Backswings

[don_budge]

The Kitchen Sink...

I sense, to a degree, that this discussion is morphing (in a good way) into John's article about what is true.

I have been wondering what John might say about what my take on the "truth" in tennis is. I wonder if he would still be speaking to me...not that he does now.

You say that after teaching the core basics that you allow, and expect, the student to do a little exploration. So, the final product has a degree of individual variation.

Actually I believe that the final product is all about the individual with the coach playing the role of facilitator.

Do you have any experience with using the fixed wrist teaching devices such as the "wrist assist"? If you do, are they only good for beginners?

No experience...but have always liked Greg Norman's golf clothing line, and trust tennis_chiro's recommendations.

How do you handle a student who is a good player but has excessive wrist action that robs them of consistency?

First, they must be convinced that the excessive wrist contributes to the lack of ability to implement tactics...because of unreliable strokes. Second, educate them in Part 3 of Tilden's book..."Match Play Tactics and Tennis Psychology". Finally...a detailed demonstration of how the wrist "works" as a hinge must be clarified to the "wristy" student. Ironically, my epiphany about the wrist came from my golf odyssey...and I could not of had a better teacher, and it has made me a better teacher.

But, how do you defend the youngster who hits with heavy topspin off both sides and , is so much faster, that they can run around almost anything to blast inside out forehands?

My two lone victories in the last twenty years have come on carpet. I have no preference to surface, except that I like clay because of the less destructive tendencies on my fragile body. My tactics are arguably old fashioned clay court which are modified to different surfaces and different opponents. I am comfortable hitting overspin and underspin off of both the forehand and the backhand...heavy topspin on the forehand and heavy underspin on the backhand.. I always tell my students that I am a great lobber and I feel very comfortable hitting the ball softly with placement anywhere in the court. I can drive the ball very effectively and my assortment of off speed stuff makes my drive seem a bit quicker than it actually is. My serve is the keystone to my game and used to be my knockout shot...left handed with a lot of options, including the big slice to the ad court...effective on the deuce as well. Somehow I don't seem to have the huge kick and the flat cannonball that I used to...a result of deteriorating physical condition and possibly the new equipment. I still believe, however, that I can hold my serve.

My tactics against an opponent that you describe would be to first slip him a couple of tranquilizers before our match then I would try to proceed to bore him to death with my tactics.

Seriously, against the opponent you describe you first take away their number one option...much like Djokovic has done against Nadal. Take the air out of the ball. Assuming they have a big forehand, it is important to neutralize this as quickly as possible. Being left handed, whenever the ball is on my backhand I have a number of options because it is very difficult to read what I am going to do with the ball until the last moment. While I don't hit the ball very hard, my placement is very good. I can play the ball short, into the corners or skidding in the midcourt. Against big forehands generated by strong grips...I will give them the ball they least prefer...the low ball sliding away. Shoot for the ankles.

Against these types of players I like to get an idea in the warmup just exactly how far it is they are comfortable running around their forehand. When I come up with this "mark" then many times during points I will shoot for this mark with some combination of spin, speed and placement just beyond the point where they have demonstrated that they are comfortable. I want them to doubt what they believe to be their strongest weapon by rendering it somewhat neutered.

Most of these players are backcourt specialists...so guess what? I am going to bring them to the net whenever that opportunity is available. With their strong forehand grips, the volleys are usually not so dependable and since they are not used to coming to the net, their tactics and approach game tends to be suspect and unreliable. If I can get a few lobs over their heads...they are going to be doing a lot of chasing.

At my age I must put myself in the best possible position for any given response that my opponent can come up with. This involves surrendering a certain area of the court where if my opponent hits it...it is an outright winner for him, at which point I clap my hands and say "great shot". This, of course, I try to not let happen so often. So I surrender the part of the court that percentage wise they will have the least chance of success.

