Backswings

[worldsbestcoach]

also, important to say

It is important to point out that the way Berdych (and many of today's pros) runs for short balls with his topspin forehand techniques is like a baseball player running wide for a fly ball in the outfield with his or her arm very prematurely stretched out in a ridiculous manner. I have seen Berdych hit some good hook passing shots with his forehand, but often his attempts are embarassing.

[worldsbestcoach]

continued

Berdych is not consitent enough, so that is why he is not in the upper echelon of players. He gets away with his poor technique usually because he has practiced it so much, and he is strong and fit.

But because Berdych gets into that gravity position so early, his racket does not travel much before it makes contact with the ball. Therefore he does not get easy, natural power, but instead must muscle the ball, and do acrobatic leaps that are signs of inefficient biomechanics. Because he gets his racket back too early, he must have slow racket head speed into the ball.

I am not a fan of Berdych's 2-piece, non-continuous motion. He cannot handle wide balls well. He does not handle short balls well. He does not handle shots well that are deep and hard to him. He does not handle shots well that are hit right at him. With his poor technique, he lets balls come to him too much, hitting the balls on the fall, standing far behind the baseline. His poor forehand technique causes him to have poor court positioning, poor court movement, and poor anticipation. (Also, his timing is awful, just like most pros' forehands today.)

Most pros today have forehands that are similar to Berdych's. I am not saying that any era's forehands were necessarily good. Tennis technique will hopefully improve a lot in coming decades. Right now, it is not at a high level on the pro circuits. There is an epidemic of Berdych-like forehands. That is the way coaches teach, so that is what players today learn.

By the way, if you study video of a good player who reacts immediately by tracking the ball with his or her strings, out in front of the body, free hand at throat of racket.....who waits longer than Berdych does to start the backswing.....who has a smooth backswing unlike Berdych's......who has a one-piece, continuous motion......you will see that the player reaches the same point as Berdych does (racket tip up, body coiling, free hand off racket & pointing to sideline).

But the good player I refer to has reached that point of the stroke in a much more fluid manner, with the racket never having to stop and then get started again. That good player can attack the ball out in front of the body more easily, can tighten up the swing to be somewhat of a half volley if necessary, can take balls better on the rise if necessary, can make his or her shots return to the opponent more rapidly, thereby putting the opponent under more pressure.

[worldsbestcoach]

no no no

don budge: It is hard for me to think of a good topspin forehand on the pro circuit today. Dominika Cibulkova has a pretty good motion, but she needs to tighten up her backswing a lot. She needs to not get so sideways sometimes, in such an unnatural manner, so she does not have to fight against her body. She needs to learn to flow forward for short balls better. Even Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray have noticeable flaws in their topspin forehands.

Players do not track (line up) the ball well. They do not use the free hand at the throat of the racket, so that their racket arm tightens up, and they do not have proper control of the racket. Their "unit turn" causes backswings that are too big, which prevent players from attacking the ball enough out in front of their bodies. Their unit turn causes the players to let the ball come to them, as opposed to hitting the ball at the peak of the bounce or on the rise. Their unit-turn, gravity-method, backwards-emphasis topspin forehands cause players to stand ridiculously far behind the baseline. Their technique causes them to have poor court coverage, poor court movement, poor anticipation.

On their follow throughs, they often do not roll the ball forwards enough.....do not hit through the ball with topspin enough. Instead, they have a wild finish that causes mishits and causes the ball to travel far from the intended target. It is like a golf swing that has a finish but not a follow through. Djokovic used to make many errors on his forehand because he would have a wild finish without meeting the ball out in front enough and without rolling the ball towards the target enough....before his wild finish. He seems to have improved that aspect of his game a little, although his forehand is still far from perfect. Isner also tends to make a lot of wild errors on his topspin forehand because Isner has a wild finish often before he follows through, before he rolls the ball forward towards the target.

Tennis Chiro, players who line up the ball with the free hand at the throat of the racket actually do much better moving for short balls, comparing to players who prepare as Berdych does. I see many many points in today's pro tennis in which it is embarassing how poorly today's pros move forward.

Your reference to left-brain and right-brain flies in the face of the most up-to-date information about the human brain.

