Some videos of my game

[don_budge]

From Dong_budge...

I am not sure how can I fix my court position, what I am doing wrong? Dong_budge, you think I am too slow with my feet?

I took the liberty of spelling my user name to don_budge from "Dong_budge". Just in case there are any ladies watching. Oh forget it...who cares.

But no I wasn't referring to anything specific about your speed. You see there is a great difference between getting your ass in position and being quick...although being quick is certainly an asset. Good tennis players learn the art of anticipation. Knowing what your opponent can do in any given situation and instinctively leaning or even moving toward the position that you "feel" the shot is going to be. How important is that first step? Cheat when you feel the situation evolving.

I was talking more about the point that klacr says..."I simply tell them to feel or find where they think that contact point/ball impact will be and hold their racquet there. As the student becomes more comfortable with the find position, they can move further back in the court to strike the ball as long as they remember the find position. It's a great confidence booster as well and gets players who may be struggling a bit with timing and control to "get back to basics". I use this method as well on myself when my forehand seems to go on one of its infamous walkabouts."

Finding this point and being in position to receive the ball perfectly is a whole another dimension of the game of tennis. It's a three dimensional playing surface relative to the player and the ball. "Finding" that point and getting there is often the difference between two players where everything else is equal. The player that gets into position more often will find that this makes the difference between winning and losing. It's an intangible factor and one that is well worth discussing as klacr astutely points out.

I think that worldsbesttenniscoach has a valid point about the court positioning of the past but bobbyswift has a good counterpoint. The modern game of tennis is not the same game by definition as it was in 1972...I was at Don Budge's tennis camp in 1972 when the match that worldsbesttenniscoach is referring to took place. Stan Smith vs. the mercurial one...Ille Nastase. Another classic fire and ice rivalry...much like the John McEnroe vs. Björn Borg classic.

I feel bad for you younger guys and gals...you don't really know that you are missing anything. You can look at the old videos of classic tennis as much as you care too but you will never really get an appreciation for the "reality" of just how sweet it was. The video is deceptive...you cannot get an appreciation for the actual speed of the game. Sure...it looks slow but in reality it was anything but that.

It is sort of like trying to explain to a teenager nowadays that there actually was life without cellphones...they look at you as if you are a lunatic dinosaur. "How boring" there pitiful little programmed brains think with that dull look in their eyeballs...little do they know. Their eyes looks glazed over and sleepy...disconnected. Slowly but surely the race is being weaned off of reality. Real moments such as a cheetah landing on the hood of your car are few and far between these days. Reality becomes a thing of the past...much like classic tennis. If a tree falls in the forest and there was nobody there to hear it fall...did it actually fall?

[bobbyswift]

Apples and oranges on court position being better in 1972. Stan Smith would not be serving and volleying at a modern returner 100 percent of the time. The bounce in ground stroke rallies is so different to the bounce of a knife volley.

[worldsbesttenniscoach]

Court positioning today on WTA & ATP circuits is pathetic, compared to what it was decades ago. Go back, for instance, to the 1972 Wimbledon final between Smith & Nastase. You will see ourt positioning & anticipation that puts today's players to shame.

Even Rafa often has poor anticipation. For example, in one point of US Open final, Rafa hit passing shot to Novak's backhand volley. Rafa was way too far behind the baseline to begin with, & then Rafa's first reaction was too move parallel to the baseline. Smith & Nastase would have anticipated a short volley to the open court, which is what happened. But Nada reacted poorly, with no wise anticipation, so Nadal could not touch Djokovic's easy shot.

It is especially easy to expect a crosscourt easy volley off Novak's backhand, due to his grip for the backhand volley.

Coaches today teach wrong things, give out misinformation. Players have good, eager hearts, so they listen to those coaches, unfortunately. As Mr. Miyagi said in the first Karate Kid movie, "no such thing as bad student, only bad teacher."

Players in the past were constantly put under pressure, because opponents took the ball earlier on groundstrokee, opponents were frequently coming to net, opponents were always looking for opportunities to make approch shots. Therefore, players would learn, almost subconsciously, how to counterpunch & use the best counterpunching tactics.

