Net attack...

[gzhpcu]

Watching matches on the Australian Open, I wonder why when most players attack to follow the ball to the net, they play mostly topspin instead of a heavy low slice? Is it because slice is not used much and they don't feel comfortable with it?

[klacr]

Or they don't feel comfortable with it because they don't understand how to hit it. There is an art with the net attack and players nowadays are not as keen to learn the restraint and control required to do it right. For them its power over control and tactics.


Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

[gzhpcu]

Attacking behind a high bouncing ball is hitting the ball right into the comfort zone of the opponent. He can bash the ball back, which is not the case if the ball is barely above his shoelaces...

[gzhpcu]

We have been talking about dropping the racket head when hitting a forehand in another thread. Well, if the ball is just above your shoelaces, you can't, so you can not hit with power.

[johnyandell]

The reality is in pro tennis the slice is too slow. Players cannot generate enough velocity compared to the drives. It's a technical impossibility because of the effects of spin.

Players trying to pass have way more time. They make those passes. The ball isn't on the shoe laces. It's knee height and above, typically. Pro tennis players aren't (all) stupid. If slice approaches worked consistently you would see more players hitting them.

In the rest of the tennis world, though, it's a different story.

[gzhpcu]

Actually, I am not talking about hitting the slice from the baseline, but more of attacking a short ball and following it to the net.

[klacr]

The reality is in pro tennis the slice is too slow. Players cannot generate enough velocity compared to the drives. It's a technical impossibility because of the effects of spin.

Players trying to pass have way more time. They make those passes. The ball isn't on the shoe laces. It's knee height and above, typically. Pro tennis players aren't (all) stupid. If slice approaches worked consistently you would see more players hitting them.

In the rest of the tennis world, though, it's a different story.

For the recreational and club player, it's highly effective and I support it. At the pro level, it's too risky of a proposition if not hit absolutely perfectly, and even if it was hit perfect it still might not be enough. If it was the answer then every pro player would have figured it out and done it by now.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

[tennis_chiro]

There is a place for the Carioca in tennis

The reality is in pro tennis the slice is too slow. Players cannot generate enough velocity compared to the drives. It's a technical impossibility because of the effects of spin.

Players trying to pass have way more time. They make those passes. The ball isn't on the shoe laces. It's knee height and above, typically. Pro tennis players aren't (all) stupid. If slice approaches worked consistently you would see more players hitting them.

In the rest of the tennis world, though, it's a different story.

I think we get into the discussion of the Rosewallian slice vs the Federerian slice again. I still think there is plenty of room for the Rosewallian slice hit with a much flatter stroke from the baseline, but the argument seems to be that it can't handle the heavy spin off the pro shots in today's pro game. I don't really have a counter to that argument, although I doubt its validity.

However, when we are talking about approach shots, the ball is not coming into the player that heavy; by definition, it is a ball that is giving the player a chance to move up and approach the net; there is no reason a Rosewallian slice could not be hit consistently and effectively off such a ball. The stroke itself lends itself more naturally to a carioca footwork pattern that facilitates the immediate movement forward to the next shot at the net.
For this shot to be effective, it needs to land in the last 2 feet before the baseline. 30 or 40 years ago and even less, it was sufficient to hit your approach shot up the line and get it into the last 4 or 5 feet of the court.

But with today's strings and frames, passing shots are so much better that the approach shot has to be that much better. So the approach shot that worked in 1980 won't work today; everyone passes like Bjorn Borg. But if you can hit that approach sharp with a Rosewallian kind of pace, what I call "the knife", and land it in the last 2 feet of the court with pace, I think it is more effective than the big topspin approach that will probably land somewhat shorter and bounce up a lot higher in the opponents strike zone. Granted, you can hit the topspin harder, but the effect of the ball bouncing up off the court with topspin is less disturbing for the opponent trying to execute a pass than that "knife" that bounces very low, not only because of the underspin, but also because of the low angle of incidence of the deep oncoming approach shot.

