Speed and A Tennis Player

[klacr]

Interesting article and study done by Tennis Australia Research Group saying Djokovic and Halep are the fastest male and female players. Also gives list of average speeds and highest speeds. Pretty interesting. Some names lower down than you'd expect, others a bit higher.

http://www.msn.com/en-gb/sport/other/novak-djokovic-and-simona-halep-are-the-fastest-players-in-tennis-find-out-who-made-the-list/ar-AAkVKh2

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

[stotty]

I would chuck this one in the bin. Seems almost outrageous that Raonic and Berdych rank above Federer for speed. The measurements are out, baby.

The 3 metre distance is on the whole a good model for tennis. But over the expanse Monfils wins hands down.

Perhaps most importantly, the first metre is in the player's head, and that really, really counts if a player is quicker in his head than others because a mentally slower person cannot play catch up over 3 metres. In some scenarios I would say Roger is faster around the court than anyone.

Stotty

[klacr]

Good thoughts.

I was a bit shocked when I saw Berdych at 8 and Federer and Nadal lower.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

[don_budge]

Interesting article and study done by Tennis Australia Research Group saying Djokovic and Halep are the fastest male and female players. Also gives list of average speeds and highest speeds. Pretty interesting. Some names lower down than you'd expect, others a bit higher.

http://www.msn.com/en-gb/sport/other/novak-djokovic-and-simona-halep-are-the-fastest-players-in-tennis-find-out-who-made-the-list/ar-AAkVKh2

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

Much ado about nothing. A couple of questions and observations. How were the measurements made? Ever notice how the best players don't seem to be working as hard as the rest of the bunch. Bill Tilden makes this observation as to how easy the top players make it look while the others seem to be scurrying about. Roger Federer doesn't have to move as fast because he is more often than not on the attack. He has the time to line up his shot. He has a better feel for the play and he arrives at where the ball is going to be hit...before it is hit. Anticipation.

The article by itself says next to nothing...there is a lot of clarification to be made.

[klacr]

Fair enough don_budge. I would like to know exactly how they determined this and what was their own hypothesis.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

[hockeyscout]

Interesting article and study done by Tennis Australia Research Group saying Djokovic and Halep are the fastest male and female players. Also gives list of average speeds and highest speeds. Pretty interesting. Some names lower down than you'd expect, others a bit higher.

http://www.msn.com/en-gb/sport/other...ist/ar-AAkVKh2

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

The time make perfect sense to me. Roger Federer is not a great mover - never has been and never will be. I've said this many, many times on here, and no one believes it.

Where Roger is good, is his stance. His feet are wider apart than anyone else, and that makes the court smaller for him. Simple.

And his reads on the ball are terrific, he gets a jump on the ball before anyone else and is practicly walking to position a lot of the time.

And, most importantly in tennis (like it is in down hill skiing) his collarbone positioning is immaculate (it must be a Swiss thing) and he is the best at engaging his shoulders as he gets to position which ensures a rather nice hip drop down to contact.

What you eye see's is a nice flow (especially eliptically) with Roger, so it fools you. There is not a lot of breaks, or disconnects (with the exception of his ankles which I do not like ... his collarbone saves his ass here, and I have never seen any athlete ever pull off what Roger has done. I imagine that is why his back is going on him now a bit, and likely his team is working on correcting that hip - ankle issues are related to hips by the way and can be fixed).

Agassi was slow, but, again, wide feet, and knew how to stop, start, drop his hips and control center of gravity better than anyone else.

Collarbone positioning, so important in tennis, if you can't engage your shoulders correctly (as Roger does when he preps, he is the best in the business), keep the collarbone stable (as Roger does) you will never get your hip into the right slot to fire. And, if the hip is not opened up and activated, you will be arming the ball which is never good.

Speed is only good if you have been trained how to use it, when and how (or you have a perfect storm where that magically falls into place by being a member of the lucky sperm club).

Great speed without the ability to move laterally, accelerate, decellerate, ect ... so useless.

If you have great speed but don't have the rhythm to flow into space, forget it.

Roger always flows into space perfectly ... for a white man, he has great timing.

Life is all about timing and when it happens things kind of take care of themselves and fall into place.

[don_budge]

And, most importantly in tennis (like it is in down hill skiing) his collarbone positioning is immaculate (it must be a Swiss thing) and he is the best at engaging his shoulders as he gets to position which ensures a rather nice hip drop down to contact.

Roger always flows into space perfectly ... for a white man, he has great timing.

Life is all about timing and when it happens things kind of take care of themselves and fall into place.

Good stuff...what do you mean by collarbone positioning? I think this is something that I emphasize but in another form...please clarify. Thank you.

[don_budge]

Perhaps most importantly, the first metre is in the player's head, and that really, really counts if a player is quicker in his head than others because a mentally slower person cannot play catch up over 3 metres. In some scenarios I would say Roger is faster around the court than anyone.
Stotty

The first meter is in the player's head. So, so true. Nobody reads the play better than Roger Federer...with Djokovic, Nadal and Murray close behind. A couple of things regarding the Federer career...that may have had consequences. Number one is his failure to change his equipment until it was five years too late. Roger was playing with equipment that averaged 12% smaller racquet face than his nearest competition. Number two...which exacerbated number one is the the was a half a step slower the last few years.

