Building A World Class One Hander: Preparation

Hi Chris, thank you very much.

I've been struggling with trying to keep a relaxed grip on the backhand, so I'l try what you suggest.

At the moment, I find that if I grip very firmly, from the start of preparation for the swing, it puts me in mind for an aggressive top-spin shot, and generally gives me confidence that I can predict what will happen in the execution of the stroke. I become very unsure when the grip is more relaxed in the preparation (but I've been aiming to have it relaxed at the contact point too, so I hope your suggestion might help there - thanks you).

I had the same problem when trying to stay relaxed on the forehand stroke, and have had some success by persevering, but seem to be finding it more difficult on the backhand.

Thanks again. I did have one more question - any plans on a Kindle or electronic edition of the "Tennis Technique Bible"?

Thank you to Chris Lewit for a very clear and well-written series on the back-handed backhand.

I had two questions, which I'd be grateful if Chris, or anyone else, could answer :

Where Chris writes in the article "I like strong grips. A strong grip is the basis for developing the one-hander as a weapon, with velocity and spin", does "strong grip" refer to how firmly one is holding the racket? Or is it referring to how rotated the racket is (ie. does a strong eastern grip mean a grip halfway between an eastern grip and a semi-western?).

Also, since it's not mentioned in the article: how firmly should one be gripping the racket, particularly at the point of contact with the ball?

Thank you

By "strong" I meant Eastern to Semi-Western grip structure for topspin and power. I think more extreme grips help to mitigate the classic weakness of the classic one handed backhand--which is high bouncing balls. I think in today's heavy topspin game, the extra grip helps keep the one hander relevant and effective.

Grip firmness is a personal opinion but I believe in general that the hand should squeeze a little firmer at impact and should be relatively relaxed otherwise. Let me know if you have any other questions

Chris Lewit

Thank you to Chris Lewit for a very clear and well-written series on the back-handed backhand.

I had two questions, which I'd be grateful if Chris, or anyone else, could answer :

Where Chris writes in the article "I like strong grips. A strong grip is the basis for developing the one-hander as a weapon, with velocity and spin", does "strong grip" refer to how firmly one is holding the racket? Or is it referring to how rotated the racket is (ie. does a strong eastern grip mean a grip halfway between an eastern grip and a semi-western?).

Also, since it's not mentioned in the article: how firmly should one be gripping the racket, particularly at the point of contact with the ball?

Thank you

[klacr]

What is important?

Taking a detour...

I know a young man who recently graduated from Ferris State University (Michigan) that works for Chris Lewit at his academy. He speaks highly of Mr. Lewit, his teaching style and management of staff. So it doesn't surprise me that Mr. Lewit responded to numerous posts in a fair, intelligent, insightful and respectful way.

This thread has been great in the discussion of teaching the one-hander. The breadth and depth of information shared makes us all better. How boring would it be if we all agreed? It is these differences that help us learn. I can only speak for myself when I say all the frequent contributors on this forum have helped provide me with better teaching and understanding of the game. I hope they can say for same about me.

Getting back to this article. What teaching philosophy is the best for the one-handed backhand? There are many ways to hit a tennis ball and numerous paths to take to get to the final destination. Is there a better way?

Great coaches have the ability to adapt and flex their teachings to suit the student's capabilities, while still getting the student to execute what the coach truly wants. Students learn differently and all have their own quirks.

Some say what is good for the goose is good for the gander. Coming from a food and cooking background, I can tell you what is good for the goose is actually 3 hours in a roasting pan at 375 degrees with olive oil, thyme and a sprig of rosemary. But I digress...

The true stars and topic of this article should be the kids. These kids at 8,9,10 years old have better one-handed backhand technique than most kids at their same age that we've seen and taught. Their strokes will change with their bodies and games. With that said, the real thrill in this One-handed backhand piece is the look of intensity, fire and interest in their eyes as they prepare to hit their shots. I love to see that passion in kids this age. You just know they love tennis. Hopefully that tennis bug bit them pretty hard. A good coach can make that tennis bug attack their students pretty hard.