The Federerian slice does a great job of floating deep and bouncing low, but it does not have nearly the pace of the Rosewallian slice and doesn't exert the same pressure on the opponent. The problem is that, in the first place, very few players can hit a slice with a level stroke at all; moreover, I am saying that for the shot to be effective at top levels of play, the player better be very proficient with the shot and able to lay it down within 2 feet of the baseline. To have that kind of proficiency with the shot, you would have to practice it and use it a lot. I don't see anyone in today's game even close to doing something like that.

I'm saying, in summary, that it is possible I am wrong about a Rosewallian flat-stroke slice backhand being effective from the baseline, but it most definitely would be effective as an approach shot if you were proficient at executing it. On top of that, it is "an approach shot", not an outright winner.

The assumption is that you may have to finish the point with a volley on the next shot. That assumes you have more than a modicum of skill at the net and not many singles players today have that level of proficiency at the net. But that doesn't mean I, as a teacher, shouldn't be trying to install those capabilities in my players.

don

[stotty]

It's situational...

It was interesting that to beat Djokovic recently Karlovic played three very key points. He came in three times when he felt Djokovic was feeling pressurised. When I say pressurised I mean nervous tension. The last thing Djokovic wanted to do on those three points was make passing shots; he wanted to rally instead. The shots Karlovic approached on weren't even that great, just solid and deep. Djokovic buckled on those three points...couldn't come up with the passes under the pressure he was under at that given moment in time.

These situations always come about in tennis...yes even today. No one wants to make a passing shot when they are really feeling the tension. Such moments are the moments to take the net and always will be. It has less to do with using slice or topspin...more a cerebral situation. I think people have long forgotten this type reasoning for approaching the net. What made Borg so good was the ability to cope mentally in these situations and come up with the goods. No one compares with Borg in those types of situations. His ability not to panic remains unmatched.

I am divided about the modern day sliced backhand issue. Nadal backs up John's views nicely. When Federer hits slice backhands, Nadal runs round them and seems to have an age to do it.

On the other hand I once saw Hass do a really good job of getting his sliced backhand underneath Djokovic's forehand in a way that gave Djokovic real trouble. Dimitrov also had a great match against Nadal where he used his sliced backhand with piercing effect. In both cases, both men used their sliced backhand as a tool rather than wait until they were defending. I think players can only do it when have momentum and command...impetus...things have to fall into place. If a player has these elements from the get-go, it can work. I think it was at the Aussie Open last year when Federer had all these elements in place against Murray.

[don_budge]

The Approach Game...Situational

Watching matches on the Australian Open, I wonder why when most players attack to follow the ball to the net, they play mostly topspin instead of a heavy low slice? Is it because slice is not used much and they don't feel comfortable with it?

These situations always come about in tennis...

In a word the approach game is what you would call…situational. The modern game is a one dimensional game when compared to the way tennis was played in the classic years…RIP.

Again…I ask the question what is power? The answer to this rhetorical question is control. What is control? Control is the combination of spin, placement and speed. It isn't so much that a player need to always hit low biting slice but for damn sure a player must be able to do it when the situation calls for it. It's true what John says about the approach game and that using solely slice is not going to get the job done. But it is also true that this has never been the case.

I always think of John McEnroe who Stotty is always referring to as the best situational player that he has ever seen. I would venture to say that the same might have been said of Richard Gonzales, Don Budge, Rod Laver or Roger Federer (as he is reviving his traditional roots game with Stefan Edberg).

Each net approach is unique in terms of the situation, in terms of the ball being approached on, the position of your opponent and the tactical plan going forwards. It isn't a game of perfect either…which is what makes it so exciting. The element of risk involved.

The key is keep your opponent off balance. Remember you are setting him up for the knockout…or the kill. Make him hit the shot that he doesn't want to hit in any given specific situation. The more choices you have in your repertoire the more possibilities you have to give him that brief moment of doubt in his brain as you are approaching the net for the kill shot and he is hitting his passing shot. That is the key…to keep your opponent from guessing what you are going to do next.

