Tweet
Originally posted by gzhpcu
View Post
-
A matter of aesthetics then rather than how the ball goes? -
I think not: a consequence of the Alexander technique.... If the head is not looking up but forward the torso will bend forward following the head...Originally posted by bottle View PostComment
-
A good idea. But we all have different physiques. And who cares about Alexander's Ragtime Band or anything else if one has just overwhelmed with one's serve?Last edited by bottle; 03-02-2016, 05:19 PM.Comment
-
Forget it...
Comment
-
Rusedski versus Krajicek
I am really taken by don_budge's analysis of the Rusedski serve. It shows to assess a serve well you are better to break it down piece by piece, click by click.
I think Krajicek has a beautiful serve, perhaps one of the most beautiful ever. He keeps his head up longer than Rusedski and, close to execution, the motion looks a little more silky. I just love the way Krajicek rocks back and bounces off the back foot like that...amazing.
The two serves aren't dissimilar in set up, etc.
I see a jolt in Rusedski's serve around contact, more than jack-knifing.Last edited by stotty; 03-02-2016, 01:46 PM.StottyComment
-
No shit…Sherlock
In post #23 I forgot to attach the service motion that I was analyzing. Here it is…frame #77 he is ducking under the ball but it isn't as apparent as in the next clip that I post further down the page.
Originally posted by licensedcoach View PostYou're damn straight. It has been a great discussion.Originally posted by bottle View Post
I was going to say the very same thing…this isn't over. But it will be soon.Originally posted by nickw View Post
What makes a perfect serve…I asked myself.
Originally posted by don_budge View Post
When I finally took a look at the Greg Rusedski service motion to see what all the fuss was about it looked to me to be perfect. I was pretty mesmerised by his long, rhythmic and wide backswing. Afterall…with such a great backswing what can go wrong?Originally posted by don_budge View Post
So I started to look at it frame by frame and it still looked to be perfect. Right up until the frame just before contact where he appears to look into the court. But as I looked at it repetitive times it occurred to me that it was flawed…fundamentally so. Nick makes some great points in this regard…points about perhaps not fulfilling all of his potential.
In my analysis you can see that I was starting to hedge a bit in my last paragraph when I finally posed the question about moving the foot forwards. I was going to rewrite the post but decided to leave it as it was to illustrate the process I was going through to analyze it…as if anyone cares. But there's the culprit…it isn't the head. The head is actually a product of the forwards movement of the foot and as I also questioned the fact that he does not throw the ball into the court far enough.
Take a look at this angle...
Take 58 clicks with the right arrow key from the beginning of the clip and you will see what I am talking about. It isn't that Greg is pulling his head down…he is ducking. He is ducking because his back foot moving forwards has moved him too close to the ball and this is aggravated by his not throwing the ball far enough into the court. He is ducking and not jackknifing. At 58 clicks you will see that the ball is perhaps over his front toe as he is airborne into the court. If he hadn't leaped he might have been in better shape as far as staying behind the ball somewhat better. He may even deliver a bigger payload to the ball as Nick suggested.
Interesting case…Greg Rusedski. The motion in real time looks as good as it gets. But in frame by frame analysis it reveals that there is a fundamental flaw. It is one of footwork and perhaps faulty toss mechanics. As Nick points out he does hold serve a good percentage of the time…but now the question is…how good could it have been? It's a question we will never be privy to the answer.
Best Regards…
sherlock_holmes
Here's another look at another left handed serve…circa 1978. This is/was a "perfect" service motion…as taught by "The Man" himself. J. Donald Budge. Look where the ball is in relation to my front toe. I promise you there won't be any ducking going on here…just full extension to the ball.Comment
-
Krajicek wins this competition hands down. Silky smooth from the big dutchman. Will take that motion over any other player, any day of the week, Poetry in motion.Originally posted by licensedcoach View PostI am really taken by don_budge's analysis of the Rusedski serve. It shows to assess a serve well you are better to break it down piece by piece, click by click.
I think Krajicek has a beautiful serve, perhaps one of the most beautiful ever. He keeps his head up longer than Rusedski and, close to execution, the motion looks a little more silky. I just love the way Krajicek rocks back and bounces off the back foot like that...amazing.
