Federer Clip! Changing the way we play, changing tennis instruction!

[johnyandell]

Sorry you don't understand what you are seeing. You are the one, actually, who is confused. (I'll also stand by my little pyshco analysis.)

But back to Roger. There is no such thing as catching a piece of the ball--the contact is 4 miliseconds. Whatever the path of the swing that doesn't change.

What matters is the direction and speed of the racket during this moment. If you look at that video the path the racket has to be broken into the motion forward, upward, and sideways, which usually includes the rotation of the racket head.

That one frame past contact is a lot of real estate for the racket head to cover. The duration to get there is almost 10 times the length of the contact. So to the extend you can hit thru Roger hits thru. FAR more than most other players even on similar balls.

The extension toward the target is incredible and the racket has barely come across the body. Try to think of the swing as an arc. This one is much flatter and closer to the flight longer.

[lukman41985]

bottle,
Check out these clips, if you will:

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/strokearchive/pro_men/andreagassi/aa_forehand/aa_fh_arm_action/aa_fh_arm_action.html?AAFHCenterArmActionRear2.mov

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/strokearchive/pro_men/rogerfederer/rogerfederer_forehand/rogerfederer_fh_short/rogerfederer_fh_short.html?FedererFHShortCourtLevelRear1.mov

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/strokearchive/pro_men/rafael_nadal/rn_forehand/rn_fh_short/rn_fh_short.html?RNFHShortCourtLevelRear1.mov

Tell me what you see in these clips. Now, try to conceptualize what the arc of the swing is. Try to apply it to the same clips. Does the theory make sense given what you see in the clips? What theory is better supported by the video?

One of the greatest short-comings in tennis teaching, I feel, is in the teaching of the swing plane and the swing arc. However, in golf, the idea of swing plane and swing arc is widely publicized--Tiger Woods' swing changes, and all the interest that surrrounded it, mostly focused on him changing to a one plane swing. Now, ignore all these technical phrases and take a look at some of the theory. Since we have so little in tennis about it, check out this great article in GolfDigest.com about the theory. As you're reading, you need to change some things in your head to fit the theory to tennis. First of all, the club becomes a racquet. The stance line is parallel to the target line--this is similar in tennis (read Kerry Mitchell's great articles on True Alignment and What is Open Stance?). The golf ball, of course, becomes a tennis ball. The racquet starts back inside the target line, comes square into the ball, then goes back inside the target line. Ok, so enough already--check out the article: http://www.golfdigest.com/instructio...ingplane1.html

Does the theory apply to tennis, in your opinion? How do the aforementioned video clips now look given this theory?

Let's go from here.

[lukman41985]

bottle,
If John's words on this tread don't make sense, check out this quotation from his great series on the Federer forehand:

"This change in the hitting arm position has a dramatic impact on the shape of the swing. First it moves his contact much further in front of his body. Second, when he straightens out the hitting arm, he appears to hit much more through the line of the shot. You can see this very clearly in the animations. There is a characteristic position he often reaches where the arm and racket form nearly a straight line and point almost directly in the path of the ball.

In teaching we commonly use the phrase "hitting through the ball" or "hitting through the line of the shot" to indicate that the racket path is moving for a longer period along the intended path of the shot, or at least moving for a longer period closer to that path. In reality, the racket never moves in a straight line, but is always moving on a curve. It moves outward from the body on a curve from the player;s left to right on the way out to the contact. After contact the curve moves back from right to left on the way to the finish. (More on this in future articles in the BioMechanics section.)

"Hitting through the ball" is a powerful teaching key, but what it really means is that this curve is flatter or less severe, so the path of the racket and the ball are closer for a longer period. When Federer straightens out his hitting arm, the arc of his swing appears to curve much less to the left after the hit than other top players. The movement of the racket across the body happens later or more gradually than with the traditional double bend hitting arm position. Again, the arm and racket can actually form something close to a straight line, pointing in the direction of the shot."

[lukman41985]

John,
Re-reading that great quotation got me thinking: when are those articles on swing plane going to be put into the biomechanics section? How about the 3-D studies? Both are going to be groundbreaking and open everyone's eyes! Keep up the great work!

[Bungalow Bill]

I'm in complete agreement with Bungalow Bill that the racket is "flung to the ball more than yesteryear," and am reasonably sure that "yesteryear" is a word just right for BB to use. But I wonder about birds on any website who still haven't figured out whether we ought to hit through the ball a lot or a little. I've never been convinced that Roger hits through the ball more than everybody else-- his shot seems one of huge spin generation and just a little hit-through.

I don't mind there still being a serious question here, but I'm going to go with my own first-hand experience (the best anyone has) and my own improving game. If you, John Yandell, or you, BB, can convince me that Roger's
racket goes through seven imaginary balls in the fashion Ray Brown recommends, I'll renounce my fascination with Oscar's technique forever.

I dont think you need to do that Bottle (renounce anything). I hope we can be civilized here and actually educate ourselves to what is happening.

From how I see it, there are several ways to hit the ball. One is what you said, where you sort of skim the ball with a "windshield wiper motion". The other is gripping the handle a little more pressure and using the loose wrist to hit through the ball more.

I find that the one you hit through the ball is much more consistent and predictable.

Concerning Rodger, I have recognized he has several different swing paths. One is what you said, that swiping shot. The other is what I have said, that penetrating "hit through a billion balls".