Nowadays, players do not face such pressure, so they do not unconsciously learn how to counterpunch. And coaches teach the wrong thing --coaches teach, "when in trouble, retreat."

Also, someone asked mw which players have premature backswings, too far back. My answer is, "In today's pro game, most players." That is why players don't hit where they aim. They throw away points so early in the rallies. The game has become boring to watch. That is why interest in the game has fallen.

[bobbyswift]

The court position you are in appears when a player is dominating the point. Look at patterns archive when two players are hitting rally balls and notice foot position in relation to baseline. So yes stand back further about three feet from baseline and adjust from there.

[10splayer]

Interesting these posts of wbc but I am not sure I can go along with most of them. Getting the "racket back too early and too far" isn't something most tour players are guilty of. All tour players prepare well for incoming balls in relation to time they have...never too early...late, yes, but only under duress. The "too early" issue doesn't seem to exist.

"Too far" may apply to Robin Soderling and possibly Fernando Gonzales but other than theirs, most forehand backswings these days seem to stay within the plane of the body.

Borg went beyond the plane of his body at times (and on his backhand) yet well within it at others. He seemed to do this in relation to the time he had and the shot he was playing. But then Borg was Borg...an anomaly.

Brian Gordon and Macci have never suggested forehands cannot be hit another way. Soderling was a good example with his "too far" backswing. Soderling had a massive forehand and blew Nadal clean off the court with it at the French Open in the only year Nadal lost. You don't have to follow the BG model but odds on most players might develop a better forehand if they did. There will always be exceptions...that's only human.

What I would most like to know from wbc is which players on the tour today are "too early and too far"?

Right on the money..

[stotty]

Whose forehand are "too early and too far"

Interesting these posts of wbc but I am not sure I can go along with most of them. Getting the "racket back too early and too far" isn't something most tour players are guilty of. All tour players prepare well for incoming balls in relation to time they have...never too early...late, yes, but only under duress. The "too early" issue doesn't seem to exist.

"Too far" may apply to Robin Soderling and possibly Fernando Gonzales but other than theirs, most forehand backswings these days seem to stay within the plane of the body.

Borg went beyond the plane of his body at times (and on his backhand) yet well within it at others. He seemed to do this in relation to the time he had and the shot he was playing. But then Borg was Borg...an anomaly.

Brian Gordon and Macci have never suggested forehands cannot be hit another way. Soderling was a good example with his "too far" backswing. Soderling had a massive forehand and blew Nadal clean off the court with it at the French Open in the only year Nadal lost. You don't have to follow the BG model but odds on most players might develop a better forehand if they did. There will always be exceptions...that's only human.

What I would most like to know from wbc is which players on the tour today are "too early and too far"?

[nikae]

Thanks for so many great replys!

I am not sure how can I fix my court position, what I am doing wrong? Dong_budge, you think I am too slow with my feet?

bobbyswift, you said said "In looking at the side video I feel you are playing too on top of the baseline. You are not hitting a ball that allows for this court position. Your footwork backing up is not ideal." My English is getting worse it seems, because I am not sure what are you trying to tell me...on top of the baseline? You mean I should stand further back towards the fence?

worldsbestcoach, I understand what you are trying to say about the forehand, especially that starting position, it reminds me of Tommy Haas forehand. It would be much much better if you could provide some kind of a video, or at least some pictures fro a start, so we get a better idea of what you are talking about.

Now, talking about simplicity, check out this forehand http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ZTRtvBhFZo
simple back swing, simple motion overall, but is this a good model for club players? I think John Yandell would agree, its pretty much what he teaches. But check out what happens between the start of the forward motion and contact point, check out how her racket head drops down, its tilted downwards a bit, on both low and high forehands.
That's something you don't see on most of pro forehands, especially ATP forehands where head is tilted downwards very slightly or not tilted at all!
Whats up with that? Is it related to when and how fast you start the transition from back swing to forwards swing?
I am asking this because I have the same problem, racket head drops down by a lot!

