I am learning. So here are the facts...since you brought it up.

First of all with regards to my feelings about DougEng. I don't have any. I know that he is a Phd and I have read every single post that he has written since I started posting here back in February of 2011. That being said I have read every single post that you have written too...in fact I have read every single post. My feelings about the posts of DougEng? I feel that he and I are sort of diametrically opposed as to how we interpret the game of tennis...which is quite ok by me and I am quite certain that he feels the exact same way about me.

As far as his having forgotten more tennis than I ever knew. I suppose that is possible...well I always say to my wife that I am on a need to know basis. It's very possible he has forgotten as much. I know another thing about DougEng...he is a highly respected contributor here on the forum as a number of posters have made it a point to voice their respect for him. If we had an election he may be voted the supreme commanding coach of the site...I don't know. Stotty sort of nominated him for that in a post recently...I think. So you are not alone in your reading DougEng's posts. We all read him. I already answered your comment about getting over myself...and I thought my comment was extremely witty and just a little mystifying. Didn't you? Probably not. I probably only annoyed you. Ok...maybe I was trying to. Just a little bit.

So now I must answer to your comment about my comment being a ridiculous cheap shot. Here is the sequence of events that led me to make that comment.

First I used the word "convoluted" which julian1 sort of highlighted in his comment. Now julian1 and I have taken some light "shots" at each other in the past but I have always taken it in good nature as sort of a kidding or sparring between us. He largely ignores me now...we have traded emails in the past. I always welcome his comments though and find him to be amusing...most of the time. You can read in julian1's comment that he recommends consulting in DougEng...and I sort of read into that to bypass over me...as if I might not be qualified to answer any questions about the young ladies serve. Shouldn't any tennis coach or teacher or metaphysical engineer not be able to weigh in on something so simple as a service motion? Afterall, it is not rocket science and there is no clear prerequisite for a Phd as far as I know. I sort of took that as a bit of a challenge from julian1 and proceeded to write my analysis...with vigor. But this is how DougEng's name came up in the conversation.




So I followed up with my analysis and at the end in an attempt to inject a little ironic humor...plus a little entertainment for the readership here, I replied to julian1. What i said is not a "ridiculous cheap shot" and it certainly was not intended to be. Maybe it could have been construed as a left handed compliment...which it wasn't my intention. What it was...was an acknowledgement that DougEng probably knows at least as much about tennis as I do...or at least he thinks he does...and I said as much. I said that DougEng would probably say virtually the same thing...only he would make it sound more like a mathematical equation whereas my method is to try and paint a picture with my words. I am a "bottle" wannabe...in a way. In my own way...that is. I was also poking fun at the two...julian2 and DougEng by the comment that they are comfortable with each others language seeing as they are both Phd's. This may be a reasonable assumption in the end.






In the end 10splayer...I am doing as much with you. We are just playing around a bit and to tell you the truth I don't take your comment so seriously...because believe it or not I don't take myself so seriously. I figure we are both spin doctors and I spin to you...you spin to me. Perhaps we are not so far apart afterall. I have written well over 1,000 posts here on the forum and it amounts to over 1,500 pages of material. I know that because I have assembled much of it into a book which I intend to publish posthumously and posthumorously...just for the bloody fun of it.

But I truly appreciate your comments 10splayer because I believe in freedom of expression. I might not agree with what you say...but I will defend to the death your right to say it. I hope that this clears the air...just a tiny bit.

Peace be with you...and I am truly sorry if anything that I write offends you. I trust that you will get over it though. By the way...what did you think of my Zoe serve analysis? Just curious.

Fair enough DB. Thanks LC and Stroke.

[10splayer]

I agree with much of don_budge’s critique of the girl’s serve. Her problems start at the start.

I like don_budge’s approach to serving very much, and coaching in general. My only concern is that not all students can achieve a “classic” serve. Some cats have to skinned another way. I have a friend like don_budge. He’s 74 years old. He’s not interested in science because he says he knows a great stroke from a bad stroke, and it’s mechanics, when he sees it. Like don_budge he has unique views and an unshakeable belief in his opinions. He’s an excellent coach and a man to respect I might add...like d_b.

I think this thread has shown a lot. That we all see different things in the same thing. Look at all the different observations on the girl’s serve. But all this epitomizes what I like about Brian Gordon’s and others more scientific approach. Biomechanics gets to the facts. Okay, it may miss the nuances and the artistic side of the game...but you can’t have everything.

The biomechanical study of players is interesting and goes beyond observing with the naked eye and the misinterpretations that often come with it. Brian Gordon’s articles on Tennisplayer are exceptionally good. His articles on the ATP forehand are the finest coaching articles I have ever read. I felt completely ignorant after reading them for the first time. Many reads later I feel enlightened.

The more I surf Tennisplayer and interact with people in the forum, the more I am coming to the conclusion that coaching technique is mostly about checkpoints...making positions...trying to ensure fluency between those checkpoints. Individual style will spring up whether we like it or not.

I think 10splayer is an impressive coach. He doesn’t post as much or as long as some of us but when he does it has real content. It’s weighty stuff...always concise and to the point. He understands biomechanics. He’s enlightened me and others many times. I respect him and his knowledge of tennis technique a lot.

Agree in totality. Basic positions, shapes, are fundamentals in my book. A player can run with it from there. Provided a player adheres to these basic positions, (in the macro sense) I care not whether they add there own personal touch/flair to it. In fact, it's a good thing IMO.

[mlogarzo]

Hey all,

Been a while since I've been here but thought i'd post an updated vid on my pupil's serve.

We've been working on her take back, having a better rhythm and more of a lag with bringing the racquet up. Not perfect as yet but much better.

Have also tried to get her to turn her body more, tilt her shoulders more in trophy position and have her arm in more of an L shape at top.

Still more to work on, but taking it step by step.

Results: much better rhythm and has added miles to the serve. Confidence much much higher.

So far so good but long way to go still. Has an ITF in Fiji coming up in 2 weeks so hopefully can put it into practice in more pressure situations.