Soderling FH

[airforce1]

Anyone noting how Soderling's FH is taken back pretty extreme,
much like what we were discussing on how girls do it?

[crass_lawner]

Anyone noting how Soderling's FH is taken back pretty extreme,
much like what we were discussing on how girls do it?

Yeah I have noticed that. He looks like Gisella Dulko or something. I think Chardy's may look something like that too. I'm not sure but I think Soderling has one of those between semi- and full-western grips, if not full-western. When players take it back like that I think it results in a flatter swing path, but with those grips you can afford that because the ball will still have enough topspin to stay in the court. I heard some commentator describe Soderling's forehand as a "rugbeater" forehand and I thought that was a pretty apt and amusing description, although I don't think it was intended to be complimentary.

I think there are some funny and descriptive forehand nicknames out there, like Nadal's "buggywhip" forehand, Gasquet's "lasso" forehand, and Gonzo's "nuclear" forehand. And then there's Verdasco's and Andreev's which are usually just described as "massive." Sampras's, like his serve was always kind of like a club.

I definitely think that in general there's a correlation between huge backswings and huge forehands. I was reading somewhere (fuzzy yellow balls I think) that this wasn't the case, and that there was no scientific proof or some crap that big backswings have any correlation to powerful groundstrokes, but I don't buy that for a second. Some people really overestimate science and really underestimate common sense and observation.

Wherever I read this said that, yeah Gonzo has a huge backswing and the hugest forehand ever, but there's no scientific evidence that the two are related in any way. I really don't think that there needs to be any scientific evidence, all you have to do is look at the thing. It's probably possible to hit the ball hard without a big backswing, but in general I think there's a correlation there. They cited Federer as a counterexample, which is a pretty good one because somehow with his weird technique and short backswing he's able to generate a lot of pace, but I still think that Federer's relies much more on depth and placement than pace. Also a lot of his pace often comes from his opponent's racket.

[airforce1]

Some people really overestimate science and really underestimate common sense and observation.

Wherever I read this said that, yeah Gonzo has a huge backswing and the hugest forehand ever, but there's no scientific evidence that the two are related in any way. I really don't think that there needs to be any scientific evidence, all you have to do is look at the thing.

Yes, there is always that period of time before science gets around to studying things to prove it, then after awhile, the scientist come back and re-evaluate their methods and interpretations, with updates and revisions. People need to realize that science is a slow unveiling process, and not a one stop answer. But that is not to say it is not very useful if used properly.

[crass_lawner]

Agreed. I guess it's good that scientists are at least trying to explain some of what goes on in tennis.

[bottle]

Sidearm with Short Backswing but Huge Body Turn

I think Roger hits the crap out of the ball and that you can see just where the major acceleration occurs in some of the new videos recently put up here at TennisPlayer. Those would be the videos where racket head speed exceeded film speed, creating a blur, and a visual effect that his racket broke in two with the frame flying ahead of the handle. This way of playing is a hundred times smarter in that he can swing slowly until very close to the ball, which
results in more control than the other players you mentioned, combined with
speed just as extreme as theirs. I think you could also see a key to how he does it just in his simple hitting of a ball into the stands after the Del Potro and Soderling matches. In one motion the strings go back and forward, with the racket pretty much level and parallel to the court like the stick head during a slap shot in hockey.

It might have been called a "dipsey-doodle" in the time of Helen Wills Moody; nowadays one might just as well call it a "mondo," though I don't know if that term, when used on the tour, means the complete fro and to, or just the fro.

Whatever you call it, you don't want to over-muscle it, or use too much rotation of the whole arm, which clearly (from all videos) ought to occur
after contact, or well before it as in the case of some Venus Williams forehands if anyone thinks that's a good idea. I see the blur as mainly coming from forearm rotation, and don't know if there might be a small amount of forward wrist, too, back to the conventional Eastern laid back position as taught by Vic Braden. I guess anybody using this method has to discover how it precisely works all by himself/herself. Among the other things I compare it to is an infielder's throw to first base, a very accurate yet efficient and powerful throw.

A lot of us have had a running debate (I won't say "argument") about whether
Roger's swing is right to left, left to right, through, or all of these things.
After years of study, I only realized last week how right you are, that the backswing is "short." I guess I had to discover that for myself for that to be meaningful.

Some think the arm goes independent of the body left to right-- not me.
But I can see the early forward body rotation combining with this total mondo
or sidearm action to take things out to the right. The same wipe might go up like a windshield wiper at the very end of the level part, but then I see a dramatic 90-degree change of hand direction from right to left involving the muscle on the outside of the top of the upper arm and the biceps starting to scissor the forearm. I leave the straight arm versions (where the arm stays straight till after contact) to Roger since that hurts and I'm old and I don't understand it and he does the thing both ways so to hell with it-- I've picked the one I like).

[crass_lawner]

I'm not trying to brag or anything, but I think I've been able to hit a forehand using Federer's basic straight arm technique, and if you do it right it doesn't hurt at all. You just have to have a flexible enough wrist to lay it back at the right angle. It's great because you can get excellent pace, control and spin in a relatively simple and compact stroke, but the most difficult part is that you have to keep the racket face at a very precise angle. Actually I think the angle you need is often pretty close to vertical. If it's a bit closed you can miss-hit it or hit it in the net and if it's too open it will surely go long.

Also I think the fact that he has a one handed backhand is very important to his forehand, because it allows him to hold the racket at its throat in a relaxed manner when he's in the ready position, which I think is essential to his take-back and stroke. I know some players w two handed backhands hold their rackets at the throat (Davydenko, Kiefer), but I still think that they are forced to be more tense and rigid when they are in the ready position, since the 2hbh requires more preparation.