[10splayer]

I notice many bad topspin forehands in the modern pro game. The rallies are short because the technique is flawed. And it is a boring game to watch.
Yes, many players on the pro circuits today have their racket back to early & too far, then they have to start up the racket motion again as the ball arrives, which is difficult to do. Let's call it what it really is. It is like a kink in the serve. Kinks should be avoided in both the serve & forehand.
The reason Azarenka has improved her tennis game is because she has tweaked her technique to become more consistent. She used to hit her forehand in the Macci Nainkin manner, & with the poor Macci Nainkin timing. But now she tracks the ball more out front, she starts her swing later & swings with an all-at-once continuous motion, has a more compact backswing with a more foreward-flowing motion, & positions herself behind the ball better.
Similarly, Serena Williams used to throw away so many more points than she does now. Consciously or unconsciously, Serena has tweaked her forehand away from the misguided Macci Nainkin model more toward the forward-emphasis model that I espouse
The reason that the great Roger Federer mishits so many forehands & makes so many unforced errors on that wing is because Roger has a little bit too much of the Macci Nainkin model in his technique.
I am happy to kiss the feet of Federer, Macci, Nainkin, et al. They are good in many ways. All I say is that the state of tennis coaching still needs to improve a lot , even at the highest levels......& that the supposed great level of play on the WTA & ATP cicuits today also has significant room for improvement.

Maybe you can clarify a backward emphasis forehand for me. If it's what i think it means, it just aint so, IMO, with the likes of Fed, Djoker and the lot.

As I mentioned before, the forehand type that Gordon is proposing is the antithesis of a backward emphasis model. You mentioned getting the racquet "back too far", but what is that? Let's define it. In my book, "back" would be "behind" the right shoulder plane. So if looking from the head on after the torso turn, the arm/racquet would be visible from the "backside" of a player. If you look at the likes of a Fed, for example, the racquet and arm stay (in front of his chest) until the flip. This provides for a very compact backswing and a rather straight/linear path to the ball. Fed, in fact, has one of the most compact backswings in the game. It's one of the "benefits" of going outside with the loop as Macci proposes. It keeps the racquet on the "flight line" of the incoming ball, and all but eliminates getting the racquet "stuck" behind you, which typically creates a rather long curved, indirect swing line.

[don_budge]

nikae...food for thought

I use a similar method with my students I like to call the "Find" position. I simply tell them to feel or find where they think that contact point/ball impact will be and hold their racquet there. As the student becomes more comfortable with the find position, they can move further back in the court to strike the ball as long as they remember the find position. It's a great confidence booster as well and gets players who may be struggling a bit with timing and control to "get back to basics". I use this method as well on myself when my forehand seems to go on one of its infamous walkabouts.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

What a great point klacr! There is one point in time and space when everything is perfect. The racquet head, the grip of the racquet, the transfer of weight...when everything comes together at that precise perfect moment. I call that point in time and space "it". We struggle all of our lives to find "it" in our lives much as we struggle on the tennis court. But of course it is a struggle on the court...our opponent is throwing everything he can at us to disrupt us in our search for "it".

Work this exercise against the wall. Here you have some control over "it". You can find "it" by consciously looking at this point before you even hit the ball then work it against the wall to repeatedly find that spot until it is in your genes...or your jeans. Take "it" out on the court with you. Great concept! I didn't make "it" up I suppose if you had the same notion...oh well...nothing new under the sun.

Looked at our video again. Your getting a lot of great advice on technique. You need to fix court position then start to follow advice. Other wise your only getting better off the feed. Which is tremendously important.

Another tremendous point for you nikae! Get your ass in position! In order to make a balanced pass at the ball to strike it at that one point in time and space where everything is perfect, your position relative to the ball is absolutely the deal breaker. Even the best players in the world separate themselves with their ability to get in position. Footwork...dance with the tennis ball. Think Roger Federer. Think cheetah killing antelope.

Don_budge, I agree with you about the importance of the underspin half volley. At net, I prefer underspin half volleys in most situations. The only reason I suggested a topspin half volley to nikae is because I was talking about nikae's topspin forehand groundstroke.