Most pro players, especially male pros, today have topspin forehands similar to Berdych's. That is why today's forehands are so bad. That is why there are so many unforced errors, such short rallies, so many mishits, so many embarssing shots, so many balls that land closer to the net than to the service line. But that is the technique coaches today espouse, unfortunately.

Let's talk about Berdych. He does not track the ball well with his strings. Instead, he prepares with that unit turn sideways, with his racket back early and his tip up, with his free hand off the racket, sideways to the ball.

Berdych's style makes it difficult to get his racket started again. It is like a service motion in which the player scratches his or her back too early, so then the racket must stop before it starts up again to contact point.

Berdych's swing takes up more room towards the back fence than it does flowing forwards towards the target.

In baseball and golf, the bat or club are taken back smoothly from the intended point of contact, but the unit turn such as Berdych's is not a smooth, natural take-back. Berdych must make considerable adjustments during his swing so that he can hit the ball well. It is too complicated of a motion.

Berdych gets sideways so much, take his racket back so far and so early, that sometimes he embarassingly misses short balls because he fights against his body, or because he almost whiffs short balls that he should get to easily.

TO BE CONTINUED IN MY NEXT POST

[don_budge]

Wbc...

Give one example of a forehand backswing that you like...just for the record. Who do you consider to swing the forehand as a model?

[tennis_chiro]

I agree, but not about Gravity Drop

I am a big fan of holding the tip of the racket as the student is at the end of the backswing. I have been incorporating this technique into my tennis teaching since 1968. So many students try a circular "around" swing with their rackets, instead of having their racket-string force go in a straight line toward impact point with the ball. You can tell whether the student is performing efficiently in a line of force, or is attempting an inefficient circular motion, by holding the tip of the racket at the end of the student's backswing. You can catch the student's frequent misconception of the path that the racket should follow, if you hold the tip of the racket.

I hate the gravity idea. That is the cause of so much trouble with pros' topspin forehands, and of course with so many aspiring players' topspin forehands. Coaches who teach the gravity idea also teach:

-- getting sideways too much, in an unnatural way, with shoulders & hips, rather than a sensible, natural coiling of the body. (It is ok sometimes to coil the hips and shoulders from an open stance.)
-- taking the racket back too early, so that the forehand is not a continuous motion, and so that it is difficult to get the racket started forward.
-- taking the racket back too far on the backswing, so that most of the swing is towards the back fence (huge backswing), rather than forwards towards the opponent (compact backswing that encourages attacking forwards towards the ball).
-- holding the racket only with the racket hand, so that the racket arm tightens up (with resultant loss of control of racket), especially when running for a ball.
-- a contact point with the ball that is too much to the side of the body, rather than in front of the body.
-- an "around" swing rather than a swing that has a direct linear force into the ball.
-- a court-movement that teaches to run sideways towards impact point, instead of wisely getting behind the ball for an impact point that is out in front of the body.
-- a muscling of the ball behind the body, similar to a poor baseball swing, or an over-the-top golf swing, rather than a flip in the swing that is out in front of the body.
-- a sideways position to the impact point, so that players often must perform a too-complex maneuver to get their racket shoulder through the shot, and to face the net as they hit their forehands. In other words, with the "gravity"-type instruction, players often have to fight against & hit against their restrictive sideways body.
-- poor timing in which the racket is taken back too early, so that the only way to hit the ball hard is to try to muscle the ball too much or to try acrobatic, inconsistent twists and leaps. . . .rather than wisely tracking the ball our front with the racket strings, waiting a little longer, and then swinging naturally all at once with a 1-piece motion (preferably with a more compact backswing).

The gravity idea for the backswing of the topspin forehand stroke is the main reason that many pros today on the atp and wta circuits have unnatural & inconsistent forehands. Tomas Berdych is an example of the gravity method. You can see the gravity idea utilized in most of the pro players, and that is one reason why the pro circuits have so many short rallies and mishits. The players do not perform well because they were taught and coached wrong.

WBC,
I have to say I agree with almost all of your bullet points (I don't understand how you would run fast to a forehand with two hands on the racket), but I strongly disagree about the "gravity drop".

First, let's think about what "gravity drop" really means. I tried to look at some 210 fps slomo I have of one of my own advanced students, because I knew the exact frame rate and I had a good angle to consider when and how far the racket dropped. I came up with a little less than 18 inches a little more than a tenth of a second from the time he really started to let the racket accelerate and when it bottomed out before going up towards the contact point.

