All court tennis!

[lobndropshot]

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/...chFHVFront.pct

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

Since we hardly ever talk about women's tennis lets take a look at one of my favorite players. Man I miss her all court game. I wonder what her results would be if she didn't retire. I doubt she had another GS in her but she added variety to the women's game that is needed badly.

[tennis_chiro]

What was missing?

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/...chFHVFront.pct

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

Since we hardly ever talk about women's tennis lets take a look at one of my favorite players. Man I miss her all court game. I wonder what her results would be if she didn't retire. I doubt she had another GS in her but she added variety to the women's game that is needed badly.

When you look at the CourtLevelRear shot

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/strokearchive/pro_woman/martina_hingis/mh_approach_and_volley/mh_forehand_approach/mh_forehand_approach.html?MHFHApproachBHVCourtLevelRear.mov

her forehand looks very close to a full ATP Type III complete with closed face, but she didn't have quite enough firepower to hang with the current crop. I always felt like the big shortcoming was the second serve that put her in such a hole to today's big womens returns. Also, she just didn't come up learning to hit out so completely on that forehand even though the stroke appears to be there.

But her court sense has to have been better than any women in the last 40 years since the days of King and Court except for maybe, and I say maybe, Navratilova.

You can't possibly produce that kind of all court player today because they never utilise the volley enough to be proficient enough at it under pressure. Just technique is not enough. You'd have to use it for years and you'd suffer a lot of losses developing the necessary skill with the approach, volley and also the drive volley before you would really be successful with it. The coach would have to be committed and the player would have to be similarly committed to staying with that coach and his philosophy even as all around would be telling them to give it up through the years at ages 15 to 19, as a minimum. Which means it would also take a deep pockets sponsor who was similarly committed. That's probably the piece that is missing most of all: a deep pockets sponsor committed to developing that kind of player and willing to commit to a 5-year plan. And oh, BTW, you would need a supremely talented individual trained this way from a very young age. No starting with 15 or 16 year-olds. Probably have to be at least 5' 9" or 5' 10" at least with great athleticism.

This would also be a good reason to play college tennis because I don't think a player could develop these skills well enough by 17 or 18 to compete at the pro level, but they could compete at the college level and with 2 years of competition at that level, you could hone the skills enough to use them at the pro level. It would take a committed college coach as well. And with all this you would still have to have weapons as big as any of the Big Babe hitters. It is just that you would take a couple of years to develop something additional that none of the rest would have.

Still, when you see that Hingis couldn't pull it off, could anyone? Second serve was the biggest liability for her. What else?? Radwanska comes closest to me for playing as smart as Hingis, but she doesn't have big enough weapons. I remember when Henin put on at least 10 lbs of muscle from one year to the next and took over as number one. (I actually asked her about the weight gain in the cafeteria line at the Key Biscayne players lounge and she acknowledged it.) Radwanska should do the same. Justine was also an all-court player, but no one comes close to Hingis in their ability to exploit the geometry of the court and the tendencies of their opponent to seemingly be in the right place even before the opponent knew they were going to hit the ball there!

don

[stotty]

When you look at the CourtLevelRear shot

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/strokearchive/pro_woman/martina_hingis/mh_approach_and_volley/mh_forehand_approach/mh_forehand_approach.html?MHFHApproachBHVCourtLevelRear.mov

her forehand looks very close to a full ATP Type III complete with closed face, but she didn't have quite enough firepower to hang with the current crop. I always felt like the big shortcoming was the second serve that put her in such a hole to today's big womens returns. Also, she just didn't come up learning to hit out so completely on that forehand even though the stroke appears to be there.

But her court sense has to have been better than any women in the last 40 years since the days of King and Court except for maybe, and I say maybe, Navratilova.

You can't possibly produce that kind of all court player today because they never utilise the volley enough to be proficient enough at it under pressure. Just technique is not enough. You'd have to use it for years and you'd suffer a lot of losses developing the necessary skill with the approach, volley and also the drive volley before you would really be successful with it. The coach would have to be committed and the player would have to be similarly committed to staying with that coach and his philosophy even as all around would be telling them to give it up through the years at ages 15 to 19, as a minimum. Which means it would also take a deep pockets sponsor who was similarly committed. That's probably the piece that is missing most of all: a deep pockets sponsor committed to developing that kind of player and willing to commit to a 5-year plan. And oh, BTW, you would need a supremely talented individual trained this way from a very young age. No starting with 15 or 16 year-olds. Probably have to be at least 5' 9" or 5' 10" at least with great athleticism.