Yes worldsbesttenniscoach, I remember your topspin half-volley progression to the forehand. Last year I believe it was....perhaps it was in the 2012 U. S. Open thread. Perhaps this is a good bridge to learning how to hit the ball on the rise as well. I think it was gsheiner and myself that commented that it had an immediate impact on our forehand concept.

[worldsbesttenniscoach]

Don_budge, I agree with you about the importance of the underspin half volley. At net, I prefer underspin half volleys in most situations. The only reason I suggested a topspin half volley to nikae is because I was talking about nikae's topspin forehand groundstroke.

By the way, can someone tell me where to read about the type 3 topspin forehand (& types 1 & 2, also) ? And I am sorry to "trash" some famous instructors. It's just my opinion that tennis always has been a poorly coached sport, even at the highest levels, & still is........& is today in need of great improvement. I know that many here disagree, & I respect your opinions. We just disagree. I understand where you are coming from, & why some of my insights might seem ludicrous to others who have been coaching for a long time.

[bobbyswift]

Looked at our video again. Your getting a lot of great advice on technique. You need to fix court position then start to follow advice. Other wise your only getting better off the feed. Which is tremendously important.

[klacr]

First of all, think of a first baseman, in baseball. As the first baseman waits for the thrown ball, the glove is way out front in the direction of the ball. That is the way you should track the ball in tennis. Leave the racket out in front, as though you are ready to catch the incoming ball in a butterfly net, or in a fisherman's net. All it takes is for you to lay back your wrist, cock your wrist. That should be your initial reaction, your initial preparation, when the tennis ball is coming to your forehand. In other words, you are setting the racket forward, where you intend to make contact with the ball, eventually. It is similar to golf, where you set the clubhead next to that intended contact point, before you begin your backswing.

This technique that worldsbesttenniscoach preaches is not new nor is it groundbreaking...it's even better because it's simple and does provide the student with an understanding of his/her contact point. don_budge provided insight in an earlier post and described the "fusk" position.

I use a similar method with my students I like to call the "Find" position. I simply tell them to feel or find where they think that contact point/ball impact will be and hold their racquet there. As the student becomes more comfortable with the find position, they can move further back in the court to strike the ball as long as they remember the find position. It's a great confidence booster as well and gets players who may be struggling a bit with timing and control to "get back to basics". I use this method as well on myself when my forehand seems to go on one of its infamous walkabouts.

I'm not willing to go as far and claim that pros like Federer, Berdych, Djokovic are somehow lacking in their strokes due to them not hitting like I suggest. They clearly most be doing something right with their strokes and their game to be as good as they are. Right? For all we know, perhaps they started out with that same principle that wbtc, don_budge and myself are advocating. Perhaps somewhere along the way their strokes evolved or devolve, depending on your opinion. Not my particular soapbox I'm gonna stand on.

Pro players have clearly mastered the game, though we may feel there are some flaws in each of the games it's not something they are going to change.

although this thread is great, I've gotten off topic and wanna bring the attention back to the real star, Nikae.

nikae, Thanks for sharing these videos with us. I'm sure you're learning tremendous amounts from all of these contributors. A few things to keep in mind on your forehand, don't be obsessed with the "perfect forehand". Just make sure that no matter what technical direction you go towards, it feels comfortably uncomfortable to you. What I mean is that it will never feel completely comfortable at first because it is new. Just make sure you are seeing some progress and give yourself specific performance goals. Skills tests are great. How many forehands can you hit crosscourt, how many can you hit inside out/inside in? Are these test results improving with the changes you are making? Having seen your first video you posted to your latest, you are on the right track. Keep me posted on your progress. Good luck.


Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

[stroke]

I'm not so sure the type 3 forehand needs to evolve, not taught. There must be some reason only 2 professional women tennis players I can think of hit a type 3 forehand, Henin and Stosar. I think only the most gifted evolve into the type 3 forehand. I think properly teaching it would really give more players a chance to hit an ATP type forehand.

[don_budge]

The Evolution of the ATP forehand...the Infomercial forehand.

