Footwork...Swedish Style?

[DougEng]

Wow, This thread is awesome. learning with each post from you guys.

Not to get off topic, but did anyone else see that reverse forehand off the short ball that Borg hit at 2:15? I love watching these clips and reading the insights.
This should be required reading for every tennisplayer.net subscriber and every tennis teacher and coach out there.

We have a tendency to overemphasize stroke technique and sometimes are subject to paralysis by analysis. But as we all can admit, the best strokes in the world won't matter if you can't get to the ball effectively.

I have some thoughts on this footwork stuff that I will post soon when I manage to squeeze out some more time. Keep it coming though guys. I love to learn.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

Like Pete Sampras...also used reverse on the approach shot.

[klacr]

Here is a great clip of Laver playing Borg. The clip is good quality with the ball clearly visible. It’s a great clip because at times we get Borg moving at full pelt. (Just amazes me how Laver dangles his racket like that).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RiSakiF4jzk

Wow, This thread is awesome. learning with each post from you guys.

Not to get off topic, but did anyone else see that reverse forehand off the short ball that Borg hit at 2:15? I love watching these clips and reading the insights.
This should be required reading for every tennisplayer.net subscriber and every tennis teacher and coach out there.

We have a tendency to overemphasize stroke technique and sometimes are subject to paralysis by analysis. But as we all can admit, the best strokes in the world won't matter if you can't get to the ball effectively.

I have some thoughts on this footwork stuff that I will post soon when I manage to squeeze out some more time. Keep it coming though guys. I love to learn.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

[DougEng]

Doug

Do you have the seminar you mention above on DVD or You Tube, I would love to see it.

Mark

Hi Mark,

No. Sorry, the talks were not taped.

Doug

[vrc10s]

Footwork seminar?

I agree with vcr10s and John Yandell.

First, this should be taught. But how? Definitely not as shown.
Second, personally I like Bailey's footwork but I think it has to be taught in context of tactical and technical situations. The Swedish situation gives very basic situations and doesn't show development of racquet head speed or spin (tactical). Most of footwork depends on several factors:
1) directional forces on the body, 2) acceleration/velocity required to move to the ball and also in hitting the ball, 3) spin and grips types.

In also reference to Bailey's work. I've seen coaches try to teach Bailey's footwork to juniors but again, it's taken out of context, technical or tactical situations. Similar to this Swedish variation (which is a small piece of Bailey's).

I think a problem in coaching is to teach a model that you were shown without truly understanding the reasoning behind it. Hence, technique, games, drills are given to players without really trying to build a cohesive game. So it is important to have a clear reasoning behind what we teach. Science, videography, match charting, etc give very clear reasons to what we do and need to do. I agree, didactic teaching if misguided can lead down the wrong path (hence we get indoctrination).

For example, consider:
A) A player moving laterally hard using significant topspin. You will see a semi-open stance, not necessarily stepping backwards to the extend as shown. The player may use Bailey's spin move or mogul. Topspin (body rotation) and decelerative forces will force the body to come off the ground and landing forces on the outside foot. The fast lateral movement will necessitate those forces.

B) A player moving slowly to the ball (close by) using a moderate topspin and a relatively controlled swing. The stance may tend to be semi-open or square and the swing more classical (e.g., eastern and follow-through high and shorter body rotation) since racquet head speed may not be as significant. The player will only slightly step forward with the back foot. The forces on the body are not as great.

C) A player moving slowly to the ball (close by) using significant topspin and racquet head speed in an aggressive ATP type swing. The stance may tend to be semi-open (sometimes square depending on style). Racquet head is more significant and more body rotation and loading is required. Hence, the back foot will often come up significantly (ahead of the left/front foot). Forces are more significant.

D) A player moving backwards on a very deep high ball. The player should use a semi or fully open stance and use a backwards pivot or spin move to allow the racquet side of the body to accelerate since the player cannot step into the ball).
Forces are angular and even backwards. To hit hard, the player must rotate/spin with significant force and the front leg with come off the ground and often move backwards or stay in the air. A semi-western grip is often advantageous.

E) A player choosing to slice from the center of the court. Forces are more gentle on the body and less angular momentum is used. Instead a more linear, forward force is applied. The body does not rotate as much as during topspin strokes. Hence, feet tend to be grounded during the whole stroke as the upward vertical force is not major. Stances tend to be more square with the linear forces and less vertical force.


In addition, a counterattacking, heavily topspin style player (e.g, Ferrer or Nadal) will use more arial footwork than a flatter hitting, tall attacking player (e.g, Sharapova) meaning they will use more open stances, spin or mogul moves, rather than grounded (both feet usually remaining in contact with the ground) and more square stances. Men tend to use more spin and often more faster and develop greater forces so their footwork will differ from women's footwork. We often talk about the men's ground as more all-court, athletics and using spin, angles, etc whereas the women's especially late 1990s was dominated by big flatter hitters (Venus, Sharapova, Mary Pierce, Davenport, Ivanovic, etc). The more athletic women who are smaller and rely on movement and spin include Stosur, Henin, Schiavone use different footwork patterns. The latter type is more complex.