Federer played and read the game through the eyes of the classic model with the modern equipment. He was the last great player to have the whole package. His defeat of Pete Sampras in the quarterfinals of the 2001 Wimbledon spelled the end of an era and was perhaps the last time that serve and volley was performed at that level. This is a different kind of speed. Speed in tennis is an important factor and certainly one that if one lacks it it will cost the player in terms of undeveloped potential. But to say that one player is faster over a 3 meter expanse by itself is rather meaningless.

For sure...always keep in mind, "the first meter is in the player's head". hockeyscout further expands upon this first meter with the posture and stance from which the player begins this explosive yet fluid move. Total body...and mind engagement.

Interesting article klacr...it provokes some rather interesting and important discussion. We were have this discussion some time back when we were discussing the development of the young Canadian.

[bdole]

The time make perfect sense to me. Roger Federer is not a great mover - never has been and never will be. I've said this many, many times on here, and no one believes it.

Where Roger is good, is his stance. His feet are wider apart than anyone else, and that makes the court smaller for him. Simple.

And his reads on the ball are terrific, he gets a jump on the ball before anyone else and is practicly walking to position a lot of the time.

And, most importantly in tennis (like it is in down hill skiing) his collarbone positioning is immaculate (it must be a Swiss thing) and he is the best at engaging his shoulders as he gets to position which ensures a rather nice hip drop down to contact.

What you eye see's is a nice flow (especially eliptically) with Roger, so it fools you. There is not a lot of breaks, or disconnects (with the exception of his ankles which I do not like ... his collarbone saves his ass here, and I have never seen any athlete ever pull off what Roger has done. I imagine that is why his back is going on him now a bit, and likely his team is working on correcting that hip - ankle issues are related to hips by the way and can be fixed).

Agassi was slow, but, again, wide feet, and knew how to stop, start, drop his hips and control center of gravity better than anyone else.

Collarbone positioning, so important in tennis, if you can't engage your shoulders correctly (as Roger does when he preps, he is the best in the business), keep the collarbone stable (as Roger does) you will never get your hip into the right slot to fire. And, if the hip is not opened up and activated, you will be arming the ball which is never good.

Speed is only good if you have been trained how to use it, when and how (or you have a perfect storm where that magically falls into place by being a member of the lucky sperm club).

Great speed without the ability to move laterally, accelerate, decellerate, ect ... so useless.

If you have great speed but don't have the rhythm to flow into space, forget it.

Roger always flows into space perfectly ... for a white man, he has great timing.

Life is all about timing and when it happens things kind of take care of themselves and fall into place.

Ok, devil's advocate here. You say Roger is not a good mover, don't explain why, and then write multiple paragraphs about the movement qualities at which he is the best!?

Are you saying he's slow versus someone like Monfils? Because his footwork and movement are textbook. David Bailey created a comprehensive footwork system (excellent btw) it would seem that is almost entirely based off Roger's approach to different shots.

[stotty]

The first meter is in the player's head. So, so true. Nobody reads the play better than Roger Federer...with Djokovic.

Interesting article klacr...it provokes some rather interesting and important discussion.

Perhaps something worth noting is an experience of mine. Many years ago, in a doubles match, my partner and I played and up and coming player with a 120mph first serve. It is really the one and only time I have faced such a fast serve.

The first set whooshed by and I hardly got a racket on any of his serves. But then gradually I started to "tune in" to the pace. My perception went up a notch, and by the end of the second set I was able to read and return a erasable portion of his serves. I developed the ability to do this over the course of two sets. But that's tennis for you, isn't it? Reading the game, perceiving the game is at least half the battle. It's a key separator between one standard of play and the standard above.

We lost the match in two straight I regret to add.

Stotty

[hockeyscout]

Good stuff...what do you mean by collarbone positioning? I think this is something that I emphasize but in another form...please clarify. Thank you.

Collarbone above the net, is a simple term I would use with a ten year old.

To often, players drop the collarbone to the ball (especially low balls). They simply cannot get there hip into the right slot position to play the ball properly.

Deep squats, its a real issue for this generation of kids because they are always sitting in class, playing video games or doing things that produce bad posture.

I NEVER allow my two kids to EVER use a ball bin to pick up balls. Each and every ball they enter they get into position on, and practice a shadow stroke and in one smooth motion pick up the ball. Four at a time, pop, pop, pop and pop, and they go right through the ball as they are picking it up, and have there collarbone going over the net as they finish. Most kids you get doing that drill, and they are so set up badly that they will face their collarbone and eyes to the ground. Ideally, with a high end player they will look at the back of the ball (and not the top), if they are seeing the back of the ball and moving there hand through the ball and finishing with a nice engaged extension of there shoulder, you know you are on the right track.