You said, Steve, that you don't teach mondo or "flip" or the Zanzibar move or whatever anyone else wants to call it. Fine. I can see many reasons for that, especially in the case of beginners and intermediates. Just want to keep the option open of mondo as in ATPFHIII.

You know what bottle...after 1,295 posts it should get to be difficult to say if I said it or not. But if nothing else...I feel that I am pretty consistent. This is a most fascinating discussion too...another dissection of the forehand.

But BrianGordon in one thread said that my analysis of the beginning of the forward swing was virtually the same as his. It's true...they are. We may diverge just a bit on the backswing but it isn't something that isn't connectable. I am just a bit more of a traditionalist and Gordon/Macci have a little more flair...which is truly a good example of artistic expression or artistic license. We could even call it the infomercial forehand. Plus they are merely replicating what the professionals are demonstrating to us. I teach forehands. Period.

But as I wrote...the ATP forehand doesn't so much need to be taught as it needs to evolve. It needs to evolve from a fundamental forehand as a logical progression. My concerns about teaching such a shot is putting too much emphasis on the spin and therefore encouraging too strong a grip that won't be useful in the middle of the court for approach shots or at the net for effective volleys.

When players too young to understand the game are taught this kind of swing sometimes it appears to me that their forehands tend to become a bit too spinny. Once trained to hit excessive topspin it is very difficult to go back to something that resembles a classic forehand...it can be tough to flatten this stroke out. The same is not true in reverse. Players taught sound fundamentals have no problem handling the process of applying more topspin...because they are more apt to do it fundamentally correct...FC. I like to see a forehand that penetrates as well. Very few players with excessively strong forehand grips are equipped to make the transition to the net. I think that you have to switch gears a bit when approaching the net and it is very difficult with too strong of a grip. Top spin approach shots tend to sit up and they are an invitation to the other ATP forehand on the other side of the net to take a huge swipe at it. But who goes to the net these days? Well...you and I do. Particularly when we are playing doubles.

One of the father's of my students asked me if his son shouldn't be hitting more topspin on his forehand. As the project was developing (his son) I truly felt that it was really on course. Filip was just beginning to get the idea of keeping his wrist laid back until just before impact and he was hitting a pretty nice flat forehand and he preferred to go down the line...he's is left handed.

As the project is developing...we are beginning to see more topspin and the ball is slowly making it's way crosscourt as we begin to emphasize tactics more and more. I fully expect that this youngster's forehand will more and more resemble the ATP forehand...only just a bit tamer with the action of the wrist in the backswing, as I am training him to play the whole court. Who knows? At some point in his playing days he may elect to be solely a baseliner and totally commit to the infomercial forehand...but I doubt it. Call it what you like...it is still a forehand. Perhaps an extra bell or whistle or two.

I don't know...Brian seemed to think we were on the same page even if not from the same planet. That's cool with me. But one other concern that I have about the ATP version in the hands of less than professionals...and maybe even lesser professionals have this issue as worldsbesttenniscoach suggests...the elaborate motion may be a bit difficult to reproduce under certain conditions. It may perform nicely enough for you at your east side tennis club with some of the cronies. But the acid test on the professional level is repeatability...that is, repeatability under any and all conditions, court surfaces, weather conditions and competitive pressure conditions. I have sort of wondered the same thing as him...but I feel that the game has been engineered to this end and that these swings would be crazy to attempt with anything that resembled an old standard sized racquet. Even so you can see in many of the slow motion shots of these guys that they are barely hitting the ball on the outermost edges of the strings and close to the frames. One true indicator of this phenomena is Roger Federer’s forehand who has arguably as good of technique as any of them and he mishits quite often...with his current racquet that is roughly 11% smaller than his competition’s.

So there are a couple of separate issues why I don't buy into the infomercial forehand lock, stock and barrel. But at the same time I appreciate it's attributes now...as the modern game of tennis has been currently been engineered to. So by all means go ahead and mondo...if you have the moxy to pull it off.

[bobbyswift]

In looking at the side video I feel you are playing too on top of the baseline. You are not hitting a ball that allows for this court position. Your footwork backing up is not ideal. Look at David Bailey articles for this movement pattern.