Club players if force-fed balls far away from them can learn more advanced footwork more easily. In doing so, they should also be encouraged to swing faster, etc to develop the natural forces on the body. Once they do so, movement, footwork types, recovery tend to become more natural. Often they don't and that becomes the teaching moment. If you feed balls near your student and they take easy strokes, they won't correctly develop the more advanced footwork. In doing so, have the players exaggerate the situations. Or give them relative extremes in cases (e.g, extremely short high ball or wide ball). Given that, physical training may be necessary with some players (e.g, core work, leg strength training, light plyometrics) but it becomes clearer what they need to do (to them).

I've seen pros teach Bailey's or similar to the Swedish movement without the accelerative/decelerative forces which makes it very artificial. In addition, they learn not only to be artificial (and as vcr10s points out, the kinetic chain is released incorrectly), but their technical approach to a tactical situation becomes flawed. Hence you see open stances when it should be square (e.g, short balls in the center of the court), square and (trying to) stepping in when it should be open, etc (e.g, wide balls).

I now use an integrated approach to footwork, technique, tactics and court position (or integrating the hitting cycle with tactical/court position) which is easy to learn. Even advanced beginners (2.0-2.5 in US) and definitely intermediate players (2.5-3.5 NTRP) can use develop correct tactics with appropriate footwork. Often we think it is too complex. Given that, I have gotten away from the teach one thing at a time (or one correction at a time). The human body and mind actually learns more than one thing and we are capable of multi-tasking. However, verbalizing this should be limited and progressions should be logical. Let the body learn the 3-4 things together. A problem in teaching is that we teach a player to hit a forehand. And we make them do it many times over. Then they believe that the forehand is just that one stroke and they try the same thing all over the court. We sometimes do the same thing with footwork and they only learn a couple ways to move. When they have those limited choices, they make technical mistakes from different parts on the court. When that happens, it becomes a tactical mistake (e.g, open stance with weight going back on an approach shot). Great athletes often override those mistakes (e.g, Nadal) since they have other ways to compensate (Nadal's tenacity, footspeed, topspin and consistency). Emilio Sanchez said a couple years back he was consulting with the Nadals and trying to get Rafa to move more forward in aggressive shots. Tim Mayotte (once ATP #7 in the 1980s) used to double fault frequently. But no one told him about his flawed footwork/stance on the serve. He corrected it after retiring and when starting to coach (you often learn more then even about your own game!). But when playing, he got enough aces and played aggressively enough that he was tough to break.

When I show this integrated system of learning in seminars or training, it's extremely well received. It's simple, elegant and easier to learn than people think. A bit like Grand Unification Theory in physics. So a good-hitting 10-year old can learn it in a few lessons.

Hope this is clear.

Doug

Do you have the seminar you mention above on DVD or You Tube, I would love to see it.

Mark

[GeoffWilliams]

"We often discuss a player may be limited by his or her technique (for example the serve or backhand). For example, Djokovic was #3 in the world for a while despite a relatively weak serve. Once he overcame that, he reached #1 (along with the gluten-free diet, improved fitness and confidence)."

His rise began when the doctor, Igor Cet. came onto the team, and with a SCIO machine, diagnosed an allergy to gluten. He also began to inject D. with electrical fields, and acupuncture needles. He used psychological nutrition, no white death: salt/fat/sugar/starch anymore. I sent Jy an article about it but he didn't buy it. Oh well. Nice post as always. You are one of the most enjoyable guys on here.

I have a degree in electricity and molecular vibration. I have seen fields in myself most people have not: the ability to project vibration from my own field into another, ie.

[DougEng]

This is a great thread, but I think the heart of the question is much deeper than whether the style of footwork advocated in the Swedish video clips is appropriate of not. I don't think so many optional footwork patterns should be "taught". As I understand it, David Bailey's work came out of his many years of working with players at the Bollettierri Academy in Bradenton. But I doubt if anyone ever taught Andre Agassi or Pete Sampras a "mogul" footwork move. Probably early on in his development, Robert Lansdorp taught Pete to set his plant foot down pointed to the side fence, but I would bet he taught him to set up as early as possible to hit the ball from a balanced platform and then simply marveled that Pete could hit the ball so well even when he wasn't on the ground.
...



don

Tom Allsopp's thread:

http://www.tennisplayer.net/bulletin/showthread.php?p=21189#post21189

Spartak Tennis Club: Larisa Preobrazhenskaya

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/04/sports/playmagazine/04play-talent.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Pato Alvarez's Spanish coaching system by Martin Balbridge

http://www.soyouwanttowinwimbledon.com/TG%20INSIDE%20THE%20SPANISH%20COACHNG%20SYSTEM.pdf

"forward and backward V-shape using the double-rhythm footwork pattern"

Jelena Gencic(also coached Seles and Ivanisevic) or Niki Pilic with Djokovic

http://novakdjokovic.com/en/novak-djokovic/

pictures of Jelena hitting with young Novak
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HH_3zzqReZg

Interesting view and good points with champions!

