Seduced By Spin?

[rocklin6977]

Watching the Federer - Djokovic US Open final solidified an observation I've had for a while now.

Too many players have been seduced by heavy topspin, and try to generate it on blazing returns by their opponent, when the difficulty of such an attempt makes it highly unlikely to produce the results they desire.

I think we can all agree that accurately hitting a tennis ball traveling over sixty miles-per-hour to within a few inches of a line seventy-eight feet away is an extraordinary physical feat, requiring a high level of athletic ability and years of practice to do consistently.

It is a difficult enough feat to accomplish using a flat or near flat shot. But when a player attempts to add heavy topspin, that degree of difficulty rises considerably. And the difficulty rises exponentially the deeper and faster moving the ball he is trying to hit.

Add in nervousness arising from a pressure filled point in the match, and you have the perfect storm. Too often, I watched Federer take a smoking shot hit right at his feet—a difficult return to accurately and effectively hit back flat for even the most talented players—and he'd try to whip it back with heavy topspin, only to have his shot land much too short and high to Djokovic's devastating forehand.

Federer makes so many miraculous shots seem routine that we might be tempted to see this as simply a one-time poor performance rather than a strategic flaw in his game. And, of course, he is a special case. But I've seen so many other highly-ranked players on the tour fall prey to this foolishness, seemingly attempting to set a personal topspin rpm record on fast travelling shots during critical points in a match, only to produce rather weak returns instead, that I wonder why it continues to be a popular habit.

Any thoughts?

[johnyandell]

I've believed for a long time that the average player is often far too worried about hitting spin for spin's sake.
We've seen now the toll that finally took on Nadal mentally. At the 3.5 or even 4.0 level there are a lot of guys hitting forehands with twice too much spin for their ball speed and the result is short high bouncing balls. Love those.

[stotty]

I think spin at pro level is sometimes misunderstood. I go to Wimbledon every year and while spin levels on the forehand have gone up, net clearance hasn't. You see very few loopy balls. Most forehands are struck with a lot of spin AND pace. It this combination (in my view) that makes their shots so tough to handle and which has played a role in changing the way one-handed slice is hit.

By contrast on the backhand, most two-handed pro's don't hit with as much spin. Many players such as Dolgopolov and Murray hit the ball quite flat.

Of course this might be different on clay and hard courts, surfaces which I have never witnessed live world-class tennis. You really have witness this type of thing live to get a true impression rather than on TV.

I think a feature of many world class players above amateurs is they can vary the amount of spin they get at will. Amateurs usually just hit an even amount all the time.

[rocklin6977]

Most forehands are struck with a lot of spin AND pace. It this combination (in my view) that makes their shots so tough to handle . . .

I agree, and deployed at the right time, heavy topspin is a terrific weapon.

What I'm against is trying to generate heavy topspin on a ball that's approaching you so rapidly that the smart, high-percentage thing to do is to try meet the ball with as simple and idiot-proof a swing-arc as possible.

A flat swing has two possible avenues of miscalculation; the angle of the racquet face, and the point of impact in a circular (but horizontal) swing arc.

A heavy topspin swing adds a third, vertical avenue, and imho, it's much more difficult to calculate than the first two. Imagine what batting averages would be like if baseball players tried to generate heavy topspin when swinging at a 90 mph fastball!

Once you start looking for it at the pro level, this miscalculation pops with surprising frequency.

I usually love watching Stan Wawrinka play, but seeing his recent match with Federer at the Open was an exercise in frustration. So many difficult-to-return but definitely make-able shots blown by Stan because his racquet head was travelling at a violent upward angle, making a consistently accurate placement a highly unlikely proposition.

I don't see the women on the tour falling prey to this. I wonder if it's a sublimated machismo thing or sumthin'.

[don_budge]

What is Power?

Watching the Federer - Djokovic US Open final solidified an observation I've had for a while now.

Too many players have been seduced by heavy topspin, and try to generate it on blazing returns by their opponent, when the difficulty of such an attempt makes it highly unlikely to produce the results they desire.

I think we can all agree that accurately hitting a tennis ball traveling over sixty miles-per-hour to within a few inches of a line seventy-eight feet away is an extraordinary physical feat, requiring a high level of athletic ability and years of practice to do consistently.

It is a difficult enough feat to accomplish using a flat or near flat shot. But when a player attempts to add heavy topspin, that degree of difficulty rises considerably. And the difficulty rises exponentially the deeper and faster moving the ball he is trying to hit.

Add in nervousness arising from a pressure filled point in the match, and you have the perfect storm. Too often, I watched Federer take a smoking shot hit right at his feet—a difficult return to accurately and effectively hit back flat for even the most talented players—and he'd try to whip it back with heavy topspin, only to have his shot land much too short and high to Djokovic's devastating forehand.

Federer makes so many miraculous shots seem routine that we might be tempted to see this as simply a one-time poor performance rather than a strategic flaw in his game. And, of course, he is a special case. But I've seen so many other highly-ranked players on the tour fall prey to this foolishness, seemingly attempting to set a personal topspin rpm record on fast travelling shots during critical points in a match, only to produce rather weak returns instead, that I wonder why it continues to be a popular habit.

Any thoughts?

What is Power...rocklin6977? This is a rhetorical question that I am constantly asking my students. The answer to this all important question in tennis and in life…is control. Control is power.

So what is control? In tennis the three basic elements of control are speed, spin and placement. For every shot that a tennis player produces he must consciously combine these three elements for the best tactical effect upon his opponent taking all things under consideration.

Tennis shots might be summarized under three basic headings…offensive, defensive and neutralizing. Under the three basic headings any given shot may actually be a combination of the three. Playing defence while subtly playing with an offensive mentality for instance.

Most students in the beginning have a tendency to overemphasize one of the elements of control and therefore lose substantial potential "power". By overemphazing spin in your example the student may tend to hit short which is going to create problems in the end result of the students game. I find that initially students tend to hit too hard without enough emphasis on placement.

I teach the forehand to be hit relatively flat at first (with overspin) and build the ability to spin the ball incrementally in order that the student is equipped to choose how much spin they put on the ball in the end result. I also teach my students to use underspin with a volley like groundstroke around the service line and inside for aggressive net approaches. For net approaches I believe that placement is a vital factor…more so than speed. I also teach them how to use underspin from defensive positions to neutralize rallies from the baseline…from low drives to high lobs.

I love that question…what is power? I give them the answer as it relates to control and go on to further explain…first you learn to control your self in order to apply the desired spin and in the process you gain control over the ball. Once you begin to gain control over the ball you find that you are able to control your opponent. If you can control your opponent you can control the match…and therefore you increase your chances of be victorious.

This is only the short answer to your question…the complete answer might just be found in Bill Tilden's book "Match Play and the Spin of the Ball" that was written in the 1920's. Harry Hopman and his Australian entourage considered it to be the "Bible" on tennis and it was the book that the "modern classical" game of tennis was founded upon. The current modern game is being played in a rather dumbed down version. We see that Roger Federer has revived his all-court game somewhat in the last two years to pretty effectively extend his career.

The older I get and the longer I have been around the game I realize the strength of overpowering your opponent with a combination of power…both physically and intellectually…tactically speaking.