Then I took a look at some of the high speed slomo JY has posted recently. Unfortunately, the angle was not great for figuring out when to start considering the beginning of the drop or the bottom of the path to the ball. But I got about the same answer over a slightly larger distance for Federer. The old slomo gives a little better angle, but I don't know the fps for that footage.

Then I looked at the regular Stroke Archive which is at what, 29.7fps, the standard for North American video. Again I got a little more than a tenth of a second and perhaps a little more of a drop than my student (who has a problem of not getting enough below the ball). For Berdych, this was maybe 5 or 6 frames compared to about 4 for Federer. This is approximate and I am not taking highest to lowest spots on the swing; I am looking for the spot where I think the player has "released" the racket head.

So let's be generous and consider Berdych at 6 frames or 2/10's of a second (and I think you could find many things that could be improved about Berdych's game, but his forehand is pretty sound, to say the least; in reality, his racket head is not that much more above his head than Fed's when you examine the video carefully; it is higher, but not that much). Over this period of time the racket drops 2 to 3 feet to get below the ball before going forward in its final acceleration to the contact point (perhaps there is some data that Brian Gordon has that more accurately shows the speed of the racket head at different points as was done with the serve; probably in that big article on the forehand he is preparing!).

How much of the racket head speed is contributed by gravity (something I consider essential)? In reality, at the end of 2/10's of a second, gravity can only increase the speed of something with zero resistance to (2/10sec x 32fps/sec =) 6.4 fps, which is about 4.36 mph and 2/10s of a second is very generous, as is assuming no resistance. I think the real contribution is not more than 2 or 3 mph to a swing that meets the ball at upwards of 50 mph.

As for how far gravity drops the racket head, an object allowed to drop from rest falls about 2 inches in the first tenth of a second and about another 6 inches in the next tenth of a second; call it 3 or 4 inches. For me, that 3 or 4 inches is very significant.

And yet, I consider it essential because the feeling created for the body is very "repeatable" and comforting to your musculo-skeletal system; it does make a contribution to speed that is much more than its' raw speed; it helps get the racket started. Your "kinesthetic imaging system" registers the position of the racket head and its' weight as well as its' orientation as it drops and is one of the big advantages of the circular approach to the ball as opposed to the "straight back" method (which is indeed simpler to start someone out with, but, I believe, counterproductive in the long run).

Getting the racket started may not be as important as it is in a golf swing (especially a putt), but it is important; the difference could be compared to the difference between the resistance to accelerating an object supplied by sliding as opposed to static friction; static friction is much greater.

For me, it can be seen as the difference between a right-brained and a left-brained stroke. A swing without the "gravity drop" will be deliberate, even jerky and more left-brained. The smooth circular swing will be more automatic, fluid and right-brained. For the record, the preferred backswing, if I can get it, is a "straight" backswing. That is, since the ready position puts the racket shaft at about 45 degrees with the racket head somewhere between the shoulders and the eyes, I want the racket head to move during the unit turn to a position just off the right shoulder with the tip of the racket head traveling to this position without going up or down. I teach the swing in two parts: unit turn and then the swing. I advocate a very small posterior movement of the racket head relative to the upper body and teh ready position during the unit turn, "connecting" the racket head to the oncoming ball; then in the second part of the swing, the racket head is allowed to drop, but the hand makes very little additional posterior movement although the racket head moves further posterior as the shaft of the racket rotates through about 60 to 75 degrees (admittedly, some pros do take the shaft to a more vertical orientation before beginning the drop, but I like to see it somewhere between approx. 45 and 70 degrees).

don

[nikae]

Just to let you guys know that you are not just talking to yourselves. I am enjoying this dialogue immensely and I'm sure others are as well.

To World's Best Coach( WBC for future reference) thanks for the tip about thinking of the forehand as a powerful half volley --I'm playing both days this weekend ( if no rain) and I'm eager to experiment with the concept.

Cheers,

Glenn

Yup, same here, I don't post much, but I read pretty much everything

[stotty]

The Student

To develop this interesting thread a little further I'd like to point our something that can also be problematic to overcome from the student's perspective:

Students find it very difficult to visualize what the racket is doing once it is behind their body. They often relate the position racket head to the position of their hand. For example, if their racket hand is low they naturally think their racket head must be too...when it is actually high! This can most commonly be seen when teaching players to lower a high backswing. Players often have to be shown video footage to convince them that their backswing is as high the coach is claiming. This is because, I believe, visually they are they are using their hand as the reference point and not the racket head...and - in the case of lowering a backswing - the hand is invariably situated much lower than the racket head.

