Some videos of my game

[don_budge]

Stan Smith vs. Ilie Nastase 1972 Wimbledon Final

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.

Yes...let's go back worldsbesttenniscoach. Court coverage and positioning 1972 style. Of course they are not hitting the ball with ungodly speed and spin but the use of the whole court makes up for any perceived inequality to the modern game. Look at the racquets...Nastase Dunlop Maxply Fort, Smith his own Wilson Autograph. Still no chairs for the changeover siesta. White tennis balls.

Please consider the extra effort that it took to get in position to hit each and every shot with a racquet of perhaps 70" squared. Like a couple of fencers with rapiers squaring off instead of dueling with graphite howitzers. The third dimension of the area above the court comes into play. The fourth dimension of tactics and cerebral acumen.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZezxpCqbI4

One bounce pre-serve ritual. The players never once towel off during the entire match between points. The ball boys are almost invisible...no towel duty in those days. Fast forward to the end of the match...watch the reactions of the two players as they pay homage to one another. Arms around each other, Nastase gives the champion Smith a little tap on the head as if to say..."Nice play, Brother". What a beautiful thing.

[tennisplayer]

To my simple mind, there is a reason why hip turns and back swings are big - the modern game requires power. I understand short back swings can generate a lot of power - but that's not enough power in the ATP world. Like a baseball pitcher who looks almost like a contortionist when he throws his arm back to load his shoulder, so do the modern tennis warriors with their big back swings. They have chosen to maximize power at the cost of some control.

I see WBC's comments (or should I say "laments" ) as a plea for more control. For example, instead of trying to hit at 90 MPH all the time with a big back swing - which means the ball will mostly go from baseline to baseline - why not counter punch with a shorter back swing, and use the increase in control to put the ball where the opponent does not like it. This is a very good point. Even in the relatively low level tennis that I play, a hard hit shot (50 MPH? ) to the baseline is easy to deal with compared to a cunningly placed ball that touches ground near the sideline where it meets the service line. I hate these types of shots much more than the scorcher that comes right to me. I guess tennis in the pre-modern age was all about control and placement, and certainly very pleasing to watch.

Probably WBC is at least partially correct in his observations, and there is a place for tennis played with more control and slightly lower pace even in modern tennis, and maybe it will result in more versatile play with more net points and athletic displays of the Edberg/Sampras variety.

[don_budge]

It goes without saying...the game has regressed...devolved.

I know today's bias is that today's modern tennis game is so advanced, but in some ways, the level of pro tennis has regressed -- for instance, see my important comments about today's poor court positioning & anticipation, that I posted earlier in this thread.

But of course you are absolutely correct here regarding the anticipatory skills of tennis players today and the state of the game in general. The level of tennis has absolutely regressed. Today's players are one trick ponies...and it is frightfully boring. The truth of the matter is so horrible that the masses are afraid to admit it. Sort of reminds me of something else on a larger scale.

Today's modern version of tennis is a one dimensional game. You can see it in the wear and tear of the grass courts of what were once the hallowed grounds of tennis. It is all the same today...the game is played as lobndropshot suggests. It is all about the forehand. The engineering of the game is the only thing that makes this possible. Think about it.

So if today's modern game is one dimensional how can you possibly compare it to the three dimensional game of yesteryear...plus the fourth dimension of tactics. The cerebral dimension. The last days of tennis...the classic game. John McEnroe vs. Björn Borg being the swan song. The classic game ended on a high note. A true tennis student is also a historian of the game. Today if you are a historian you are labeled as a nostalgist or otherwise relegated to some other name calling designating you as obsolete.

Just look at the draw sheet from any of the Grand Slam championships of 1972 and you will see a wide range of playing styles and no lack of talent. The three dimensional game was played not only from the baseline to the net and all points in between where you had to consider not only the latitude and the longitude but also the altitude. When advancing to the net the third dimension of using the height above the court was a big factor. The court extends upwards...a forgotten concept. Great lobbers. The overhead smash. Now correct me if I am wrong but it looks to me as if one of the big stars of today has a difficult time executing a basic smash.

But basically people are generally in denial when it comes to the state of things...and about the things to come. Back when the larger racquets were introduced I was screaming bloody murder..."my" game had been hijacked. I was dead certain about it. The equipment and the coaching. So you are absolutely correct in my estimation with regard to the coaching as well. There is no dancing around this.