Slice is nice though. With slice you can be as accurate as a laser beam and the depth is more easily controlled than topspin. With slice you have umpteen different options as well. There is no modern player that exploits this tactic to this day. The engineering is the only thing that keeps this from being a viable option. The engineering of the courts possibly being the biggest culprit the way things stand now.

[klacr]

Rosewallian or Federerian Slice?

I think we get into the discussion of the Rosewallian slice vs the Federerian slice again. I still think there is plenty of room for the Rosewallian slice hit with a much flatter stroke from the baseline, but the argument seems to be that it can't handle the heavy spin off the pro shots in today's pro game. I don't really have a counter to that argument, although I doubt its validity.

However, when we are talking about approach shots, the ball is not coming into the player that heavy; by definition, it is a ball that is giving the player a chance to move up and approach the net; there is no reason a Rosewallian slice could not be hit consistently and effectively off such a ball. The stroke itself lends itself more naturally to a carioca footwork pattern that facilitates the immediate movement forward to the next shot at the net.
For this shot to be effective, it needs to land in the last 2 feet before the baseline. 30 or 40 years ago and even less, it was sufficient to hit your approach shot up the line and get it into the last 4 or 5 feet of the court.

But with today's strings and frames, passing shots are so much better that the approach shot has to be that much better. So the approach shot that worked in 1980 won't work today; everyone passes like Bjorn Borg. But if you can hit that approach sharp with a Rosewallian kind of pace, what I call "the knife", and land it in the last 2 feet of the court with pace, I think it is more effective than the big topspin approach that will probably land somewhat shorter and bounce up a lot higher in the opponents strike zone. Granted, you can hit the topspin harder, but the effect of the ball bouncing up off the court with topspin is less disturbing for the opponent trying to execute a pass than that "knife" that bounces very low, not only because of the underspin, but also because of the low angle of incidence of the deep oncoming approach shot.

The Federerian slice does a great job of floating deep and bouncing low, but it does not have nearly the pace of the Rosewallian slice and doesn't exert the same pressure on the opponent. The problem is that, in the first place, very few players can hit a slice with a level stroke at all; moreover, I am saying that for the shot to be effective at top levels of play, the player better be very proficient with the shot and able to lay it down within 2 feet of the baseline. To have that kind of proficiency with the shot, you would have to practice it and use it a lot. I don't see anyone in today's game even close to doing something like that.

I'm saying, in summary, that it is possible I am wrong about a Rosewallian flat-stroke slice backhand being effective from the baseline, but it most definitely would be effective as an approach shot if you were proficient at executing it. On top of that, it is "an approach shot", not an outright winner.

The assumption is that you may have to finish the point with a volley on the next shot. That assumes you have more than a modicum of skill at the net and not many singles players today have that level of proficiency at the net. But that doesn't mean I, as a teacher, shouldn't be trying to install those capabilities in my players.

don

Rosewallian or Federerian slice. What would you call this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cG60Wf8RHFk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6q4wrkbbjUI

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

[gzhpcu]

Looks rather Rosewellian to me...

What I am looking for in this thread is the opponent hitting a midcourt shot which is then attacked with a heavy, low slice and is followed to the net for a volley...

[10splayer]

Very interesting statement GZHPU.

Unless, of course that player has practiced from a very young age taking balls at the shoelaces over and over again.

Tennis coaches wince when they see us practicing this over and over again.

I don't think many of them have surfed.

I did a lot of surfing in my twenties, and I'd compare taking a low ball to surfing a pipeline.

Surfing is all about your hips, and thinking with them.

So, surfing and taking a tennis ball on the rise at the laces, same stuff from the neck down.

Its all hips of course, however, it is more than that (taking the ball low, even before the conventional rise), it is a true measure of a tennis players skill-sets, body control, spacial awareness and courage.

, and Bobby Swift said we did not really understand the concept of the ball on the rise, and they were right in terms of conventional approaches.

Now, I see people like GZHPU write about this issue, and I know I am right for practicing this all the time.

