Interactive Forum September 2016: Denis Shapovalov

[hockeyscout]

Yah I will practice both hands with some heavy duty return to serves, and hand feeds where she needs to pop the hip fast. The oldest one is ten, and still young enough to do this, and the young one is young enough where it makes tremendous sense.

[don_budge]

Soft vision. Instinct. Intuition. Calculated risks...rewards. Permutations and Combinations. Awareness. Anticipation. The Big Picture.

What the coach is referring to is called "soft vision", and if you don’t possess it naturally or have coaches who know how to develop - enhance it you won't ever play professionally in any sport. Great soft vision balances a lot of glitches out!

So, Dennis is seeing the ball. Don't worry. His soft vision is TREMENDOUS. It's like Gretzky, he is looking one way, but he is really looking the other way. Or, the guy who is a complete stud at a disco, he's looking one way, but checking out the hot blonde with big breasts figuring out how he's going to wheel her. Animals have it in spades. A bear or a beaver or a cat always knows the score. So, naturally, a highly refined athlete will have these similar traits, and the adaptability to pull things off that don't make scientific sense for mere mortals. It's a trait we're losing as a civilization living in the computer age.

Expanding on this - I would bet you could set up the following scenario - Rafa and Roger in a match - rallying, and Rafa hits the ball. Just as Rafa makes contact and the lights get turned out. In all scenario's Roger will make contact with that next ball. The game is fast. And, the athlete who has the intelligence to understand human movement, and timing, will always have an extra second on any ball, in any sport which is an advantage. Ask any player who plays against Roger, they will say it's like Roger has got an extra half second on the ball. It's no accident, Roger makes the best reads, and isn’t struggling and flailing like everyone else. He see’s it, and gets what happening, maybe even before contact.

By the way, this applies to any sport.

I'm not sure about this, but open to persuasion. I personally think the eyes are of massive importance in tennis and all sports, and the longer and better an athelete can have clear vision of the object and/or target (depending on sport), the more successful they will be able to execute the next move.

If Federer knows where the ball is going at the moment his opponent makes contact, then why does he not split step earlier in order to land on the ground when the opponent makes contact? We've seen on here that pro's are mid-air at the moment the opponent makes contact

https://www.tennisplayer.net/bulleti...the-split-step

and there is a small but significant amount of time after contact before the player lands. You can't move to the ball in mid-air, so if Federer and others are able to know where the ball is going at or before contact, how can they take advantage of that info when they time their split step normally and are still in mid-air?

By the time they land, they will have seen enough of the ball flight to have clear info on where the ball is going. For me, this is where the exceptional skills lie with Federer and others, reading and seeing that ball from the opponents racket extremely early, which of course is developed through the experience of endless hours of training and matchplay.

How much of a factor is reading body movements on groundstrokes to aid anticipation of where the next ball is going? If it is a big factor, how can players use this to give them more time without adjusting the timing of their split step?

Soft vision. Instinct. Intuition. Calculated risks...rewards. Permutations and Combinations. Awareness. Anticipation. The Big Picture.

What is it that gives one player the edge over the other when it comes to reading the play. It is all of these things. Knowing the score...that is what I always say.

When Roger makes contact with the ball on his side of the net he knows within some degree of certainty where the play is going to be next on his side of the court and he immediately positions himself to prepare himself accordingly. The information with his contact and knowing the capabilities of his opponent enables him to calculate instinctively within some degree of certainty the odds of each of the possibilities his opponent is capable of which will be his most likely response. In this manner Roger can rule out a significant amount of the court and focus on the most likely response.

Watching the opponent and his movement might have some bearing on the outcome but basically everything has more or less been decided as soon as Roger hits the ball. It might very some from point to point and from shot to shot. But given the score, the script of the match and the relative weaknesses and relative strengths of the opponent...the tennis player makes some very important decisions based on what he has done to the ball. He knows what kind of spin he has imparted on the ball...he know the speed and placement and he has a pretty darned good idea what his opponent will be able to do with any given shot. This is reading the play. This is what gives a Federer, Nadal, Murray or Djokovic the edge on the field for a number of years. This and their ability to deliver the goods on their side of the net.

The split step is merely the first step in the player's movement to the ball and this is probably going to vary depending upon the situation. Sometimes a player might get down in a crouch ready to spring after the ball and other times he might be executing the textbook split.

