Interactive Forum December 2016 David Goffin Forehand

[johnyandell]

David Goffin Forehand

At age 25 David Goffin is hovering on the edge of the top 10. And his forehand is certainly a major reason why. So let’s take a look.

To the naked eye it appears flamboyant with a high backswing and exaggerated wrist flex in the followthrough. But what about high speed video and the core positions in the stroke itself?

Your thoughts please!

[johnyandell]

MP4 Version - David Goffin Forehand

[hockeyscout]

Its a small clip - but, such ugly work. What is so tough about stepping to the ball? Such poor balance. With his footwork and stance he'd get dropped on his ass so quickly in the NHL, NBA, NFL or MMA. He'd never hit or catch a ball in MLB action with that type of movement. Hate to always compare tennis players to other sports - but, thats where the game is headed. The top 500 hockey player in the world is always balanced. A top 10 guy in tennis is suspect. Thats crazy. I wonder how good some of these guys would be if they focused on footwork and positioning more than hitting a ball. Everything, so ball and racket focused these days because you can hit all day with these new rackets and go at it mindlessly and still be competitive. Hate how this guy moves, and never keeps his feet apart. Just despise the hopping laterally, and pulling his feet together instead of staying wide and crabbing. Tennis is such a simple game ... but, pro's in clips like this make it so complex. Not a big fan.

[bottle]

This is what I would call a waterwheel forehand. I will refrain from condemning it since hockeyscout already has done so, and David Goffin seems like a pretty good player to me.

hockeyscout's criticisms have to do with movement, balance and body rotation, all great secondary additives to a waterwheel in my view.

My central focus, by contrast, is on arm movement. And I can't right now see the advantage in forming one's waterwheel with hitting hand so far forward.

If one's hand were farther back on the perimeter one could just use gravity to start the backward turn of the waterwheel which would make things a bit more economical.

But I have respect for Goffin. And want to steal any of his magic if not thunder that I can. Hey, I'm a recreational player. I'd be grateful for any small favors.

As a result of seeing these clips I now envision a series of self-feeds in which one adopts different starting points on one's waterwheel before one switches it on. But I don't like the ellipsis in either Goffin's or Lendl's forehand. A round
not squished circle for me, please.

[stotty]

An incredibly well-balanced and skilful player in my view. I saw him at Wimbledon earlier this year. A better striker of a ball you will not see. He's built like matchstick. I doubt he weighs 10 stone. But he hits the ball so sweetly and out of the middle.

His forehand is the typically modern type with elbows raising up a little at the start of the backswing. His backswing is a little higher than most coaches teach it so it probably ended up getting that high by itself. I like his forehand, overall.

Stotty

[bottle]

More About Waterwheels

Yup, that rising elbow creates waterwheels. But should that circle on edge be oblong in the back fence-front fence direction? The design idea I'm pursuing is A) a perfect circle that keeps racket more to the side than take racket way deep in the slot.

Or B) oblong but oblong in the vertical dimension, i.e., higher and lower than a perfect circle. That design uses even more gravity to "create zero," viz., falling arm work that uses little or no muscle to produce double-ending acceleration for maximum efficiency.

Body with its various tricks then provides all heft for a shot distorted this way and that from the vertical wheel set on its edge.

Some waterwheels can turn under from level shoulders only, others from shoulder lowering at the same time-- no?

Anticipated answer: "I guess so."

One thing is for sure: The circularly falling hand and strings should come down right behind the ball not under it.

[klacr]

Despite his physical struggles as hockeyscout points out, Goffin seems to make due with what he has. #11 in the world is no slouch.

His left arm stretch is solid when he does reach for it, looks as if he keeps it bent until the ball bounce, then is able to fully extend it.

He tilts that racquet tip forward on the backswing while his elbow goes into a steep bend position. He configures the racquet and grip to be in perfect alignment with his forearm on the take back, delaying the wrist lay back. It's the classic double bend at contact although I'm not thrilled with his extension.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

[bdole]

The wrist flexion on the downswing reminds me of Murray.
Good points on the movement, hockeyscout. Seems with the right coach, Goffin has a lot of room to grow.

[hockeyscout]

Despite his physical struggles as hockeyscout points out, Goffin seems to make due with what he has. #11 in the world is no slouch.

His left arm stretch is solid when he does reach for it, looks as if he keeps it bent until the ball bounce, then is able to fully extend it.

He tilts that racquet tip forward on the backswing while his elbow goes into a steep bend position. He configures the racquet and grip to be in perfect alignment with his forearm on the take back, delaying the wrist lay back. It's the classic double bend at contact although I'm not thrilled with his extension.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

"Despite his physical struggles as hockeyscout points out, Goffin seems to make due with what he has. #11 in the world is no slouch."

YOU HIT THAT NAIL ON THE HEAD. Incredible, world number 11. Kid must read the game incredibly well - can't say I have watched him much.

"I'm not thrilled with his extension."