In essence I dont think any of us are wrong. We are only wrong in acknowledging that we each are also right.

The windshield wuper motion is here to stay and it is obvious that ROdger does use that motion. But he also extends on other shots as well and his racquet goes out toward the target and then comes around. He does have a tendency to have a slight bend in the arm but I think that is unique to his DNA and not that he is not trying to hit through the ball.

I really dont have a problem with Wagner except for his stance "against" the so-called conspiracy with other coaches. I happen to like Bolleterri's motion a lot more than Wagners.

I happen to like a little pressure on the handle from my fingers, using a mild SW grip, and loosening up the wrist and just hitting through. I will use more of the angle I swing up the ball on to create certain effects. I rarely use the wiper motion unless it is a short ball because of the several players I know that have had elbow surgery.

[johnyandell]

When we speak about 3D that's more theoretical. We have done some data collection but it's a long way from a comprehensive overview and none of it is of pro players.

[bottle]

To: Lukman

Within the arc, the racket is going straight, preserving a constant angle perpendicular to the desired path of the ball. This angle is easy to set in your brain before you swing. With the same swing, therefore, you can send the ball in a variety of directions.

The exercise you mention sends the palm straight, so you can wipe it up and across a wall, fence or blackboard without going through or coming away.

Practically speaking, I don't see the advantage (yet) of curving the racket
out to the right, think it's better to keep things in close where anybody can be fast and strong. A slightly closed racket face, by the way, produces a slightly different direction of spin than a perfectly vertical string bed. Roger, as you would expect, does both.

Have a safe trip.

[bottle]

To: Johnny the Double-sited Godfather

Oscar Oscar Oscar Oscar Oscar. Oscar Oscar Oscar. Oscar Oscar Oscar Oscar Oscar Oscar Oscar. (Now take your temperature. Now your blood pressure. Now tell your goons to do the same.)

[johnyandell]

Whatever. But sorry no goons available. Just intelligent beings who can think for themselves....

[johnyandell]

The question remaining is what was the point of your questions about Federer's forehand? I'm happy to do these little mini-articles to try forward understanding, but as I predicted at the outset I'm not sure that was really what you were after. Or at least you didn't really seem to acknowledge or understand them.

[Bungalow Bill]

Oscar Oscar Oscar Oscar Oscar. Oscar Oscar Oscar. Oscar Oscar Oscar Oscar Oscar Oscar Oscar. (Now take your temperature. Now your blood pressure. Now tell your goons to do the same.)

Man you are one frustrated guy. Why would you ever show so much disrespect to someone who has more credibility then you could ever dream of having?


I personally would like to have a match with you. I would love to put you in your place and highly doubt you are any good. You can hit your forehand anyway you like.

Hard for me to believe you are 65 years old. What have you had a tough life? Divorced and bitter? Children won't talk to you? Did a coach in your past rub you wrong?

We even supply proof and you still won't admit you are off base in your thinking.

Do you see your "short Oscar stroke? It is not there man!!!!! Just admit it, you have been taken for a ride.

[Bungalow Bill]

Whatever. But sorry no goons available. Just intelligent beings who can think for themselves....

John,

The guy is never gonna get it. Either he has gotten it, which may be the case because when someone feels a bit humiliated with proof all around him, they usually respond in a very immature and bad mouthing way.

It is all he has left. Let the little boy have a little fun. lol

[johnyandell]

Well, I understand he likes to play with words and have fun. There is a little history there with Oscar, myself, and indirectly him.

I gather, Bottle, you were following the debate over on TW and that somehow offended you?

He can write Oscar's name a few thousand times and it's fine.

He asked me a few questions which I took seriously and took the time to answer. I guess my frustration is that this was not acknowledged or addressed.

I think the TW was frustrating for the same reason. I don't normally get so critical of people but the guy had it coming with his passive/aggressive provocations. One of the few times I stepped into a debate over there where I didn't at least feel that people heard what was being said.

[Bungalow Bill]

Well, I understand he likes to play with words and have fun. There is a little history there with Oscar, myself, and indirectly him.

I gather, Bottle, you were following the debate over on TW and that somehow offended you?

He can write Oscar's name a few thousand times and it's fine.

He asked me a few questions which I took seriously and took the time to answer. I guess my frustration is that this was not acknowledged or addressed.

I think the TW was frustrating for the same reason. I don't normally get so critical of people but the guy had it coming with his passive/aggressive provocations. One of the few times I stepped into a debate over there where I didn't at least feel that people heard what was being said.

Sometimes the threads are frustrating. There is a knowledgable guy named NoBadMojo over there that we always seem to rub each other wrong. I posted that the Eastern grips are good volley grips but they are weak in changing the grip due to the speed at which advanced players need to be set and ready to volley the ball back.

He went off and twisted it all in pieces. He still doesnt get it, that I implied that the Eastern grips are good volley grips in and of themselves. Even TennisMastery first implied that the Easterns aren't good grips for "volleying" at the net (which I agree), but later said that the Easterns are strong volley grips in and of themselves. But he won't acknowledge that.

But this guy has a beef and who knows where it stems from, all I know is sometimes I like to get into a little verbal brawl looking to win it. But that is me.

So this is typical.

[shootermcmarc0]

Hmm...anyways, so is federer's grip closer to a pure eastern or modified eastern John? It seems like there are times when his heel pad is on the top side of the handle. I'm guessing that the times I saw him hit with something close to the pure eastern is on returns.