The pace of the game demands quick decisions and answers to demanding questions. The players are asking each other "what are you going to do with this?" and the reply is not very far off in the offing. One of the most interesting questions might be "what does the player do when he has no idea where his opponent might go next?"...to which the obvious answer is to guess. But even the guess will be a calculated guess based on the players tendencies and what ever other conditions are in play.

I think that all of the coaches in this discussion has some meaningful input. Very interesting. One of the deciding factors between who is in the top one hundred in the world and who is in the top ten.

[sjhara]

It’s nice to see discussion about eye and head movements as it relates to teaching and coaching tennis.

Eye and head movement before and after contact in the serve can fall in several categories:
Before the toss the movement can range from:

1. Eyes and head following the tossing arm (Jennifer Capriati)
2. Eyes and head moving more noticeably before the tossing arm moves (Stefan Edberg Denis Shapovalov)
3. Eyes and head delayed from the tossing arm motion. (Roger Federer)
4. Eyes and head moving more or less slightly before the tossing arm motion (Pete Sampras Martina Hingis)

After contact the eyes and head can be:
1. Noticeably ahead of the contact (Capriati, Shapovalov)
2. Slightly ahead of contact (Sampras, Federer)


While I think that the gold standard is Pete Sampras, I think it is interesting as coaches to see what may be gained or lost when trying other eye and head search patterns for the serve.

[stotty]

It’s nice to see discussion about eye and head movements as it relates to teaching and coaching tennis.

Eye and head movement before and after contact in the serve can fall in several categories:
Before the toss the movement can range from:

1. Eyes and head following the tossing arm (Jennifer Capriati)
2. Eyes and head moving more noticeably before the tossing arm moves (Stefan Edberg Denis Shapovalov)
3. Eyes and head delayed from the tossing arm motion. (Roger Federer)
4. Eyes and head moving more or less slightly before the tossing arm motion (Pete Sampras Martina Hingis)

After contact the eyes and head can be:
1. Noticeably ahead of the contact (Capriati, Shapovalov)
2. Slightly ahead of contact (Sampras, Federer)


While I think that the gold standard is Pete Sampras, I think it is interesting as coaches to see what may be gained or lost when trying other eye and head search patterns for the serve.

Nice post...interesting. For me the gold standard is Federer. The trick is to keep your eye on the returner for as long as possible so you can pick up his possible motives. I think Federer does this beautifully, as he does all things that require natural intuition. Perhaps the detail that he doesn't rotate away toward the baseline as much as Sampras helps him in this regard....Sampras's tossing arm being in line with the baseline on release makes it a tad trickier to keep his eye on the opponent, perhaps.

Stotty

[johnyandell]

Guys,
Look at Roddick and Rusedski. How would you classify them?

[bottle]

Soft vision. Instinct. Intuition. Calculated risks...rewards. Permutations and Combinations. Awareness. Anticipation. The Big Picture.





Soft vision. Instinct. Intuition. Calculated risks...rewards. Permutations and Combinations. Awareness. Anticipation. The Big Picture.

What is it that gives one player the edge over the other when it comes to reading the play. It is all of these things. Knowing the score...that is what I always say.

When Roger makes contact with the ball on his side of the net he knows within some degree of certainty where the play is going to be next on his side of the court and he immediately positions himself to prepare himself accordingly. The information with his contact and knowing the capabilities of his opponent enables him to calculate instinctively within some degree of certainty the odds of each of the possibilities his opponent is capable of which will be his most likely response. In this manner Roger can rule out a significant amount of the court and focus on the most likely response.

Watching the opponent and his movement might have some bearing on the outcome but basically everything has more or less been decided as soon as Roger hits the ball. It might very some from point to point and from shot to shot. But given the score, the script of the match and the relative weaknesses and relative strengths of the opponent...the tennis player makes some very important decisions based on what he has done to the ball. He knows what kind of spin he has imparted on the ball...he know the speed and placement and he has a pretty darned good idea what his opponent will be able to do with any given shot. This is reading the play. This is what gives a Federer, Nadal, Murray or Djokovic the edge on the field for a number of years. This and their ability to deliver the goods on their side of the net.

The split step is merely the first step in the player's movement to the ball and this is probably going to vary depending upon the situation. Sometimes a player might get down in a crouch ready to spring after the ball and other times he might be executing the textbook split.