My service game is the key. If I can knock him off balance right away, I try to keep him off balance and make him struggle as much as possible to try and possibly weaken him for his service game. In this regard, some of the points that I lose, I consider won because I am trying to deplete my more energetic opponent to bring him down to my level.

Also remember that the tennis court extends upwards...the only limitation being the ceiling of an indoor court. I try to make use of this space as well. Many times these backcourt specialists are looking great if you try and pound the ball through them but sometimes they begin to look a bit like a fish out of water if you give them a steady diet of high balls at some point with the intent being to destroy their rhythm. Perhaps a combination of high balls and low balls. Once you do that, you have your foot in the door and at this point I am going to throw everything including the kitchen sink at them.


That being said, Glenn, I don't consider myself to be much of a tennis player these days. I had my day in the sun, but in many ways I was challenged in several departments,...economics being one. Tennis players, like race horses, are bought and paid for one way or another.

I am a teacher now and not a player. I love what I am doing. I really don't enjoy playing because of the possibility that I could hurt myself...which would impair my ability to teach. On the other hand, I have played some "lite" competitive doubles which is all kinds of fun. If I don't have to cover as much court and the game is being played at the net, I am a bit more effective. I am still a great lobber and my touch has yet to desert me.

Want to play sometime?

[10splayer]

10sPlayer -- I have watched pro tennis closely, a lot, in person and on tv, since 1968 when tennis went open. I have seen most aspect of pro tennis improve, but some aspects are slipping.

The best player in the women's game, Serena. is liable to go on streaks of mistakes because of the problems of her technique in topspin forehand (which I have described in above posts in this thread), and because of her backhand finish that sometimes does not follow through and roll forward enough through the ball (so the skimmed ball dribbles weakly into the bottom of the net).

And if you have not seen Federer go through stretches of embarassing forehands, you must not know what to look for. In most aspects, tennis is improving somewhat, but playing and coaching still have a long ways to go. The levels are not good. Tennis is just about the most poorly taught sport, even by the supposedly world class "experts." Right now, pro tennis is a boring game, replete with frequent mistakes, and much too frequent instances in which the shot does not go close to where the player was aiming.

Let's look at Coco Vandeweghe. I feel so sorry for her. She is receiving the best coaching that America has to offer, but she is a walking mistake factory. Are her coaches bad? Are her coaches afraid to teach her? I feel sorry for Coco and all the other pro players. Yes, I can even feel sorry for Fed, Novak, and Rafa, because they have never received some important instruction that would really help them.

Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree on the Fed, Nadal, and Novak issue. In fact, I find your claim to be laughable. These are three of the best forehands the atp has ever seen, and I'm certain that you would do nothing but screw them up by micromanaging.

As far as the issue of American teaching------the criticism of American teaching is that too much emphasis is placed on the striking/sending skills and not enough on the receiving/footwork/defensive skills. (and I tend to agree, btw) And the players we have produced in the last ten-fifteen years, (the likes of Agassi, Davenport,Blake,Roddick, Fish, Sampras, etc.) would tend to bear that out.

[tennis_chiro]

Use whatever works!

DonB,

Great answer and a few new tidbits to get my curiosity raging.

First, the wrist issue --your answer makes eminent sense,. I sense, to a degree, that this discussion is morphing (in a good way) into John's article about what is true. You say that after teaching the core basics that you allow, and expect, the student to do a little exploration. So, the final product has a degree of individual variation.

This does lead me to one more set of questions ( the final ones??) about the fixed wrist.

Do you have any experience with using the fixed wrist teaching devices such as the "wrist assist"? If you do, are they only good for beginners? How do you handle a student who is a good player but has excessive wrist action that robs them of consistency?

...
Cheers,

Glenn

I use the Wrist Assist, the Racket Bracket and even Greg Norman's "Secret" to try to get the feeling of hitting with a passive wrist, especially with advanced players. I find they usually hit the ball much better with the device, but then we are doing a limited range of shots and they are not going back and forth from forehand to backhand. But once they get the feel of hitting with the device on, then I am constantly asking them to put the device on "without putting the device on". That is, putting it on in their mind.