Even worse visualisation problems are encountered when trying to coach players out of the type of backswing problem referred to in this thread.

I think WBC's half-volley trick is a good method of encouraging a compact stroke. D_B's "push and pulling" method is an brilliant insight for all coaches. But what about visualisation? How can students be made acutely aware of just where that racket is once it travels behind their body?

I often employ a feeder in my lessons to feed balls down one at a time while I stand behind the student and tap their racket with a bamboo stick if it goes beyond a certain point. They soon get the idea and their backswing starts to reduce in no time. The problem is once rallying under normal circumstances, they quickly lose that sense of where their racket head is and in no time.... you're back to where you started!

How can students be made visually aware of exactly where their racket head is once it travels behind their body? Solving this problem solves a lot of others in the process....

[gsheiner]

Just to let you guys know that you are not just talking to yourselves. I am enjoying this dialogue immensely and I'm sure others are as well.

To World's Best Coach( WBC for future reference) thanks for the tip about thinking of the forehand as a powerful half volley --I'm playing both days this weekend ( if no rain) and I'm eager to experiment with the concept.

Cheers,

Glenn

[worldsbestcoach]

additionally

In addition to my "yes and no" comment, immeidately above, in this thread on Backswings, I want to make an important instructional point. If the pupil "gets" the teaching point for a while, but slips back into "incorrect" technique, then 1 of 3 things has happened:

1. The teaching was not adequate. The teaching was not thorough. In other words, the pupil needs to be taught better in some way, or taught longer.

2. The student (right or wrong) does not have total confidence in what the instructor says, so the student psychologically is not committed to the instructor's input.

3. The student is not excited about tennis, and is probably taking the lesson to please his or her parents.

Of course, many tennis coaches, even "expert" and "world class" and certified coaches today, teach wrong things, so that in some cases, the student is smart to ignore somewhat the input from the coach.

[worldsbestcoach]

yes.....and no

I am a big fan of holding the tip of the racket as the student is at the end of the backswing. I have been incorporating this technique into my tennis teaching since 1968. So many students try a circular "around" swing with their rackets, instead of having their racket-string force go in a straight line toward impact point with the ball. You can tell whether the student is performing efficiently in a line of force, or is attempting an inefficient circular motion, by holding the tip of the racket at the end of the student's backswing. You can catch the student's frequent misconception of the path that the racket should follow, if you hold the tip of the racket.

I hate the gravity idea. That is the cause of so much trouble with pros' topspin forehands, and of course with so many aspiring players' topspin forehands. Coaches who teach the gravity idea also teach:

-- getting sideways too much, in an unnatural way, with shoulders & hips, rather than a sensible, natural coiling of the body. (It is ok sometimes to coil the hips and shoulders from an open stance.)
-- taking the racket back too early, so that the forehand is not a continuous motion, and so that it is difficult to get the racket started forward.
-- taking the racket back too far on the backswing, so that most of the swing is towards the back fence (huge backswing), rather than forwards towards the opponent (compact backswing that encourages attacking forwards towards the ball).
-- holding the racket only with the racket hand, so that the racket arm tightens up (with resultant loss of control of racket), especially when running for a ball.
-- a contact point with the ball that is too much to the side of the body, rather than in front of the body.
-- an "around" swing rather than a swing that has a direct linear force into the ball.
-- a court-movement that teaches to run sideways towards impact point, instead of wisely getting behind the ball for an impact point that is out in front of the body.
-- a muscling of the ball behind the body, similar to a poor baseball swing, or an over-the-top golf swing, rather than a flip in the swing that is out in front of the body.
-- a sideways position to the impact point, so that players often must perform a too-complex maneuver to get their racket shoulder through the shot, and to face the net as they hit their forehands. In other words, with the "gravity"-type instruction, players often have to fight against & hit against their restrictive sideways body.
-- poor timing in which the racket is taken back too early, so that the only way to hit the ball hard is to try to muscle the ball too much or to try acrobatic, inconsistent twists and leaps. . . .rather than wisely tracking the ball our front with the racket strings, waiting a little longer, and then swinging naturally all at once with a 1-piece motion (preferably with a more compact backswing).