This may be heresy on this forum but I don't want to talk about these kids' development into the pro game and how their technique needs to be shaped up to do so. These juniors are setting up for a nice career, maybe in pros, maybe in college tennis. That is certainly a credit to Chris lewit. But I think a bigger credit to any coach is developing juniors that have great technique that causes no injuries and a greater motivation to keep playing long after their competitive careers are done. having students that still love the game and play well in to adulthood is something really special. Talented players and kids with pro level talent are great, and we've all been around those players, but give me a player who truly loves this sport and thats a gift that will keep giving.

A great idea for a future article on tennisplayer.net is for Mr. Lewit to keep us posted on these kids development for the one-hander in 3, 5, 7 years. I'd love to know how the shots progressed, evolved or changed, either dramitically or not.

Long live the one-hander.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

[worldsbesttenniscoach]

I am not sure what the teaching models are (Spanish, traditional, current pro technique, whatever), but to hit a 1-handed topspin backhand well ( that is, hard sometimes, and/or with dipping spin), there are certain fundamentals that must be followed.

Fundamental: You can't reach out to the side too much as you make contact with the ball. Look at Federer's weak backhands as his contact point is toward the sideline. He hits much better as he gets behind the ball & contacts closer to his body, more at front. (The junior players in the video here were taught to contact the ball too far to the side. Their swings are more of an "around swing," rather than an explosive swing in which power is directed in line towards the target.)

Fundamental: You shouldn't hit it too much with a comparatively straight arm. Look at the backhands of Kuerten, Wawrinka. There are a lot of right angles between racket & forearm during the swing. Hitting close to body, out front, with right angles for leverage provides power & control. [Kuerten has a big swing, but his swing also starts with a tight, compact foundation with proper leverage.] (The junior players in the video here are too stiff-armed. Their arms are comparatively too straight throughout the swing, with contact too far to the sideline. It's easy to see their swings don't have natural power or the natural control to make the dipping topspin.)

Fundamental: The elbow should not be too far away from the body. Look at Kuerten & Wawrinka. As they start their 1-handed topspin backhands, their elbows have the feeling that their is a connection with the body. Certainly at contact point with the ball, their elbows feel a solid connection with the body. It is somewhat like lifting a box. You can't lift a box well if your arms are stretched too much from your body. Similarly, bad things happen if your arms are stretched too far away at contact point on the 1-handed topspin backhand. (The juniors position themselves for a stroke in which the elbow does not have a close enough connection to the body. One thing a coach could do is use a speed gun to measure the juniors' backhands, & prod them to hit ever harder. In that way, perhaps the kids could teach themselves, figure out a way to hit harder. Right now, with the swings they have been taught, those kids can't really blast a topspin.)

By the way, these fundamentals should be followed also when players attempt 1-handed topspin backhands in which the strings grab the ball well, with the resultant dramatic topspin dip during ball flight.

Earlier I mentioned the backhand punches that are illegal in boxing, but that are really the basis for a great 1-handed topspin backhand. If these junior players put on boxing gloves & hit a heavy punching bag with backhand punches, it would give them the proper idea of how to hit great 1-handed topspin backhands. It would significantly (& quickly) facilitate their development for that stroke. (The junior players here are pretty good, but they dream of becoming great. Why not teach them a little better?)

[tntenniswhiz]

Don Budge Reply

What a thing of beauty! Bravo!

[don_budge]

Anybody ever tell you that you look like Keanu Reeves?

Your post brings up a very good philosophical question: how should coaches teach technique to young, developing players? There are two main sides to the debate.

Traditional approach tends to teach technique the way you are describing: compact, classical grips and swing path, classical stances--good foundation to build modern style later on...

Progressive approach attempts to teach the modern pro technical game and its grips, swings, and stances from the very beginning, mirroring the professional look in young players as much as possible.

Getting into the advantages and disadvantages and deeper into the philosophy is a long conversation, but you have made the case for the Traditional approach.