I have never really made a student wear one of these things constantly for an extended period of time (weeks or months), but I suspect it might be a good way to break a bad habit, but only if you mixed the discipline with the effort to "put it on without putting it on".

don

[gsheiner]

DonB,

Great answer and a few new tidbits to get my curiosity raging.

First, the wrist issue --your answer makes eminent sense,. I sense, to a degree, that this discussion is morphing (in a good way) into John's article about what is true. You say that after teaching the core basics that you allow, and expect, the student to do a little exploration. So, the final product has a degree of individual variation.

This does lead me to one more set of questions ( the final ones??) about the fixed wrist.

Do you have any experience with using the fixed wrist teaching devices such as the "wrist assist"? If you do, are they only good for beginners? How do you handle a student who is a good player but has excessive wrist action that robs them of consistency?

Now, onto the destruction of the youngster. Your tactics are brilliant and ruthless --
all said with admiration. But, how do you defend the youngster who hits with heavy topspin off both sides and , is so much faster, that they can run around almost anything to blast inside out forehands?

Do you play inside the court and take everything as early as possible? Do you serve and volley and chip and charge to keep the points short? Perhaps a steady dose of forehand slice and drop shots as you mention? Are you playing on hard court or clay?

By the way, we have a legend up in Canada named Bob Bedard --was Canada's best player for many years. Laver apparently had wonderful things to say about him. He was, and still is, a phenomenal athlete, close to 80 now, who in his 60's was still beating good younger players. I had the experience of playing him 15 years ago and after I lost, I walked off the court marvelling at how he had taken away every strength of my game with his tactics. He didn't even hit hard , but the precision and anticipation was stunning.


As for conspiracy theories, I have no great insights worthy of this forum. I do know, that a fellow member of my club , and a very good player, just published a book with his views on the matter.

Cheers,

Glenn

[don_budge]

The "truth" of the matter...is

The answer in tennis is never fixed...unlike the state of the wrist according to Tilden in his description of the half volley. Every player develops what is right and what feels natural for them.

There are fundamentals to be observed and perhaps there are limits to how far something is fundamentally correct until it reaches the point of being "unorthodox" or "quirky" as bottle likes to term it. Even then it may work for the individual. Even being unorthodox is not a reflection of "bad" coaching, it is a reflection on the nature of the game...and the species that plays it. It is an art...and Tilden says as much. Even the limits can be broached effectively. When the Big Guy designed and bequeathed the game for the human race he never said..."Thou shall" or "Thou shalt not". I am not talking about Bill Tilden or even the "other" Bill, when I reference the Big Guy.

I feel that Agassi is very much fundamentally correct in the technique that he produces his forehand and it seems like it is natural for him to take the racquet back and to let the racquet increase its angle gradually without contorting anything about his production. The weight of the racquet head seems to be dictating the flex in his wrist...and it does not seem to be a conscious movement on his part. In fact...the closer that I study this video it looks to me that this additional angle is a result on his "pulling" on the handle of his racquet at the beginning of his forward swing. This also tells us that the backswing is indeed a swing in itself. This may give some credibility to the three parts of the swing theory...where the initiating pull forward or the "gravity drop" is a separate part of the swing in itself. Perhaps this flexing in the backswing is an indication of what will happen eventually in the forward swing after he strikes the ball as the wrist rolls through the action like a hinge. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction...some smart guy said something to that effect once...long ago.

You notice that I put the words of Tilden "stiff wrist" in italics in my original comment. I anticipated your issue. Tilden's concepts were written in ancient times when only wood racquets were in play. Perhaps one of the biggest fundamental differences in stroking tennis balls with a classic wood racquet and the modern equipment of today is the liberal use of the wrist and the manner in which it flexes throughout the stroke. My comments about the "margin for error" meant something to me other than just being glib. These two words seemed to me...a bit outdated. Perhaps he is in error. Perhaps he is wording the instruction for beginners. Perhaps in those days without high speed video this is what it felt like. Whatever the reason...stiff, as a term describing the action of the wrist, even for half volleys, seems a bit inflexible...today.