The two serves aren't dissimilar in set up, etc.
I see a jolt in Rusedski's serve around contact, more than jack-knifing.
Kudos being sent directly to Sweden. Great analysis by don_budge on Rusedski serve. no "Lagom" here, insights above and beyond and always appreciated.
Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca RatonComment
-
Yes, you're right. It's forced situation. Rusedski has to duck at 58 as there is no other option....remarkably good diagnosis.Originally posted by don_budge View Post
Take 58 clicks with the right arrow key from the beginning of the clip and you will see what I am talking about. It isn't that Greg is pulling his head down…he is ducking. He is ducking because his back foot moving forwards has moved him too close to the ball and this is aggravated by his not throwing the ball far enough into the court. He is ducking and not jackknifing. At 58 clicks you will see that the ball is perhaps over his front toe as he is airborne into the court. If he hadn't leaped he might have been in better shape as far as staying behind the ball somewhat better. He may even deliver a bigger payload to the ball as Nick suggested.
Compare it to Federer's serve at the same point in the action: http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/...LevelSide2.mov
Regards, WatsonStottyComment
-
Wow, it's so clear from the side on shot! Great analysis don_budge. Shocked that he has this flaw in his serve, had to check all the other Rusedski side on shots in the archive, but sure enough, 1st and 2nd serve, the same thing comes up every time.
No wonder he appears jack-knifed when the ball is behind his head at contact, but I don't think his body position at contact differs much from the Krajicek and Federer examples, the difference is the ball is almost behind Rusedski's head at contact, and just in front with the others.
So is it the same thing with Pat Cash? Appears not from the original link that Phil posted, when you pause the clip at contact, Cash has better extension and the ball is certainly further in front than Rusedski manages (but not as far as Krajicek and Federer), but this was a recent clip and not from his playing days. ATP stats don't cover every match he played, but from the 748 service games they do have records for, his 1st serve percentage was also 58% like Rusedski, and he was double-faulting roughly once every 3 service games.Comment
-
nickw et al. …on Tennis and Golf. What makes the Perfect Serve?
Originally posted by nickw View Postnickw…you are pretty new here on the forum and I find your comments consistently worthy of "discussion". Guys like Stotty, bottle, tennis_chiro, klacr, 10splayer, stroke, gzhpcu, lobndropshot and myself are more or less old news. We know each other pretty much from the years we have spent here on the forum. So in a sense we have learned to anticipate what each other's responses may be. Although…as you suggest there are always surprises in store for us.Originally posted by nickw View Post
I took my first golf lesson on my 40th birthday. It was a humbling and humiliating experience obviously after having experienced a certain level of success playing tennis. But it was a new beginning…a breath of fresh air. Reincarnation. Fyodor Dostoyevsky wrote that "The second half of a man's life is made up of nothing but the habits he has acquired during the first half." I didn't want that to be said of my life…I set about acquiring a whole new set of habits. We can play games within ourselves it seems.
But anyways…the point is I always say that I have learned more about teaching tennis from learning to play, playing and teaching golf than I ever did from playing tennis. Understanding the swing mechanics of a golf swing are very similar to those of the swings in tennis. As a result…each and every swing is a series of six positions that when put together represent a motion. That motion might invariably be described as the Nike "swoosh". My positions are very similar to those of Welby Van Horn's positions that he theorized in his teaching paradigm. John Yandell himself is very similar in his teaching methods.
So I am not necessarily recommending anything or something to you with regards to teaching. I am not necessarily offering my advice to you. All that I am saying is that if I was a young British guy who has excelled in tennis I might seriously consider taking up the game of golf. The game is equally if not more time intensive and demanding. The required ten thousand hours of dedicated time that it takes to master it may be shortened if you know what you are doing…as in the case of an ex-tennisplayer taking up the game from scratch and vice versa. I find that golfers make excellent tennis students…particularly if their tennis teacher just happens to be a golfer as well.
Golf is such a great game that you can actually share with your friends and comrades. Instead of tennis…where you are most likely trying to neuter your opponent and then a perfunctory handshake afterwards.