Hips, hips, hips and movement. Not likely to ever get that extension without a ton of physical work. His shoulders look pretty functional, but, the foot to hand connection hasn't been patterned very well. But, that is the great difficulty of coaching, hip - hand eye - foot striking, all one unit. Its to bad, because he gives his opponent a lot of time which is something a small, light and frail man cannot afford to do against the big boys.

Anyways, its easy to be a critic. But, clearly in some areas of his development they did a remarkable job, and quite possibly in other areas they got all they could get out of the genetic piece of material they are working with (very probably, I would hope). Or, maybe they understood some areas very well (likely how to play the game or placement), and didn't get the others (movement, for instance).

All of this is just guessing on my part as I didn't work with the guy for ten to fifteen years to really have an idea.

Likely a guy like me could improve him physically a ton, but, ensuring I don't mess with his timing would be the thing that would concern me. You can build an athlete a new body that is great in terms of functionality, but if that athlete is not aware of (a) how to maintain it when you are done with him and keep your skillsets in place and (b) arriving a step or two ahead of what he is used to -- that is a problem.

I have a friend who ran in the Olympics, and he used an old Nautilus machine in college that the football players used. Guy used it for four years, and then never used it again when he turned pro. I was a bit stunned, but, he claimed he held the nuerology fine (somehow). Years later, he knows he should not have changed that regiment, and didn't replace it with something better but he was a gifted athlete and the work he cued up in college held up somehow as he was durable and not injured to often. Anyways, I am rebuilding that machine now as it was brilliant. It enables the glut - hamstring. Goffin could really use it! The whole Nautilus program was brilliant, except athletes needed to much time to use it and coaches were lazy in adapting the full line because it took to much time. Oh well, time is never an issue for me or my kids - we enjoy playing around with things, including reading this site.

[hockeyscout]

Waiting in anticipation for Mr. Budge's commentary. (-:

[don_budge]

What is so tough about stepping to the ball? Such poor balance.

Not a big fan.

A hockeyscout with a classic tennis player in mind. What is so tough about stepping to the ball? He steps into one of these forehands...out of how many? Fifteen?

But this is how the game is being taught and how it is being played in the modern era. Tennis players don't even play doubles anymore and it used to be a large staple to the game. Going forwards is no longer a variable in the equation. I like David Goffin in one sense...he competes well. But in the end his is just another cookie out of the cookie cutter assembly line. Just typical...nothing special. A big racquet...solid ground strokes and pretty darn good at scurrying around the baseline. He has a two handed backhand as you well know.

A rather typical modern day forehand given the engineering variables ever present in the game today. Slow and high bouncing court surfaces...the accompanying strings equals the swing of the day. The huge backswing? A compensation for his lack of height? He plays bigger with the high backswing and the strong grip. Nothing new here.

Man up. Step to the ball and at least consider the possibility of following to the net. Is it too much to ask? It might be given the engineering.

[don_budge]

"Despite his physical struggles as hockeyscout points out, Goffin seems to make due with what he has. #11 in the world is no slouch."

YOU HIT THAT NAIL ON THE HEAD. Incredible, world number 11. Kid must read the game incredibly well - can't say I have watched him much.

Hips, hips, hips and movement.

Number 11 in the world. Yep...it sounds impressive. But guess what...the talent pool is so watered down. It just could be that the number 11 ranking is a giant misnomer. I think hockeyscout has some pretty revealing points. The criticism sounds harsh but is it? I hate the footwork too...and if I hate the footwork what is there to like in the hips?

The sport of tennis has devolved into a dumbed down version of the original game. Guys like Goffin would be cat food in the old paradigm. McEnroe would eat him alive. Goffins options are so limited by his technique and his grip.

[klacr]

Number 11 in the world. Yep...it sounds impressive. But guess what...the talent pool is so watered down. It just could be that the number 11 ranking is a giant misnomer. I think hockeyscout has some pretty revealing points. The criticism sounds harsh but is it? I hate the footwork too...and if I hate the footwork what is there to like in the hips?

The sport of tennis has devolved into a dumbed down version of the original game. Guys like Goffin would be cat food in the old paradigm. McEnroe would eat him alive. Goffins options are so limited by his technique and his grip.

A wise coach once told me " A players technical foundation influences their tactical options" .

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

[hockeyscout]

Number 11 in the world. Yep...it sounds impressive. But guess what...the talent pool is so watered down. It just could be that the number 11 ranking is a giant misnomer. I think hockeyscout has some pretty revealing points. The criticism sounds harsh but is it? I hate the footwork too...and if I hate the footwork what is there to like in the hips?

The sport of tennis has devolved into a dumbed down version of the original game. Guys like Goffin would be cat food in the old paradigm. McEnroe would eat him alive. Goffins options are so limited by his technique and his grip.

I agree. Some great posts here as usual guys.

[hockeyscout]

His left arm stretch is solid when he does reach for it, looks as if he keeps it bent until the ball bounce, then is able to fully extend it.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

His shoulder engagement is pretty quick there isn't it? Fast twitch muscle fiber. Sure makes up for the technical issues. Anyways, this is why he is late all of the time. Kind of surprised timing is not an issue.