You guys might be surprised what a player can do with the ball at their feet (it defies your laws of geometry) if you practice it over and over again. It is the Ozzy Smith phenomenon, when the legs are set, the geometry is a surprising game changer. Regardless, my belief is it will create better footwork long term and anticipation on how to get to the ball, so forward we press with unrealistic principals.

When my young one started I had her hit every ball out of the air, and never on the bounce, and we never rallied. Later on, we'd take that ball in the air lower and lower, until we got to the shoelaces, and then we worked up from their. I am a bit hesitant on high balls with young arms, so this one the rise methodology for us is good because it trains the type of raw athletism we require.

If you practice low ball after low ball eventually you will have the instinct to do it, and use it whenever you want.

Now, to surfing, the toughest thing for me was the pipeline. It takes instinct, and it takes balls! Its so compressed, and you need to be so composed in space, and that is what taking a ball at the shoelaces is all about! The big issue I had with surfing was I was chicken shit, it was intimidating, you'd paddle over the edge, knowing the corral was close, and you have to 110 percent commit to the drop! I wasn't willing to do it for whatever reason, perhaps I should have taken Geoff's fine advise on hypnosis or something! I was not willing to sacrifice to take that drop!

Now, we refer to the drop. A lot of player are scared of a ball, so how we worked that out is we'd literally go as high as we could, and launch balls right down, and eventually this missile coming in and dropping doesn't intimidate a player. They learn to deflect, drop down, come into the ball, and do a million small muscle actions when they are young to make it work, and as well learn to be composed, and make themselves athletically more compact.

Anyways, it is a lot of misses, your player looks like hell, however, eventually they learn to adapt (just as the surfers do). In surfing if your hips don't get to the right place at the right time, you're going to get killed, beaten or slammed hard, so their is a lot of motivation to do it right.

All I know is it can be done, it just takes unbelievable hips, timing, racket speed and spacial awareness.

You'd better have BETTER legs, balls and ability to flow like Larry Bertleman to pull it off, and defy the laws of geometry!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFlB0yVWzuQ

The best athlete probably of all-time in terms of functional hips had to be Jay Adams, however, Larry Bertleman is a work of art. That is an ideal development model, Jay Adam style playing tennis, or Larry Bertleman's athletism!

10splayer once said my young one was taking the ball to quickly and said she would not develop taking the ball at her shoelaces

Actually, what i implied was that it made no sense to play the ball that low. That is, that any negligible advantage in hitting the ball fractionally earlier, would not offset the angles disadvantage from playing the ball at shoelace height.

[bottle]

Rosewallian or Federerian slice. What would you call this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cG60Wf8RHFk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6q4wrkbbjUI

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

I'd call it the shot where you and I are closest as players.

I might have a slightly higher backswing before looping down-- from the time when, influenced by the 1954 Davis Cup video, I adopted skunk tail verticality.

Then I saw other videos where Ken Rosewall was older than 19 and now his takeback was closer to level. In all cases there was a thin downward loop in response to forward rotating hips.

Funny-- I got the vertical backswing to work and later a 45-degree backswing. These were among my most successful experiments ever. But the lower racket tip versions required less time to get off, I reasoned.

Geoffrey Williams often speaks of a "barred" arm in discussing backhands. Well, I see the arm as barred in this video. By the time the actual swing gets underway the arm is pretty straight.

But slice is not one shot, it's a constellation.

Now, say, we want to chop the ball. Why get the arm barred? Better to leave some bend in it for a smidge of extra muscular acceleration just before contact on the steeper path down.

With racket face more open as Tom Avery advises to compensate for the steeper path.

Whoops. Now I see some arm straightening just before the ball-- what I am prescribing for the chop.

Doesn't matter. Backhand slice is a constellation of possibility. In any version one can bar the arm early or not and the outgoing shot will behave differently.

[hockeyscout]

10splayer once said my young one was taking the ball to quickly and said she would not develop taking the ball at her shoelaces

Actually, what i implied was that it made no sense to play the ball that low. That is, that any negligible advantage in hitting the ball fractionally earlier, would not offset the angles disadvantage from playing the ball at shoelace height.

Hey, thanks for clarifying this 10splayer. I understand.