Over the years, I have come to believe that teaching technique that mirrors the fundamentals as seen on the tour is more efficient than the traditional approach and saves developmental time, which is important when trying to build a champion player. However, little kids are not biomechanically capable of doing everything the pros do, so coaches need to be careful and prudent in teaching modern techniques early on to players, with careful attention to preventing any movements that might lead to injury. But I still believe that most of the current pro techniques can be taughts safely and effectively to young kids, saving the coach and player time, and possibly giving the player an advantage over peers playing with traditional style grips, shots and movements.

But this is my opinion and its a good debate. I used to stress teaching more traditionally and found the modern techniques gave my players an edge at an early age, and that they could be taught safely according to the young player's physiological capability

Okay--to answer your question about the loops:

What I do is let the player take a backswing that he or she finds comfortable to hit with power while encouraging them to be within the range of compactness that you see on most tour rally shots.

However, when the ball is coming really fast, like when counterpunching power shots, or returning serve, I teach the player to adjust the backswing and make the loop smaller to save time.

The standard loop is for rallying, with more abbreviated loops for situations that have a time sensitivity.

I like this situational approach to teaching the backswing rather than the rigid approach of forcing every kid into one compact swing no matter what type of tactical situation or type of ball they are receiving.

It is interesting that the Spanish really do not focus much on the backswing part of the swing at all--some would say this is a deficiency in their system because many of their players can struggle on the faster courts.

More progressive Spanish coaches do stress adjusting the size of the backswing and more compact swings so that their players can be more successful on faster surfaces. For example, Rafa has been tinkering with his backswing to save himself a bit of time.

Fascinating answers. Thank you very much. I am impressed...with your tone of respect when discussing a potential philosophical difference. Some coaches have a difficult time with that. Fragile egos...I suspect.

I read your article very thoroughly and you answered my questions in your discussion. Let's not even discuss the videos of the children...everyone on this forum understands that while I think it is nice that children have something to do other than play with their telephones or computer games...I have a difficult time taking them too seriously as tennis players.

I just wanted to bring my questions and my ideas out into the forum for discussion because I find this to be a very interesting conversation...the one that you and I are having about one handed backhands. I hope that you sense the level of respect that I have for you in return for your thoughtful answers.

I am very much looking forwards to the rest of your series and I am motivated and inspired recently by my students who are switching to one handed backhands by the droves. I have this one student in particular...who had major difficulties "coming to grips" with the most fundamental of concepts so I had her hitting two handed on both sides...Pancho Segura style.

I think it was an interesting thread...at the very least there is an interesting article about the Pancho Segura technique with a couple of interesting videos that were posted. The thread sort of is in a parallel universe as your earlier analysis on evaluations as to whether to hit one hand or two.

http://www.tennisplayer.net/bulletin/showthread.php?t=2463

Obviously I will resort to anything...to get the game across to the student. Interestingly enough she has dropped a hand on both sides so she is playing entirely one handed tennis. We are working on the one hand backhand drive as we speak.

You used a couple of words in your replies that got my attention and I am impressed with your mode of operation as well as with your conclusions. Sometimes I find myself musing about this metaphysical endeavor that I believe is God's greatest gift to mankind in terms of recreation...along with golf. First of all...the student must appreciate that it is in fact a science...a body science. Secondly...the student hopefully pursues the game long enough to realize that it can be translated intellectually into a philosophy...a metaphor for life. Finally...the occasional student realizes enough development and sticks around long enough to understand the artistic nature of the game...from the heart. In art...there is no right or wrong and all means justify the ends. Hopefully...the teacher understands all of this as well.

In life or in nature one finds that opposites are attracted to each other more strongly than likeness. One might think that because I come from the "Traditional School of Thought" when it comes to tennis or the "Classical School of Thought" that it cannot exist in the same space as the "Progressive School of Thought" or the "Modern School of Thought"...but I don't see it that way at all. It is my pleasure to be looking at the mirror image of myself philosophically speaking...while reading such a respectful and articulate tone. I don't think that we are diametrically opposed or so far removed from each other philosophically speaking.

Keep up the great work...and most of all thanks for the interesting discussion! I know that I can speak for the rest of the forum on that one point alone.

