The Myth of the Recovery Step: Forehand

[johnyandell]

Would love to get your thoughts on my latest article, "The Myth of the Recovery Step: Forehand"

[klacr]

First and foremost, that last video clip of Federer hitting the short ball is pure poetry. Smooth yet purposeful, Calm but violent. Effortless but craftsmanship.

Looking through stroke archives at other random players, it's safe to say that this true and roper recovery step and what actually occurs under high speed film transcends all grips, contact points and styles. All players have that same lag time with the leg. Cool stuff.

If you were teaching a player, how much of this recovery step do you focus on? How much can be taught and how much is an automatic reaction assuming the sequence is right?
I often find that the recovery step (or lack of a proper one) is responsible for many of the rhythm and timing problems for some players on their movement and preparation for the next ball. Setting the foot out and recovering too early they tend to lose the timing for the next ball or have a tendency to misplay it as they come out of their recovery off balance, flat footed or giving up court by falling backwards. The back leg can act as a rudder, used to steer and center the ship (player) from outside its hull (player's core, hips, shoulders)

Cool article John. Looking forward to the backhand recovery step on the next one. Will be interesting to see ow long players actually keep their back foot behind them after the shot during the follow through.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

[bottle]

A lot of good stuff. One aspect that could be either discussed here or in the Racket Speed thread where there has been a lot of thought recently devoted to center of gravity and body uprightness in Federer forehands:

In first furnitures of this article (i.e., the embedded videos), the body is quite upright for the hit. Then comes a big body tilt combined with gravity step back toward the center.

[don_budge]

I haven't read it yet…but here's what I think

Would love to get your thoughts on my latest article, "The Myth of the Recovery Step: Forehand"

I haven't read the article yet but I am ecstatic that you have written it. I did skim it briefly…the first several paragraphs. I briefly scanned a couple of the videos. I can virtually predict what you have written.

The biggest fallacy that I am aware of is this recovery step and the way that it is being taught in some parts of the world. I have a new partner here at my club in Sweden and the Swedish Tennis Federation endorses a radical form of the "recovery step" and it really goes against the grain of fundamentals as far as I am concerned. It's really tough for me to stomach. Particularly when you are teaching beginners or children. They will in all likelihood never recover from this terrible habit.

Of course the momentum takes a player to the side but Welby Van Horn gave me all of the ammunition that I need to teach it with the little swing to the right with the right foot after the contact with the ball. This business as trying to sell this step as a conduit to power is pure modern propaganda. Some "modern" tennis coach has made a name for himself…maybe a whole federation. This is why it is important to have teachers certified…get them lock step with the bullshit.

Trust me…nobody discovered anything. Watch Gary Player…he incorporated this into his swing as he got older. When he was on the Senior Tour. This move would be the kiss of death in anybody other than a superb golfer by the way. Watch carefully…Gary doesn't start walking until he has finished his swing. On balance. There is your recovery step for you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-o_cMVg4uEg

So I am going to go out on a limb here…without reading the article yet, which I surely will; and say that this recovery step must be taught responsibly or better yet, perhaps not even taught at all. This is the sort of athletic move that will evolve naturally as a player develops. To teach this to undeveloped tennis players does them a disservice. The reason is that if not executed properly it radically changes the ball position.

Only in the modern game of tennis where the game is played from the backcourt without the possibility of advancing to the net is this technique taught. Advancing the back foot to the net should probably be incorporated in advancing to the net. If the courts speed up and/or if they reduce the size of the racquets a lot of this new technique is going right out the window. I believe that if the courts are speeded up then all things are equal and the net player will have the distinct advantage. But this remains to be seen. Try practicing a huge recovery step against the wall and tell me how that works for you.

Excellent article. Superb. I say this without having read it…yet. I promise to read it today. I have faith in you. You haven't disappointed yet.

[captnemo]

Well I actually read the article. As usual the video doesn't lie. I have a friend who was sold this swing through the shot with the back foot idea on his one-handed backhand. Now I hit there all the time. Once in a while he miraculously nails one and starts talking about his advanced footwork and great pro. Truth is he misses way more than he used to and can't figure out why I beat him worse now.

[don_budge]

My Thoughts…The Myth of the Recovery Step

Would love to get your thoughts on my latest article, "The Myth of the Recovery Step: Forehand"

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/avancedtennis/john_yandell/the_myth/the_myth_of_recovery_step_forehand/

Well I actually read the article. As usual the video doesn't lie. I have a friend who was sold this swing through the shot with the back foot idea on his one-handed backhand. Now I hit there all the time. Once in a while he miraculously nails one and starts talking about his advanced footwork and great pro. Truth is he misses way more than he used to and can't figure out why I beat him worse now.

http://www.tennisplayer.net/bulletin/showthread.php?t=2324&highlight=swedish+footwork

Great point captnemo. Improper conception of this footwork "technique" can produce an extra variable in the swing therefore possible great inconsistency in a tennis player…particularly a beginner. Even advanced. Moving parts create variables. The less variation in a swing…the more repetitive.