But then again we were talking about half volleys weren't we? And so was Tilden. Actually we were talking about two different things and perhaps how one is related to the other via WBC's tip. The half volley take away is not as long as the take away for the full stroke and this additional flexing in Agassi's forehand seems to be taking place outside of the parameters of the half volley stroke which may account for the additional flexing as well. I would say the shorter the stroke, the less flexing takes place going back and going through. The shorter the stroke, the quieter the wrist. I'd be willing to bet you that when Agassi is hitting a half volley his angle is approximately 45 degrees...give or take the margin of "artistic license".

This is a good example of one of the golf axioms. It goes as follows that all good golfers look the same at the bottom of their swings...just before and just after striking the ball. They may take it back with some sort of individual deviation or follow through with some bit of a flourish but down at the bottom it is virtually the same for all.

By the way...I am not advocating using the style of the twenties to hit the tennis ball in the present. What I do advocate is teaching solid fundamentals to beginners until they reach the point where they are capable of responsibly "evolving in their own way"...at the point that students have evolved to this extent they are entering the world of tennis somewhat on their own. Left to their own devices. Flying by the seat of their pants...dependent on their ability to maneuver tactically. They definitely become discoverers. Hopefully adhering to the fundamentals technically...which basically have not changed very much as far as I can see. Tennis is not as "weird" a science as it is being made up to be.

Does this explanation even approach answering you question? Which continues to be a good one...and getting better. One of the best aspects of your question is that we are still dealing with the original subject of the thread...backswings. We have meandered a bit, but we are still on target.

I ended up playing singles today and I won my match at the club against a 20 year old...6-2, 6-0. Drank a bit of FitLine before and during the match...trying to revive myself. My energy was a bit low after yesterday. Come to think of it, it was a long week. I wonder how it feels to get beat so badly by a guy who is old enough to be your grandfather. He was a bit tired...but who wouldn't be considering how much he was running? The funny thing is that I never hit the ball harder than I needed to the whole match. I actually used a lot of underspin forehands...playing the tactic of change of speed, spin and direction. I make my opponents run when I could put the ball away...I love to hit the ball just so hard that they can just barely reach it and then I like to send them to the other corner of the court...one of the four. I drop shot and lobbed him at least a dozen times, probably more like twenty. I recognized in the warm up that his options were going to be limited in his answers to my drop shots due to his forehand grip. I set him up with deep balls to his backhand so that I could bring him scurrying forward. Legalized torture. I really had him dancing to my tune.

Nice kid though...he came into my office and we were talking about tennis, golf, American politics and conspiracy theories for a good half hour afterwards. I gave him a bit of coaching. I did correct him when he used the expression "conspiracy theory"...which is a term people generally use when you are getting too close to the "truth".

[gsheiner]

DonB,

"Classic answer"

But, my interest in picking your brain, leads me to post this question which has puzzled me for a long time, and is based on the following observation which I have made.

I'll use agassi's forehand as an example --here is a rear view of arm action.

https://www.tennisplayer.net/tp_player/andre-agassi/

My interpretation is that Agassi takes back his racket with an angle of racket to forearm of approximately 45%. As he gets into the loop the angle increases to 90%.

When you say take back with a fixed wrist are you advocating the take back angle of 45 or 90?

From my look at Tilden's forehand , it looks like Big Bill took it back closer to the 45% angle.

Glenn

[don_budge]

my "real" half-volley...the reality is still Tilden.

I would like to ask you a question though. When you hit your real half volley, do you set the wrist back or do you just keep it neutral and then get wristy at the last second?

The book is Tilden, the model is Gonzalez with the Budge backhand, the coach is Hopman...Federer is living proof.