[worldsbesttenniscoach]

Kuerten's topspin backhand to my eyes is more compact & efficient than the junior players' topspins that we are talking about on this thread. The kids could learn from Kuerten about how to prepare the tips of their rackets, in response to the incoming ball. The kids could learn a key leverage position through which Kuerten's racket passes behind him, before Kuerten launches the racket forward. (The kids do not emphasize this point.) Yes, Kuerten's swing could be more compact, but in many ways it is more compact than are the inefficient swings of the junior players on the video.

Going back to the junior topspin backhands we see on the initial video, it is as though a coach observed some backhand topspins of today's pros, & had the juniors copy or follow those techniques. Unfortunately, the techniques that those juniors follow are players who do not have the highest-level 1-hand topspin backhands.

I suggest that those juniors look for better models. For instance, look at the preparation for that stroke by Stan Wawrinka. Stan does not have a perfect backhand, but his preparation is shorter, more out front, more abbreviated, & his backswing is more compact, than the relative aspects of the juniors' swings. I don't think coaches today know what details to look at, when searching for efficient, effective technique.

[chrislewit]

Backswing adjustments

I suppose when you are looking at these individual swings that they appear to be sound or do they? Are these spoon fed balls or are they match play balls? Two different propositions. I tend to agree with WBTC here...the backswings are way too loopy and way too big for players so small. They look rather disconnected from the core of the players. They do not appear to be repeatable under stress.

I like to anchor the backhand backswing with the off elbow to the side of the player. If the elbow eventually comes away from the side because of a slightly bigger turn...that's fine. But the elbow should more or less return to the side on the forward swing. I also use the thumb up the back of the grip as a starting point...I question as to whether the grips are too strong for the little ones. My theory is this...of course exaggerated topspin is the order of the day but does this style of play limit the player in the future from playing in the middle of the court and eventually the net? In the same vein...how does the preparation differ for a slice backhand with regards to grip and backswing? (additional question to original post)

It is easier to build topspin on a flatter groundstroke than it is to try to flatten out a stroke from the exaggerated overspin being taught today. Plus the game might just be on the verge of another engineering change. Witness the 2014 Australian Open...the courts were only marginally speeded up and it played some havoc with the games of the worlds elite. Chris...what do you think of that question with regards to the surface of the courts? Does such a loopy backswing represent something viable on a lower and quicker bounce? How about on a windy day hitting against the wind with all of that topspin? It becomes a bit superfluous.

I admit that my way of thinking differs from the conventional wisdom of today's coaching models. But my reasoning on both the forehand and backhand swings of juniors is to start with slightly smaller models and allow them to grow into them. I don't teach little children the pro game at all...I teach fundamentals to all beginners. Once the player matures...they can build upon the fundamentals with the bells and whistles should they choose that route.

It's one thing to get into position on a fed ball to swing with such a large and dramatic backswing but I wonder if all of that preparation might be a bit more difficult under match play conditions. Being from a Quality Control background I usually find that it more feasible to keep the swing within 3 sigma or under control if there is less motion. Less is better...particularly in the beginning. Once you throw in the match play variables larger motions may be harder to reproduce on a consistent basis.

But even a swing like Stanislas Wawrinka has the component that I suggest...he may turn past the point where the elbow comes away from the body...but it does return on the way forwards. In this way Wawrinka was perfectly capable of adjusting his supersized backswing to the lower bouncing and quicker balls at the Australian Open. But then again he is built like a RoboCop and he is currently number three in the world.

So I wonder...my question to Chris is this...is this too much to manage at such a young age? Wouldn't it be wiser to build something more sound and connected to the little ones core and build on that?

Okay--to answer your question about the loops:

What I do is let the player take a backswing that he or she finds comfortable to hit with power while encouraging them to be within the range of compactness that you see on most tour rally shots.

However, when the ball is coming really fast, like when counterpunching power shots, or returning serve, I teach the player to adjust the backswing and make the loop smaller to save time.

The standard loop is for rallying, with more abbreviated loops for situations that have a time sensitivity.