I think of the serve as an upside down golf swing…but as you can see I can think outside of the box as well as inside of it. We are teeing the ball up and if done correctly we know where that ball is going to be and if our swing is good enough and repeatable enough (read perfect) without any deviation meeting the ball with the sweet spot without actually seeing it happen is not so far fetched. I am not forgetting that watching the ball may just be rule number one in both tennis and golf.
But most certainly it is a case of answers to questions leading to more questions or more answers. It is sort of like that. Tennis is a finite proposition as the game is played in the very limited and precise confines of the tennis court. The lines of a set of tennis courts from high up in an airplane look the same in any part of the world. They are most often even pointed in the same direction…north and south. Only in Sweden have I encountered tennis courts facing east and west because of the low sun at certain times of the year. Whereas golf is a nearly infinite proposition as you may play the same golf course an infinite number of times and you will never play it the same way twice. The golf course offers an infinite number of possibilities with its random nature. No two golf courses will look the same from high up in an airplane…either.
In summary…I truly believe that tennis and golf are both God's gift to mankind in terms of recreation. No other sports test a man on the physical, mental, emotional and spiritual levels that these two endeavours do. I read once a very long time ago in "Psychology Today" that "Tennis is a sport where the racquets symbolically represent rapiers and the balls represent the player's testicles and the two opponents are trying to castrate each other. Golf is a sport where the contestant is trying to avoid committing suicide".
It's sort of strange but in golf the ball is lying very, very still. Yet one of the biggest challenges for the beginner to grasp is the idea of "ball placement". The stupid thing is laying there…how difficult can it be? Try it sometime…as you suggested we attempt your serving tip. It is frightfully difficult to get that damned ball to behave because for every single shot there is one point in time and space where everything will be perfect…much as in the case in tennis shots. In the case of Greg Rusedski he has a fundamental problem and his problem is one of ball placement. The way that he tosses the ball and moves his body leaves him in a somewhat compromised position when it comes to the moment of truth…impact.
The curious thing about the serving aspect of the game is we have control of the ball from the very beginning to the end of the shot. In this respect we need to understand the golf philosophical kon of trying to avoid committing suicide. The "Holy Grail" of golf begins and ends with the quest of the perfect and repeatable swing. The swing that will hold up under pressure and is forged in steel by fire.
Learning to serve should be much the same…it is a quest for a perfect swing. It is only natural to wonder how much better Greg Rusedski's serve may have been if he had perfect "ball placement". Then you must wonder if his serve was incrementally better…wouldn't it stand to reason that the rest of his game would also be incrementally better? If all of his game was incrementally better what would the overall synergistic effect have had on his overall career? Answers do lead to more questions. What makes the perfect serve? Answer…the perfect motion.
These discussions are very interesting…as bottle said it is "useful". gzhpcu thought that we were missing the point…but then again he likes to stay "on thread". You were thinking like I was…the thing was still evolving. It is recreational and fun in the end. We have sort of made a sport of this forum. Mind game. Mental gymnastics. Not to be confused with some of the other mind games going on in the real world these days such as politics, sex, race and immigration. Human and not so human relations. These lines are constantly changing rendering any sane or rational kind of consistent understanding virtually impossible.
The earth is a ball…a ball in the game. It's a game where the object of the game is to learn the rules.
Nice talking with you…it's been nice talking to all of you as a matter of fact. Thank you.Comment
-
don_budge, thank-you for taking the time to write this post, it means a lot to me. I read it, and then read it again to take everything in.
What to say, I'm glad I can contribute to this forum by provoking thoughts and a desire to discuss, and it's nice that I'm starting to get a sense for the different personalities behind the usernames. It has indeed been a very enjoyable discussion with yourself and the others, and I look forward to many more.
And as for golf, well, as the years pass, I feel ever more drawn to take it up, and your selling of the sport has only helped that. I still have a strong motivation to develop my tennis game further though, so maybe a full on pursuit of the challenge of golf will have to wait a bit longer. I still have a couple of years until my 40th birthday, so maybe I'll follow in your footsteps and get that lesson booked up
Regards to all,
NickComment
Comment