Such a great question Glenn. From the book, "How to Play Better Tennis, a complete guide to technique and tactics" by Tilden. This is the only "truth" that I need to know.

Tilden discusses the half volley so why not quote him...he says on page 91:

"We come to the trimmings, the shots that are the last word in the game and the strokes that need not be taught. When a player reaches the place where he should use them, he is good enough to evolve his own way to play them, because they are largely a matter of "feel" or tennis instinct. These shots are the half-volley or pickup and the drop shot."

1. The Half-volley or Pickup. Its very name is confusing, and really a misnomer. It is actually a drive, not a volley at all. It is a rising bounce drive, not a volley at all. It is a rising bounce drive played just as the ball starts to rise from the ground, and should be hit with the grip, footwork, backswing, and complete stroke production of the drive...forehand or backhand. Except of course, the ball can't be taken waist-high. The real secret in hitting a half-volley lies in bending the knees, so you crouch over the ball, leaning into the shot and following through to the end of your swing with a flat racquet face and a stiff wrist.

further...

"Since the half-volley is more or less a desperation shot made under pressure, play it for attack, not defense. Hit it firmly, decisively, and fairly hard, moving in with your shot as you make it. If you always regard the shot as a rising bounce drive, played at the earliest possible moment, you can at times use a half-volley as an advancing shot to go to the net behind, but it should only be done if your opponent is far out of court and you are attempting to hurry him to the limit."

further still...

"There is no shot in tennis that requires the perfect split-second timing that the half-volley does. Above all, it demands perfect vision, with the eye never leaving the ball for even an instant."

PS From the comments of Tilden we can see the merit in what WBC's tip offers us...it is grounded in sound tennis fundamentals...especially if you factor in the equipment. The larger racquets, therefore bigger racquet faces, facilitate making the more difficult shots in tennis easier by a factor of some 30% if we use size as the determining factor. Actually its closer to 50% than 30%...isn't it? Even 30% percent in the hands of professionals is a universe of difference...and immoral. Without standardized equipment the game of tennis has lost it's integrity to the discerning aficionado...or "true" student of the game.

PSS Maybe the difficulty in applying this technique on your backhand could be found in the reason that you do not play your half volleys with two hands.

And that's the "truth" according to yours truly don_budge via Bill Tilden...and great question Glenn!

[gsheiner]

DonB,

Now it's my turn to congratulate you. I'm trying to incorporate the same feel on my 2 handed backhand but it's more of a struggle there.

I would like to ask you a question though. When you hit your real half volley, do you set the wrist back or do you just keep it neutral and then get wristy at the last second?

For me, I have a natural neutral wrist on my half volley but have always sort of fixed my wrist back in my forehand takeback. Now, I'm trying to hit my forehand with more of the neutral wrist takeback ( a la Agassi)

Glenn

[don_budge]

Hard forehand half-volleys.

Verbally to the student as I am feeding balls...it is simply put, something like this:

1. Push the racquet with your free hand and create the wrist position and forehand grip (with the initial turn towards the ball) strings pointing at the ball
2. Continue to turn and push the racquet back
3. Create the three lines with the feet, shoulders and the racquet
4. Initiate the swing with a "pull" of the hips and shoulders, then the racquet handle to the ball
5. Swing the "released" racquet head through the path of the ball

gsheiner and Dr. WBC...today I had a chance to play for an hour after three hours of hitting orange and green balls to the kids. I have been having this later in life epiphany about my forehand...tennis_chiro style. I wrote about my 5 point explanation to my students and I have modified for the time being my point number 5...at least for myself. I am afraid the kids don't know how to hit half volleys yet. It now reads...

5. Swing the "released" racquet head through the path of the ball and feel like hitting a hard topspin half volley.

I think that I may of hit my forehand as well as I ever have today...besides serving rather well. My forehand has been improving and this last thought may of been the piece of the puzzle that I have been looking for. Pounded my 17 year old protege, Gustaf into tomorrow 6-2. He and I are playing doubles together in a match against another club tomorrow.