I like this situational approach to teaching the backswing rather than the rigid approach of forcing every kid into one compact swing no matter what type of tactical situation or type of ball they are receiving.

It is interesting that the Spanish really do not focus much on the backswing part of the swing at all--some would say this is a deficiency in their system because many of their players can struggle on the faster courts.

More progressive Spanish coaches do stress adjusting the size of the backswing and more compact swings so that their players can be more successful on faster surfaces. For example, Rafa has been tinkering with his backswing to save himself a bit of time.

[chrislewit]

Backswings in young players

Interesting...

I find it hard to stop kids under 10 taking big, loopy swings. I can achieve it in the closed environment of a lesson, but as soon as the kids are off playing with their friends, the bigger swings resurface virtually every time. I think the game is too exciting for young children to be disciplined enough to keep compact swings (if this is what you mean by smaller models). Little kids want to hit hard, and the only way diddy folk can do that is to take a bigger swing. I also think it is easier to "shave" off than expand.

This is especially the case with volleys. A volleyer with a tiny takeback finds it particularly difficult to extend the backswing because it's then hard to resynchronise everything for the contact point. A volleyer with a big swing has no such problems, and it's just a question of shaving things down. No resynchronising is necessary so the job is much easier...for coach and student.

I think Chris might be right. Bigger may be better, and harmless in the long run.

Thanks. I could have been more clear about the backswing development in the article. The article implies that I tend to teach very compact backswings to young players. Indeed, this used to be the case, but more and more I have come to be a bit more flexible in allowing some young players to take bigger loops because they need the loops to generate power. I've learned that with many players, the loops can be adjusted later on in the development when the player is older and physically stronger.

This is the philosophy of Lluis Bruguera from Spain, and it has influenced my thinking.

I used to force all the young ones into a compact swing, with mixed results. Some kids with a lot of fast twitch could do it, but most really struggled with it and would revert back to larger loops by necessity in matches.

Coaches can save themselves a lot of time and consternation by not forcing the backswing to small too soon. If the player can shave it down at 9, thats awesome, but most can't. Instead, the coach can make the more compact backswing more of a long-term developmental goal, and introduce more compact swings shapes in a graduated way, as the player physically matures, which often will have more success and less conflict with the player's natural predisposition to swing big at a young age.

Some very technical coaches try to force all the strokes compact at a young age, as I used to do, and it will not work for many kids, especially girls, and if the player is forced to swing this way, they will play poorly with minimal racquet acceleration, and poor results.

That being said, I always like to see if I can get the swing compact early on, and if the player can do it and has a good acceleration, then that saves me time because I don't have to put it on the list of areas to work on later.

But this is most often the case with two handed players. I think many coaches believe in the myth of the compact one handed backswing, and I think John and I have clearly shown that most pro one handers of the modern era, take large backswings that cross the plane of the body. The top two handers of the modern game on the men's side, tend to stay in the slot.

[chrislewit]

finding your own formula

It looks to me after studying these swings repeatedly and thinking on these replies for 12 hours that the foundation that has been built into these kids is indeed very strong! I know the Spanish model has mixed reviews here, but I personally think that a process that has produced the DOMINANCE that Spain has experienced for longer than a decade, much can be learned. One of the big things I see from their system is to allow players to find their own formula to some degree. Of course Chris can speak to this greater than I, but these youngsters have begun down the path of developing their game, under the expertise of a great coach. Is their backswing bigger now than it will eventually be? YES. Will they use their legs more in the future? YES! I'm greatly impressed by racquet preparation, discipline to allow the hand to come through while maintain body position perpendicular to the baseline, and a quiet head. Those strong points of foundation will allow those things to be discovered as they go down the road. Instead of drilling to create that perfect stroke at 9yrs of age, allow the heat of competition to force them to keep reconsidering the mechanics, with assistance from those watchful eyes who are over them. I'm personally thrilled to see the option of a one-handed backhand be presented, and think the over thinking I've seen here to be part of the American problem. We think pretty strokes, when we really need to think body position to the ball and how are we going to get there efficiently!