This would also be a good reason to play college tennis because I don't think a player could develop these skills well enough by 17 or 18 to compete at the pro level, but they could compete at the college level and with 2 years of competition at that level, you could hone the skills enough to use them at the pro level. It would take a committed college coach as well. And with all this you would still have to have weapons as big as any of the Big Babe hitters. It is just that you would take a couple of years to develop something additional that none of the rest would have.

Still, when you see that Hingis couldn't pull it off, could anyone? Second serve was the biggest liability for her. What else?? Radwanska comes closest to me for playing as smart as Hingis, but she doesn't have big enough weapons. I remember when Henin put on at least 10 lbs of muscle from one year to the next and took over as number one. (I actually asked her about the weight gain in the cafeteria line at the Key Biscayne players lounge and she acknowledged it.) Radwanska should do the same. Justine was also an all-court player, but no one comes close to Hingis in their ability to exploit the geometry of the court and the tendencies of their opponent to seemingly be in the right place even before the opponent knew they were going to hit the ball there!

don

I go along with most of this. And I would say her court sense and "overview" of things...whatever the flux...during rallies remains unrivalled in any era...and I'd include most men in that. She had an amazing brain like that.

I think also her second serve would be better if she were playing in today's era...it would be a question of "needs must". We could say this of Evert also. In those days they could get away without it, so they did.

Hingis, Evert and Goolagong were the women players I most used to love watching.

[EdWeiss]

All Court Tennis - Brian Gottfried - the Sneak Volley

For the lovers of all court tennis, esp. connoisseurs of the volley, thought you would enjoy this clip from Brian Gottfried, a great volleyer, giving a clinic on the "sneak volley". Also, Brian's backhand slice off the ground is along the Rosewall driving slice that Don Brosseau and others on the forum like so much.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHA2gfRSmro

[stotty]

Left arm?

For the lovers of all court tennis, esp. connoisseurs of the volley, thought you would enjoy this clip from Brian Gottfried, a great volleyer, giving a clinic on the "sneak volley". Also, Brian's backhand slice off the ground is along the Rosewall driving slice that Don Brosseau and others on the forum like so much.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHA2gfRSmro

Lovely find, Ed. You don't see this kind of stuff going on in today's game. John Lloyd's father used to teach the sneak attack as a way of winning cheap points when your opponent is off guard. It was a regular feature in all his lessons involving promising juniors. All his students regularly did this.

Interesting looking at Gottfried's forehand and forehand volley compared to the modern game. The left arm stretch on his forehand is far less pronounced than most players today...not unusual for his era. On his forehand volley he doesn't support the racket with his left hand on any of those journeys to the net (and some of those journeys are long)...slightly unusual in any era. This is what I loved about McEnroe, on any trip to the net, be it long or short, he always supported the racket at the throat with his right hand. Brian gets away with it and does it wonderfully, but better to teach students the McEnroe way.

Love Gottfried's knifed, sliced backhands...dug out of the body...with a swift follow up to the net.

Many thanks for this clip, Ed,

[don_budge]

nice video on tactics and technique...tactical awareness and the sneak attack

For the lovers of all court tennis, esp. connoisseurs of the volley, thought you would enjoy this clip from Brian Gottfried, a great volleyer, giving a clinic on the "sneak volley". Also, Brian's backhand slice off the ground is along the Rosewall driving slice that Don Brosseau and others on the forum like so much.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHA2gfRSmro

backhand approach shot...racquet travels along the line of the feet. setup up at "get in position" is the standard issue classic three lines. the follow through of the racquet finishes with the racquet head more of less in front of his body and finishing at the target.

the path of the racquet head is therefore through the path of the ball. this in itself may account for much of the discrepancy between the modern day slice backhands and the classic slice backhand. in the classic era the shot was much of the time being followed into the net so the momentum of the player’s body and footwork guided the racquet along those lines. the sneak attack...is still a viable option.

forehand volley...brian gottfried was also an excellent doubles player. that forehand volley is really a beauty...he could really stick it. even though he is on the dead run forwards he does everything text book correct...fundamentally correct (FC). three basic motions with the forehand volley...foot work and alignment, shoulder rotation to the ball, short down and through motion with the hand, arm and racquet structure. front foot meets the earth simultaneously as the racquet descends into the ball as the shoulders subtly rotate into the shot. amazing synchronicity...all three motions blended into a single movement. the secret to crisp volleying.

sneak attack...gottfied speaks of being aware. being aware in this case that he sees his opponent go to a continental grip to play a defensive shot which prompts him to move quickly forward. as soon as you realize that you have managed a shot that will leave your opponent with only one option...move in. i gave a little “clinic” to blake_b on the sneak attack in my up and back drills for practicing the approach and volley game. i believe that the title of the thread was "my thoughts on the volley".