The gravity idea for the backswing of the topspin forehand stroke is the main reason that many pros today on the atp and wta circuits have unnatural & inconsistent forehands. Tomas Berdych is an example of the gravity method. You can see the gravity idea utilized in most of the pro players, and that is one reason why the pro circuits have so many short rallies and mishits. The players do not perform well because they were taught and coached wrong.

[don_budge]

Dancing by Myself...Billy Idol

I just realized that it may appear that I am talking to myself here. It's not the first time is it? The funny thing is...I know that I am not crazy! At least, I think that I mustn't be.

[don_budge]

Yep...yep...yep.

The more I think about the two posts by WBC and tennis_chiro...the more I like them. The two together become a nice blend...like a fine Columbian coffee.

Catapults and spitballs, Bruce Lee, gravity drops and core motors. Hmmmm. Definitely food for thought.

Yep...yep...yep. It's inevitable that a discussion that begins with the backswing will evolve into something else. That's a good conversation...in my book.

[don_budge]

Catapulting and Bruce Lee...

The media unquestioningly listens to and passes on information from self-interested press releases and from biased scientists who say "the research shows ..." (even when the research does not show). Then the wrong information and propaganda thus are relayed to an all-too-accepting public.

Hitting a topspin forehand has elements similar to a catapult.

Anyone criticizing American media can't be all bad...in my book.

Interesting concept of the catapult, worldsbestcoach. It sort of woke me up here.

I was sleeping rather good, too, 6:30 AM Saturday morning in the tranquil Swedish countryside...yesterday the day was equal parts light and dark. Höstdagjamning in Swedish...literally fall day even (as in equal). As we slowly descend into the darkness that is winter in Scandinavia. Melancholy days. Time for some Moody Blues..."Melancholy Man". Thank God for indoor tennis!

I was thinking of standing behind students holding their racquets while they pulled twice then I release the head of the racquet on the third...sending the racquet catapulting forward.

It's true that Bruce Lee could send you into next week with a one inch punch...maybe the next world. The illusion is that he did it with his fist of fury. This is another good example of, "The turn of the hips and shoulders, controlled with the critical "core" strength, is the central force/motor to this movement; in this sense, the racket head is "pulled" along its path by those core muscles"...as tennis_chiro put it.

[don_budge]

Message from tennis_chiro....

The "gravity drop" is also helpful in accelerating the racket head on this "track". don

That was a really good post T_C, I've been mulling it over here...this idea of the "gravity drop" is an interesting part of the swing. Given your background in golf, I am most curious as to how you will explain this little phenomena which I believe to be perhaps the most crucial element in the "timing" of the stroke, as well as helpful...it certainly is in the golf swing. This point, I believe would be where the backswing is transitioning into the forward swing. What's your take?

[don_budge]

Prompting the pull...tug on a rope.

If one can begin their forehand stroke with a pull then this can prevent one from becoming a "pusher". It's much easier to hit out if you have been trained to begin your forward motion with a pull.

To get a student to feel the sensation of pulling on the racquet...get them into position, that is, create the three lines with the feet, shoulders and racquet standing sideways to the net, then standing behind them hold onto their racquet at the end of the head. Instruct them to make two pulls while you are holding on but giving way to their pulling motion, then let go of the racquet head on the third pull and release the racquet head on it's way. It should automatically do what tennis_chiro has described in his flourish.

Sometimes I will take a jump rope and get the students into position (sideways to the net) and have them pull on the rope with both hands on both sides of their bodies while I hold the other end of the rope. Throw in a couple of tosses with a medicine ball from this position too. This seems to help them engage the rest of their muscles from the feet up and discourages just tugging on the racquet with their hand. The pulling is done with a sequence of body parts which eventually transfers all of the generated energy through the wrist into the racquet head...therefore into the ball.

Watching the Federer video I get the impression that he is initiating his forward move with a distinct pulling movement but I like how he limits his flourish by keeping his head and chest on the ball and not spinning wildly out of control to his left...at least until he has essentially finished his stroke or rather his shot. His head seems to freeze in this position for a moment on every shot.

Thanks for sharing, Stotty. Your posts definitely encourage collaboration. Great fun!