Just a super article John. We had this discussion in the thread that I have copied here. The timing of this article is particularly good…along with the discussion in "Racquet Head Speed". You certainly validated my interpretation and then some…leaving no stone unturned. Nice piece of work! The video backup is exceptional…truly exceptional.

[10splayer]

Good piece. And yes, a case of going overboard with a principle. The problem is, that if not for a combination of the load leg holding it's position (or moving back) and, or the off leg working (in more open stance) back towards the load leg, the hips are going to tend to be over rotated, and poor kinetic transfer will occur..

I see a bit of "True Alignment"/ "What is Open Stance" principles here.


Yup, finish the stroke, and learn HOW to land...just my 01 cent

[johnyandell]

Tplayer: yep!

[10splayer]

Well I actually read the article. As usual the video doesn't lie. I have a friend who was sold this swing through the shot with the back foot idea on his one-handed backhand. Now I hit there all the time. Once in a while he miraculously nails one and starts talking about his advanced footwork and great pro. Truth is he misses way more than he used to and can't figure out why I beat him worse now.

The one hander is very interesting.....What I've noticed from video, is that this is the one shot, where the trail leg moves back, (and into a more closed configuration) most frequently. I have my theories as to why, but anyone notice this or have a reason why?

[stotty]

The one hander is very interesting.....What I've noticed from video, is that this is the one shot, where the trail leg moves back, (and into a more closed configuration) most frequently. I have my theories as to why, but anyone notice this or have a reason why?

I'm interested...but don't quite follow your explanation about the trail leg...moves back when...at what point?

[10splayer]

I'm interested...but don't quite follow your explanation about the trail leg...moves back when...at what point?

You know what Stotty, I may have overstated this....The more I look at this, the more I think this is probably just a function of stance.

[10splayer]

Basically what I'm saying is that to control over rotation of the hips, an open stance and closed stance work in different ways....In an open stance the left leg (off leg) will work back towards the load leg. (or scissor). In a closed stance backhand the load leg will tend to work backwards or into a more closed stance to control/slow down hip rotation.

If you look at the last FEd step down move (last one) in John's article, the load leg (right) will "kick back" or work into a more closed position...just like a closed stance backhand...This may just be stance dependent.

I was really surprised at how far the swing progressed before the leg swung around. It's actually a really important point, because the premature swing (leg open stance) would tend to wreck the kinetic transfer system.

Interestingly, I see the same kind of principle and the reason behind the "kickback" on the serve. (so as to not over rotate the hips)


Least that's the way I see it.

[stotty]

Basically what I'm saying is that to control over rotation of the hips, an open stance and closed stance work in different ways....In an open stance the left leg (off leg) will work back towards the load leg. (or scissor). In a closed stance backhand the load leg will tend to work backwards or into a more closed stance to control/slow down hip rotation.

If you look at the last FEd step down move (last one) in John's article, the load leg (right) will "kick back" or work into a more closed position...just like a closed stance backhand...This may just be stance dependent.

I was really surprised at how far the swing progressed before the leg swung around. It's actually a really important point, because the premature swing (leg open stance) would tend to wreck the kinetic transfer system.

Interestingly, I see the same kind of principle and the reason behind the "kickback" on the serve. (so as to not over rotate the hips)


Least that's the way I see it.

I think I see what you mean...interesting.

My approach has always been simplistic. I view legs as posts. A player has to have a firm post to hit off whether it be open stance or closed stance. Whatever leg is being used as the post needs to hold firm through the contact. Get this right and a lot of good things seem to happen as a consequence.

After the shot has been dispatched...rotation follows...then it's about applying the brakes and maintaining balance. I guess what happens to the legs at this point is a combination of controlling rotation and applying brakes.

Being a lightweight in the biomechanics department, I am only laying ½ a cent on my theory.

[10splayer]

I think I see what you mean...interesting.

My approach has always been simplistic. I view legs as posts. A player has to have a firm post to hit off whether it be open stance or closed stance. Whatever leg is being used as the post needs to hold firm through the contact. Get this right and a lot of good things seem to happen as a consequence.

After the shot has been dispatched...rotation follows...then it's about applying the brakes and maintaining balance. I guess what happens to the legs at this point is a combination of controlling rotation and applying brakes.

Being a lightweight in the biomechanics department, I am only laying ½ a cent on my theory.

I think your theory is sound, and prob much simpler then mine. LOL. It's just that the "poles" have been switched in an open/step in comparison. At any rate, one uses the "other" pole to control rotation.

[tennis_chiro]

The one hander is very interesting.....What I've noticed from video, is that this is the one shot, where the trail leg moves back, (and into a more closed configuration) most frequently. I have my theories as to why, but anyone notice this or have a reason why?

I'm not sure. I haven't really looked at a lot of video watching for this. But I think the one-hander is trying to keep the hips sideways unlike the two-hander who needs to bring the left/rear side through the shot. When I see a two-hander kicking the rear leg back, I try to correct this because I think this means they are not firing the left/rear side through the shot.

don