Greg Lumb
InsideOut Tennis

The Spanish definitely are very player centered and have broad technical parameters of acceptability which do allow players to find their own formula, as you said very well.

Of course, letting players to their own devices can be a double-edged sword. For every forehand that turns out like Rafa's, there are probably thousands that ended up inefficient, ineffective, and/ or potential injury hazards

Comparing the Spanish to the French system can be a really interesting because they are both successful nations with very different approaches to teaching technique: The Spanish being laissez-faire and the French being quite strict

[chrislewit]

Guga

With luck the kids might all end up with a backhand like this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABldyqDQaS8

How's that for a beauty.

To the eye of the Spanish coach, its a great swing with tremendous racquet speed.

To the eye of the serious technical coach, it is a swing rife with problematic excess and inefficiencies...

[chrislewit]

Spanish way and other philosophical approaches

It looks to me after studying these swings repeatedly and thinking on these replies for 12 hours that the foundation that has been built into these kids is indeed very strong! I know the Spanish model has mixed reviews here, but I personally think that a process that has produced the DOMINANCE that Spain has experienced for longer than a decade, much can be learned. One of the big things I see from their system is to allow players to find their own formula to some degree. Of course Chris can speak to this greater than I, but these youngsters have begun down the path of developing their game, under the expertise of a great coach. Is their backswing bigger now than it will eventually be? YES. Will they use their legs more in the future? YES! I'm greatly impressed by racquet preparation, discipline to allow the hand to come through while maintain body position perpendicular to the baseline, and a quiet head. Those strong points of foundation will allow those things to be discovered as they go down the road. Instead of drilling to create that perfect stroke at 9yrs of age, allow the heat of competition to force them to keep reconsidering the mechanics, with assistance from those watchful eyes who are over them. I'm personally thrilled to see the option of a one-handed backhand be presented, and think the over thinking I've seen here to be part of the American problem. We think pretty strokes, when we really need to think body position to the ball and how are we going to get there efficiently!

Greg Lumb
InsideOut Tennis

Thank you my friend. Of course you are right about the Spanish approach and certainly the Spanish would say that Americans do overanalyze technique, (while Americans would say the Spanish gloss over too many technical flaws).

Over many years studying in Spain, I can tell you that I have developed a great appreciation for the simplicity and player centered approach that the Spanish bring to teaching technique, as opposed to some systems which could be categorized as overly technical or rigid.

One of the great strengths of the Spanish system over the past 30 or more years has been an openmindedness to technical experimentation and very broad parameters of acceptability when teaching technique.

Lluis Bruguera has influenced my teaching tremendously in this regard.

For me, as a strong technical and fundamentals coach, it has been eye-opening and transformational to observe the Spanish Way, which only stresses several key parameters when building technique, and leaves the rest to the individuality of the player. Their system has been quite successful.

However, if you look at a country like France, who has also been very successful internationally, they have succeeded with a strong technical model approach, and much more strict parameters of acceptability. So there is more than one way to scale the mountain.

It is a long discussion, but I wanted to point out the two basic philosophies that underscore the debate and viewpoints on this forum.

So to the serious technician, the little boy with the straight arm loopy swing has some serious flaws to fix. To the Spanish eye, as long as he is positioning his body well, hitting with balance at a good contact point, and creating strong acceleration, the swing is okay, and only reflects the player's individuality and personal preference.

There are pros and cons to each philosophical approach that we can discuss, but my teaching has been enriched by trying to understand and merge both systems.

[chrislewit]

Different philosophical approaches to teaching technique

I suppose when you are looking at these individual swings that they appear to be sound or do they? Are these spoon fed balls or are they match play balls? Two different propositions. I tend to agree with WBTC here...the backswings are way too loopy and way too big for players so small. They look rather disconnected from the core of the players. They do not appear to be repeatable under stress.