You only have to look at the pathetic state of American tennis as somehow we slipped into the politically correct version of coaching tennis. To deviate or not be in lock step with the infomercial brand of coaching is to be a pariah of sorts...which is what some do to paint or gloss over the reality of things. Certification is required to teach the game...may we see your papers please? Thought police...they are even trolling here on the forum.

Today's players are anticipating and covering the court from the backcourt. This is not nearly as sophisticated as playing the whole court and it is almost delusional to believe otherwise. But it is a lot like trying to convince todays teenagers that there was life before the cell phone. The masses do not want to hear it. They are mesmerized by the grunting and the squealing that accompanies every pass on the tennis ball. They are so impressed with the sheer physical effort that the mental aspect of real tactics is obliterated. Come on...certainly it is easy to recognize that there is athleticism involved. But what of the subtlety of a deft approach and the one-two volley combination of court opener and kill or putaway? What about beautiful flowing service motions with the accompanying tactics? Anybody out there looking at me cross-eyed yet? I can almost hear the heads shaking.

The obsession with the forehand is an indication that the game has been reduced to a rather simpleton approach to what was once a very sophisticated and elegant sport. Reduced to brute speed and power the resulting tactics are mindless in comparison to the intricate and delicate combination of options from the classic era.

But in defense of the the modern day aficionado's there isn't much of an option. This is the game we are stuck with in a sense. But the real problem is that the coaching skills with regard to service motions, play in the middle of the court and the net play have been severely neglected for years. The result is that anyone that just might think otherwise is ostracized and made to look like a fool by the idea that consensus is something of a deal breaker. It isn't...and it never has been.

[lobndropshot]

Why are people obsessed with the forehand?

[bobbyswift]

Were looking for positive examples'

[worldsbesttenniscoach]

To my eyes, the "modern" forehand, epitomized by Macci & Nainkin, has regressed. Most forehands on WTA & ATP today have more motion towards the back fence than they do towards the target. Modern tennis is pretty boring. Many of the pro players just stand back on their heels, far behind the baseline, making errors early in the rally. No wonder interest in the sport is not as high as it used to be.

Macci modeled his forehand on Federer's forehand, but we all are now seeing all the flaws in Roger's forehand.

I fell sorry for all the players who are trained by the USTA player development program, with the Nainkin style forehand. It is easy to see players such as Stevens & McHale confused about their forehands. Sometimes they try the Nainkin way, which does not work well; then other times they try a more natural way to hit the forehand, that often works better. They are caught in a no man's land of technique.

Tsonga has a "modern" style forehand, but while trying his best in an exhibition set against Edberg a year ago in France, Tsonga escaped by a close tiebreak against an out of shape, out of practive, match soft Edberg. I know today's bias is that today's modern tennis game is so advanced, but in some ways, the level of pro tennis has regressed -- for instance, see my important comments about today's poor court positioning & anticipation, that I posted earlier in this thread.

Some respondents above mentioned Stepanek's forehand. I like Radek -- one of the more entertaining players. But even though his forehand is comparatively old school, he has common ground with the "modern" forehand in that he gets his racket back too far, too early, controlling the racket with only 1 hand, & then must overcome inertia by trying to get the racket started again.

[don_budge]

You gotta be like that...

6. Go forwards to meet the ball whenever possible, just like your main man Djokovic. Just like in shot #6 in video clip number one of your stuff. Of all of the discussion regards Djokovic vs. the Spanish conquistador, the aggressive movement going forwards is paramount to his control and therefore his success over Nadal. Djokovic is on his toes or rather in the front part of his feet whereas Nadal is on his heels...and he is getting rocked all over the court by the more aggressive Serbian. You gotta be like that...Nikae.

One of my best lines ever...you gotta be like that...nikae!

[don_budge]

Thanks nikae...

What a great thread nikae...from the original post by you on November 17, 2011. Man...we can all think about what has happened since that day. In our lives, in the tennis world...in the world at large.

Some truly diverse opinions and posts. All for the better. Thanks to all of the participants. Good sports...without exception. What the hell!

[stotty]

You, 10splayer, and I are definately on the same page here. The whole basis for Brian's ATP forehand is taken and learned from what has come to pass as the world class men's forehand has evolved. Brian could not have to begun to explain his studies to us without video examples. There simply are not going to be any video examples forthcoming from wbc. I do think wbc cares about tennis and I do hope he reads Brian's ATP forehand articles. WBC, if interested, you can find them under "past issues", May and June of 2012.