You played baseball, you understand how good someone like Ozzy Smith is picking up a ground ball and in one motion throwing to first base. That same motion needs to be thoughtfully built into tennis players, and if it is, I think the hands are automatically 100 percent better.

Or, often times you see a player running for a ball wide or short, and they will reach. Ozzie Smith isn't reaching - he is getting his hips to positioning, and eliptically getting into the right spot each and every time (close to what Federer is doing). Anyways, that's not technically reaching for the ball, its just poor hip placement. So many players refuse to run through the ball, and they love to reach. Reaching is a result of hips being to far back, and the athlete thinking with there shoulder. Often times you will even see athletes throw that racket in behind them and think they can generate power off their rotator cuff. Its a major issue in womans tennis for a number of reasons.

[hockeyscout]

Ok, devil's advocate here. You say Roger is not a good mover, don't explain why, and then write multiple paragraphs about the movement qualities at which he is the best!?

Are you saying he's slow versus someone like Monfils? Because his footwork and movement are textbook. David Bailey created a comprehensive footwork system (excellent btw) it would seem that is almost entirely based off Roger's approach to different shots.

I think David Baily's stuff is nuts.

Federer's movement qualities are not good - but, he's developed great countermeasures to overcome a lot of issues with his ankles.

Counter-measures.

I have never seen an athlete with Federer's ankle supination issues play at such a high level. But, he keeps his feet super wide apart, and that really saves him. He is likely aware of the issue, and knows the solution is to keep his feet wide apart as much as possible. And, he's very relaxed, so, he doesn't turn over the ankle when he is under pressure. The collarbone, its really unique, and his shoulders are as solid as they come. Roger never collapses his collarbone, its always in the right position, and as a result balls will make it over the net as a result.

There was some serious work done with Roger between the ages of 19 to 21 or so, because his whole stroke changed, and a few things became super engaged. I sure would like to know how they managed to do that at such an old age. Remember that old video I posted - doesn't even look like the same player (except for the serve, it looks like that motion has always been spectacular for him).

Roger likely knows his ankles are his achilles heel, and I am sure his team is on top of that aspect 24-7.

[don_budge]

The Sternum and The Clavicle...Keep the Chest on the Ball

Collarbone above the net, is a simple term I would use with a ten year old.

To often, players drop the collarbone to the ball (especially low balls). They simply cannot get there hip into the right slot position to play the ball properly.

Deep squats, its a real issue for this generation of kids because they are always sitting in class, playing video games or doing things that produce bad posture.

I NEVER allow my two kids to EVER use a ball bin to pick up balls. Each and every ball they enter they get into position on, and practice a shadow stroke and in one smooth motion pick up the ball. Four at a time, pop, pop, pop and pop, and they go right through the ball as they are picking it up, and have there collarbone going over the net as they finish. Most kids you get doing that drill, and they are so set up badly that they will face their collarbone and eyes to the ground. Ideally, with a high end player they will look at the back of the ball (and not the top), if they are seeing the back of the ball and moving there hand through the ball and finishing with a nice engaged extension of there shoulder, you know you are on the right track.

You played baseball, you understand how good someone like Ozzy Smith is picking up a ground ball and in one motion throwing to first base. That same motion needs to be thoughtfully built into tennis players, and if it is, I think the hands are automatically 100 percent better.

Or, often times you see a player running for a ball wide or short, and they will reach. Ozzie Smith isn't reaching - he is getting his hips to positioning, and eliptically getting into the right spot each and every time (close to what Federer is doing). Anyways, that's not technically reaching for the ball, its just poor hip placement. So many players refuse to run through the ball, and they love to reach. Reaching is a result of hips being to far back, and the athlete thinking with there shoulder. Often times you will even see athletes throw that racket in behind them and think they can generate power off their rotator cuff. Its a major issue in womans tennis for a number of reasons.

Yeah...good stuff. I spend more time talking about the feet, hips and shoulders than I do about the racquet. Chest on the ball. I speak of taking the racquet back with the sternum. The collar bone is an excellent cueing point and I will start using this immediately. The clavicle makes an excellent line to work with and I am always trying to get the student to imagine lines in their setups and swings. When I am talking to students about their shoulders they sometimes have a difficult time thinking of them working together. This is particularly true when I am teaching them the volley...it's kind of sickening watching them trying to dip a shoulder into the ball one at a time instead of them working together. But square the collar bone on the ball...we'll see.

The best golf tip I ever got was simply to "keep your chest on the ball". I'll never forget how later on in the week I shot 67 in the final round of our league championships to win. I was 53 in a 35 and over league. Playing "down" as usual. The opposite of sand bagging. I was thinking sternum and the clavicle fits right in with this concept.

Your damn right about Ozzie Smith...my father played shortstop in the Detroit Tiger system. I just love that shortstop position. Each move is dependent upon the move before it. If you don't get down into position how in the hell can you expect to make a good fluid turn to the ball.

Thanks for that explanation.

[hockeyscout]

No problem.