I like to anchor the backhand backswing with the off elbow to the side of the player. If the elbow eventually comes away from the side because of a slightly bigger turn...that's fine. But the elbow should more or less return to the side on the forward swing. I also use the thumb up the back of the grip as a starting point...I question as to whether the grips are too strong for the little ones. My theory is this...of course exaggerated topspin is the order of the day but does this style of play limit the player in the future from playing in the middle of the court and eventually the net? In the same vein...how does the preparation differ for a slice backhand with regards to grip and backswing? (additional question to original post)

It is easier to build topspin on a flatter groundstroke than it is to try to flatten out a stroke from the exaggerated overspin being taught today. Plus the game might just be on the verge of another engineering change. Witness the 2014 Australian Open...the courts were only marginally speeded up and it played some havoc with the games of the worlds elite. Chris...what do you think of that question with regards to the surface of the courts? Does such a loopy backswing represent something viable on a lower and quicker bounce? How about on a windy day hitting against the wind with all of that topspin? It becomes a bit superfluous.

I admit that my way of thinking differs from the conventional wisdom of today's coaching models. But my reasoning on both the forehand and backhand swings of juniors is to start with slightly smaller models and allow them to grow into them. I don't teach little children the pro game at all...I teach fundamentals to all beginners. Once the player matures...they can build upon the fundamentals with the bells and whistles should they choose that route.

It's one thing to get into position on a fed ball to swing with such a large and dramatic backswing but I wonder if all of that preparation might be a bit more difficult under match play conditions. Being from a Quality Control background I usually find that it more feasible to keep the swing within 3 sigma or under control if there is less motion. Less is better...particularly in the beginning. Once you throw in the match play variables larger motions may be harder to reproduce on a consistent basis.

But even a swing like Stanislas Wawrinka has the component that I suggest...he may turn past the point where the elbow comes away from the body...but it does return on the way forwards. In this way Wawrinka was perfectly capable of adjusting his supersized backswing to the lower bouncing and quicker balls at the Australian Open. But then again he is built like a RoboCop and he is currently number three in the world.

So I wonder...my question to Chris is this...is this too much to manage at such a young age? Wouldn't it be wiser to build something more sound and connected to the little ones core and build on that?

Your post brings up a very good philosophical question: how should coaches teach technique to young, developing players? There are two main sides to the debate.

Traditional approach tends to teach technique the way you are describing: compact, classical grips and swing path, classical stances--good foundation to build modern style later on...

Progressive approach attempts to teach the modern pro technical game and its grips, swings, and stances from the very beginning, mirroring the professional look in young players as much as possible.

Getting into the advantages and disadvantages and deeper into the philosophy is a long conversation, but you have made the case for the Traditional approach.

Over the years, I have come to believe that teaching technique that mirrors the fundamentals as seen on the tour is more efficient than the traditional approach and saves developmental time, which is important when trying to build a champion player. However, little kids are not biomechanically capable of doing everything the pros do, so coaches need to be careful and prudent in teaching modern techniques early on to players, with careful attention to preventing any movements that might lead to injury. But I still believe that most of the current pro techniques can be taughts safely and effectively to young kids, saving the coach and player time, and possibly giving the player an advantage over peers playing with traditional style grips, shots and movements.

But this is my opinion and its a good debate. I used to stress teaching more traditionally and found the modern techniques gave my players an edge at an early age, and that they could be taught safely according to the young player's physiological capability

[stotty]

Debate is the best thing about the forum...

I think this has been a really good thread. WBTC is outspoken, and don_budge is asking Chris's to debate his methods versus his own. I am sharing my coaching experiences with don_budge about trying to build compact swings and finding nature tends to take over when exuberant children are let loose with a racket and ball...big swings result. WBTC has been outspoken about his views but other than that no one has said anything disrespectful about Chris, quite the reverse.

It's healthy to exchange opinions and coaching methods.

I have been reading much of Chris Lewit's stuff on Tennisplayer over the last few days. It's terrific stuff...the best. He would definitely be a mastercoach over here the UK...and there are very few of those. It's always good to ask questions, though...even disagree if one feels strongly enough, and stand to be corrected if we are wrong.

The great thing about Chris is that he has serviced the thread related to his article and given great feedback. For me that is significant because some authors of the articles don't follow up by communicating with members of the forum, which is a shame.