[10splayer]

backhand approach shot...racquet travels along the line of the feet. setup up at "get in position" is the standard issue classic three lines. the follow through of the racquet finishes with the racquet head more of less in front of his body and finishing at the target.

the path of the racquet head is therefore through the path of the ball. this in itself may account for much of the discrepancy between the modern day slice backhands and the classic slice backhand. in the classic era the shot was much of the time being followed into the net so the momentum of the player’s body and footwork guided the racquet along those lines. the sneak attack...is still a viable option.

forehand volley...brian gottfried was also an excellent doubles player. that forehand volley is really a beauty...he could really stick it. even though he is on the dead run forwards he does everything text book correct...fundamentally correct (FC). three basic motions with the forehand volley...foot work and alignment, shoulder rotation to the ball, short down and through motion with the hand, arm and racquet structure. front foot meets the earth simultaneously as the racquet descends into the ball as the shoulders subtly rotate into the shot. amazing synchronicity...all three motions blended into a single movement. the secret to crisp volleying.

sneak attack...gottfied speaks of being aware. being aware in this case that he sees his opponent go to a continental grip to play a defensive shot which prompts him to move quickly forward. as soon as you realize that you have managed a shot that will leave your opponent with only one option...move in. i gave a little “clinic” to blake_b on the sneak attack in my up and back drills for practicing the approach and volley game. i believe that the title of the thread was "my thoughts on the volley".

Think I really disagree with the back approach shot analysis, but need further clarification. At any rate, lets open it up for discussion.

What do you mean by the "classic three lines"?

Or that the racquet head is thru the path of the ball?

Or that that the racquet head finishes in front of the body and at the target?

[johnyandell]

Hingis lovers please note:

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/music_videos/martina_hingis/young_martina%20_large.html

[don_budge]

Martina Hingus...The Flower

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/...chFHVFront.pct

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

Since we hardly ever talk about women's tennis lets take a look at one of my favorite players. Man I miss her all court game. I wonder what her results would be if she didn't retire. I doubt she had another GS in her but she added variety to the women's game that is needed badly.

Hingis lovers please note:

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/...%20_large.html

Cool thread...lobndropshot. Love the moniker. Love the video...johnyandell! As usual...real genius. She's a beauty! It's a dandy!

Yes...we hardly talk about the woman's game. What is there to talk about? Serena? Maria? You can sum it up in one word. Bitch Tennis. Okay...that's two words.

Martina is sorely needed in the woman's game. She's a flower. Among thorns. A woman who retains the girl in her. She. She's a she. Not a he/she. Like the rest in the woman's game.

But with regards to Martina and all court tennis. She had a wonderful game...particularly well suited for Ladies Tennis. I like that forehand...I used her as the model along side her Swiss compatriot...Roger Federer in Stotty's "Backswing" thread. I was expounding on the idea of pushing the racquet back into position and pulling it forwards. Along the same lines as Rick Macci's and Brian Gordon. At least Brian seemed to think so.

Martina's strong grips in the backcourt make her an unlikely candidate to truly play the all court game. I believe that she could have as my highly esteemed colleague...tennis_chiro observes. But with such strong grips in the backcourt where she is playing 90% of the time...it makes it awfully difficult to "come to grips" with the game that needs to be played in the mid-court and the journey to the net. Every one of the forehand approach shots that she hits is played with topspin and then she is going to make a rather radical grip change completing her journey to the net. It doesn't work like that. It defies the metaphysics of the question.

She will never be one hundred percent secure hitting volleys making that grip change. It sort of shows in the music video as she almost looks as if she is flinching every time she hits a volley. But how about that music video...once again Mr. John Yandell has come up with some serious goods. So good...it is a separate thread to come. Johnny...Johnny...it's good. Really, really good man! It's so beautiful...you captured her. As she captured our hearts. Martina...That Girl.