WBC just needs to cite more clearly what he means. Give specific examples. I'm sure even Nadal gets his court position wrong now and again...but on the whole it's pretty darned excellent. The same goes for the bulk of the ATP tour. As for anticipation, well, it's never been more acute...it has to be...the pace of the today's game makes anticipation vital. Nadal's anticipation is outstanding.

You cannot compare Nastase and Smith with, say, Nadal and Djokovic. The patterns of play are entirely different. No one would argue Nastase's anticipation at the net is better than Nadal's. Nastase spent half his life at the net while Nadal has so far only spent a fraction of his career at the net. But the game is different now and serve and volley and persistent approach play seems not to be an option.

But the burning question for me is who on the ATP tour gets their racket back "too early and too far"? I've been racking my brains over this one. Berdych is the only one I can think of who gets his racket back a tad earlier than others..on dead midcourt balls...anyone else? And the big swings are mostly gone, aren't they? Soderling was probably the last of them?

The best way for WBC to inform others and get his message across is to cite players and give specific examples. It's very important on the forum to be clear. This way we get our ideas qualified or rejected by other experienced coaches and so develop a better compass. I do this all the time.

[stroke]

WBC has expressed many ideas that are important to him. I love reading his posts to search for new ideas. However in my opinion the concept of this site is learning is easier when it can be visual rather than words. It also appears a given to take the best pros of an era and to learn from them thru video and other resources rather than say they are doing most things wrong.

You, 10splayer, and I are definately on the same page here. The whole basis for Brian's ATP forehand is taken and learned from what has come to pass as the world class men's forehand has evolved. Brian could not have to begun to explain his studies to us without video examples. There simply are not going to be any video examples forthcoming from wbc. I do think wbc cares about tennis and I do hope he reads Brian's ATP forehand articles. WBC, if interested, you can find them under "past issues", May and June of 2012.

[bobbyswift]

WBC has expressed many ideas that are important to him. I love reading his posts to search for new ideas. However in my opinion the concept of this site is learning is easier when it can be visual rather than words. It also appears a given to take the best pros of an era and to learn from them thru video and other resources rather than say they are doing most things wrong.

[10splayer]

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.

Ok, so here's the thing. If you're arguing for shorter backswings, more direct swing lines, "not too far back" etc. then you're actually arguing on behalf of the model proposed by Gordon/Macci. That's why I took exception to your original comments.....Perhaps you should read the articles, before such condemnation.

As for the first part of this post, I just can't even fathom what you're saying. Nadal, Djoker, Fererrer, Murray, etc, can't defend? Stan Smith, really? As Bobbyswift said, it's an apples and oranges comparison...It's just not the same game. The modern game may not appeal to you. (and there are many who would agree) But to, again, cast dispersions on, and not appreciate the kind of athleticism and skill these guys are displaying is just mind boggeling to me.

For what it's worth, i can't stand the NBA compared to yesteryear. All offense, no defense, It's really a different game. Besides, not sure how relevent pressure, man to man defense, (as espoused by Gene Hackman on Hoosiers) is when the current NBA player can take off, jump over the little Hoosier guy and dunk the ball with his ball sack. Even though the current game bores me, I can appreciate a nut dunk just like the next guy.

[bobbyswift]

Last post replace depth with angle. Sorry

[bobbyswift]

Teaching counter-attack today is much more difficult than 1972. Player is not chip and charging presenting you a target. Counter attack off hundred mile groundstroke with player at baseline totally different type of shot. Back in the day players disguised and held pass against incoming ball. Today power and spin have to be incredibly high and depth and placement are equally important.

[stroke]

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"?

I like how you provide examples at the highest level that make it clear what you are saying. Soderling and Fernando Gonzales are 2 great examples of great forehands that are not of the Brian Gordon type 3. There are others such as Hewitt and Florian Mayer. As Brian said, players are not robots. There are signitficant differences even in the players using the type 3 variety. Its just that Federer stands out as the gold standard. Short path to be ball, straight arm, perfect grip structure to take advantage of the strongest wrist position(using maximum wrist extension). He does it like a master(Brian's words), simply what appears to be the most efficient, effortless, forehand ever. It would be very interesting to know Fed's racquet head speed going into contact vs some other players.