The pace of the game demands quick decisions and answers to demanding questions. The players are asking each other "what are you going to do with this?" and the reply is not very far off in the offing. One of the most interesting questions might be "what does the player do when he has no idea where his opponent might go next?"...to which the obvious answer is to guess. But even the guess will be a calculated guess based on the players tendencies and what ever other conditions are in play.

I think that all of the coaches in this discussion has some meaningful input. Very interesting. One of the deciding factors between who is in the top one hundred in the world and who is in the top ten.

Very useful, in my book.

[sjhara]

Nice! I think Andy Roddick and Greg Rusedski are hybrids. Part Sampras and part Capriati.
Why do players use one or another search pattern for the toss?
I agree with Stotty that Federer gains an advantage when he delays the eye and head movement, but it is interesting that in 2014-15 when Federer was looking to energize his tennis not only did he hire Stefan Edberg as a new coach and look for a larger racquet head, he also altered his eye and head movement in his serve-looking more like Sampras. Or at least a hybrid version.
This is a side-by-side of Federer in 2015 and before.
When you watch the warm-up at the 2015 US Open, you see Federer serve a few like Sampras and then switch to the signature Federer eye and head movement (I like the fancy soccer footwork as well).
Why? How much by intention? How much by feel and rhythm?

I agree that this is a sticky topic. When do we look to change things, how do we make those changes, how much do we change (hybrids), and what is gained or lost in those changes?

[stotty]

Nice! I think Andy Roddick and Greg Rusedski are hybrids. Part Sampras and part Capriati.
Why do players use one or another search pattern for the toss?
I agree with Stotty that Federer gains an advantage when he delays the eye and head movement, but it is interesting that in 2014-15 when Federer was looking to energize his tennis not only did he hire Stefan Edberg as a new coach and look for a larger racquet head, he also altered his eye and head movement in his serve-looking more like Sampras. Or at least a hybrid version.
This is a side-by-side of Federer in 2015 and before.
When you watch the warm-up at the 2015 US Open, you see Federer serve a few like Sampras and then switch to the signature Federer eye and head movement (I like the fancy soccer footwork as well).
Why? How much by intention? How much by feel and rhythm?

I am not sure there is any discernible difference between the two side-by-side serves you posted of Federer. He keeps his eye on the returner for the longest possible time and always has done. He may do so a fraction less with a predictable opponent, but against someone like Nadal he likely wants to get an inkling if the wily Spaniard is looking to scoot round and hit a forehand. Federer is immaculate in this regard. He's the best player I have ever seen (other than perhaps McEnroe) when it comes to keeping an eye on his opponent then cutely switching things up...not just on the serve, but every stroke.

Stotty

[sjhara]

Early on in this thread, Stotty, you made what I think was a correct observation, that Denis Shapolova uses an eye and head movement that is early in the tossing motion. And then, at the other end of the spectrum, as you have pointed out there is Federer who gains an advantage by delaying his eye and head movement. Federer has probably always had some version of this pattern and rhythm on his serve-it’s there in video from when he was a junior and when he came on the tour. But I also think he has played around with this pattern and rhythm with slight variations or more noticeable ones as I think happened when he and Edberg began to work together. Nadal, Djokovic, and now Murray among others have also played around with different patterns and rhythms.

I'm wondering is how intentional it is, or is it more about playing around and experimenting with what feels better or feels like it gives some advantage. If it is more intentional, where does it come from-the player internally, the player watching others and copying, or a coach?

So for Denis Shapolova it will be interesting to come back to his serve in time to see if there are changes in this area, and if so for what advantage. And why and how these changes happened.

[stotty]

I'm wondering is how intentional it is, or is it more about playing around and experimenting with what feels better or feels like it gives some advantage. If it is more intentional, where does it come from-the player internally, the player watching others and copying, or a coach?

It's very common for children not to look ahead at the target area at all before they serve. Often this is simply because they are focusing on tossing the ball straight and getting their ducks in a row. The habit can easily remain with them if they aren't coached out of it. I am sure most could do as Federer does because it isn't so much a skill, more something that can be picked up and easily learn. It's probably an overlooked part of the serve.

It's handy to keep your opponent within your field of vision that bit longer if you can. It's one of those things that might work as a slight advantage against some opponents.

Stotty