[worldsbestcoach]

of course the very best players can still learn and get better

It is not silly to talk about strengths and weaknesses in even the very best players' tennis games. They say that they can still learn and get better. They want to get even better.

Look at Sampras. Near the end of his ATP career, Sampras had difficulty sometimes with his reverse court backhand volley. If the ball came to Sampras's backhand volley at net from the right-handed opponent's backhand corner, Sampras would unwisely prepare his racket too much to the side of his shoulder (instead of setting his racket out in front of his body). Therefore, Sampras had difficulty in pouncing forward with his volley enough, on the reverse court backhand volley. He would make mistakes, or not hit forcefully enough. Sometimes because he caught the ball late due to his excessively backwards preparation, Sampras would allow the ball to dip too much before he made contact. Thus, his volley attempt would find the net...or, because he would not hit his volley early enough, the opponent would run down the volley.

On the senior circuit, now, Sampras prepares his racket in a better position for this type of shot. Also, I have heard the "expert" commentators even say that Sampras's topspin groundstroke has improved since Sampras retired from the main ATP circuit.

Djokovic has improved his topspin forehand over the past year. He hits it flatter, more offensively, now. Also, I notice that he hits through the ball better. He used to be so quick to follow through over his shoulder or around his body that he would start his finish before he he would get the racket out in front of his body enough. Therefore, his forehand would sail a little bit wide right.

But now Novak does a better job making contact with the ball out front, even if it is only an inch or so further out in front compared to how he often hit it in the past. His racket tip now does not lag so frequently at contact point, compared to how he often hit his forehand in the past. He still sometimes makes that mistake, but not nearly as often.

I could go on and on about the top players improving their games over time. I could give many examples. I do not think that Pete or Novak or Roger would laugh at my comments in this thread. They are smart enough to know that they can still learn and improve, and might profit from fresh ideas, and even from a lesson.

You think what I say is silly. I disagree. It is ok. It is ok to disagree. Also, if most people disagree with me, then I am happy, because to me it means that perhaps my insights are rare and valuable. I stand by my view that the current state of tennis coaching is not at a high level.....even by the supposed most famous of experts .... not that the level of coaching was ever generally high in the sport of tennis.

[gsheiner]

Thanks for the comments DonBudge.(?Don)

This year was my first year in the 55's here in Ontario. I played doubles in the provincials and nationals. I didn't play singles for a couple of reasons ( work being the first, and being in good, but not elite condition, a second)

In the provincials, we lost 6-3 in the third in the semis to the eventual champions. In the nationals , we had an excellent straight set first round win, but suffered a disappointing loss in the second round.

Tennis Canada has been changing their ranking system this past year and has delayed official rankings, but my cohort group would be the guys ranked 5-15.
The top guys are a level above.

The friend I played this weekend lost in the third set to the first seed in the nationals this summer ( although the first seeding was based on the result of the previous year as he was probably the third best player this year)

My doubles partner finished seventh this year.

My main goal for this winter is to improve my baseline rally play as I don't do enough with many balls that are hit to my backhand. I leave too many balls too close to the center of the court. I know that a lot of the problem is footwork based, as I don' t think I quite get behind the ball enough when I'm on the run. Some of it is technique based for sure.

I'm one of those types that is always trying to improve, and I have a little bit of "bottle" in me as I'm known as the great experimenter when it comes to technique.

Thanks again for asking.

Glenn

[don_budge]

Attaboy Glen!

Glenn Sheiner...Great news! It was a tip WBC made that gave you something to think about...that's even better. What was your opponents ranking in which division and which section are you playing in? Just curious. I am really happy for you for your play this weekend. Playing tennis and feeling that you are improving is such a great feeling...especially if you can turn the tables on a guy who is usually the one smiling when you go to the net to shake hands!

[10splayer]

10sPlayer -- I have watched pro tennis closely, a lot, in person and on tv, since 1968 when tennis went open. I have seen most aspect of pro tennis improve, but some aspects are slipping.

The best player in the women's game, Serena. is liable to go on streaks of mistakes because of the problems of her technique in topspin forehand (which I have described in above posts in this thread), and because of her backhand finish that sometimes does not follow through and roll forward enough through the ball (so the skimmed ball dribbles weakly into the bottom of the net).

And if you have not seen Federer go through stretches of embarassing forehands, you must not know what to look for. In most aspects, tennis is improving somewhat, but playing and coaching still have a long ways to go. The levels are not good. Tennis is just about the most poorly taught sport, even by the supposedly world class "experts." Right now, pro tennis is a boring game, replete with frequent mistakes, and much too frequent instances in which the shot does not go close to where the player was aiming.

Let's look at Coco Vandeweghe. I feel so sorry for her. She is receiving the best coaching that America has to offer, but she is a walking mistake factory. Are her coaches bad? Are her coaches afraid to teach her? I feel sorry for Coco and all the other pro players. Yes, I can even feel sorry for Fed, Novak, and Rafa, because they have never received some important instruction that would really help them.

Lol, how are you going to "help" the above mentioned NUMBER ONE ranked players in the world? You're comments are silly, and yet quite illuminating as to your real on court experience.

[worldsbestcoach]

we disagree

10sPlayer -- I have watched pro tennis closely, a lot, in person and on tv, since 1968 when tennis went open. I have seen most aspect of pro tennis improve, but some aspects are slipping.

The best player in the women's game, Serena. is liable to go on streaks of mistakes because of the problems of her technique in topspin forehand (which I have described in above posts in this thread), and because of her backhand finish that sometimes does not follow through and roll forward enough through the ball (so the skimmed ball dribbles weakly into the bottom of the net).

And if you have not seen Federer go through stretches of embarassing forehands, you must not know what to look for. In most aspects, tennis is improving somewhat, but playing and coaching still have a long ways to go. The levels are not good. Tennis is just about the most poorly taught sport, even by the supposedly world class "experts." Right now, pro tennis is a boring game, replete with frequent mistakes, and much too frequent instances in which the shot does not go close to where the player was aiming.

Let's look at Coco Vandeweghe. I feel so sorry for her. She is receiving the best coaching that America has to offer, but she is a walking mistake factory. Are her coaches bad? Are her coaches afraid to teach her? I feel sorry for Coco and all the other pro players. Yes, I can even feel sorry for Fed, Novak, and Rafa, because they have never received some important instruction that would really help them.

[gsheiner]

Thanks for asking.

The experiment was very successful on the forehand. I learned that my technique on the half volley is completely different from my forehand technique.

On the half volley, I essentially turn my core with my right arm hanging loosely. Then , when I have completed my turn and start to turn back, my right arm whips back and then forward creating a whipping action. I feel that I hold my hip action better and that I can continue to rotate my hip after contact.

The whole feel is that I can hit the ball in front without a huge backswing.If I were to think of a pro forehand , it seems like Agassi.

My regular forehand is much more of an arm swing. My preparation on my forehand is geared towards getting my right elbow back into the proper load position and is a much more mechanical type of shot.

Of course, one must see how these changes hold up in competition. On Saturday, I played a friend of mine who is nationally ranked in our age group and who usually beats me 6-3,6-4 ish. The first set I beat him 6-1 and was dominating him with the forehand. Plus, my forehand return was as good as it's ever been.

One of my thoughts is that this technique is essentially what we call a men's forehand technique, while my normal forehand with the early backswing is what we might call the women's technique.

So, for me there's something to this technique and I'm going to continue to explore it.

So, again I want to express my thanks to you and the rest of the gang ( including WBC for this technique) for including so much valuable info in your posts.

Cheers,

Glenn