Some coaches may agree with you on letting players make do. Even a top
college coach friend suggested good players/athletes find a way. But in my experience it does the player a disservice. Some good players/athletes develop great footwork. Others don't. I've seen many strong players develop poor footwork simply because they were either taught incorrectly or were never taught.

A better question might be comparative analysis of players in the top 10 vs players ranked 500-1000. What was emphasized in junior development, etc. But also, one has to consider highly ranked players who don't have great physical talents. What made them great? What was special?

One difference between top players and lesser players is coachability and desire to experiment and challenge themselves. The best players recognize what they need to work on. They seek help and listen to coaches. They are more attuned to what worked and what didn't. Lesser players don't recognize that. They tend to play and work on strengths (which gives them confidence).
There are studies showing this as the development of expertise is a hot topic in learning and psychology. Better players remain longer in the learning stage. Lesser players are more likely to just compete rather than learn or experiment. Hence, lesser players don't work on weaknesses.

Teaching footwork and movement is just like the serve. You might have a great athlete serve using a poor technique and wrong grip. He might serve 110 mph and you figure he's doing great. But if you work with it to reach his potential, he might serve more spin and add 15 mph to the serve.

Not everyone can figure out things. We should not assume because Einstein discovered the Theory of Relativity, everyone can do it on their own. Sampras and Federer didn't do it naturally. It took years of hard work and coaching. It's rare that an athlete develops naturally on their own. So leaving it to chance isn't good coaching.

One should keep in mind, that a coach's ignorance of footwork doesn't mean bad coaching. Many coaches in the past believed mostly in technique. Or teaching footwork in a certain way (e.g, Tom Stowe). However, if no one is teaching it, then there is no true disadvantage. If no runner in a 100m sprint is wearing the latest shoe technology, it becomes a even playing field. But if you have the latest technology which can cut 0.15 seconds off your time, then use it.

As for teaching what to do in emergency situations, I think most players were coached in it. It's hard to imagine a player not being drilled with low wide balls. Boris Becker was actually taught how to dive. Richard Schönborn actually has such a drill. Despite being responsible for Germany's ascent to greatness in tennis (Becker, Graf, Stich, etc), politics didn't keep him in charge. However, was time spent on emergencies a major portion of training? No. Perhaps only 10% of the time was spent for a certain player on difficult defensive situations. Perhaps 40% of the time was spent on the forehand weapon. How a coach and player choose to use the time wisely is very important. That concept invovles periodization and planning.

Some coaches were very successful since they instilled discipline and hard work. (Robert Lansdorp is such an example). Quite frankly, sometimes good technique might not be instilled but rather a less-than-ideal technique might be instilled. However, the discipline, athleticism and hard work overrides the technical flaws. For example, Elena Dementieva's serve. It did get better after working with Andy Brandi. But for her to get to the finals of Roland Garros without a good serve is a remarkable testament to her tenacity, hard work, great court movement and powerful groundstrokes. Brenda Schultz-McCarthy after her career felt had she developed a better technical game, she would have been top 5 in the world. She reached #9. The same for Tim Mayotte who reached #7 in the world. He mentioned later, after his retirement, he wished someone pointed out the flaw in his serve.

Footwork technique is important and we know Andy Roddick wasn't the best at moving forward. Or his backhand which got better with coaching from Jimmy Connors. Nadal is constantly tweaking his game. With both Roddick and Nadal, they did receive considerable advice on how to develop more offensive footwork. I think David Bailey would probably agree many players need to learn footwork. I know some coaches use Bailey's system and find it very valuable. USTA adopted much of the Spanish footwork movement drills and in their coaching philosophy it is very clear ("hands, feet and mind").

However, Bailey's method is very comprehensive/catalogued. I don't think a player should be taught all the footwork since the technical style of play often dictates footwork. There are several ways of moving forward just like there are several ways of hitting the ball. Learning 1-2 of them is likely good enough. As I mentioned, using a two-handed backhand requires different movement than a one-hander. The same for slice and topspin. An ATP player who stands 5'9" and weighs 150 pounds and hits with significant topspin will move quite differently from a WTA player standing 6'2" who hits flat and big. Years ago, players hit flatter, used eastern/continental grips, and the game was slower. Hence, footwork involved more square and even closed stances although semi-open and open were also used.

For example, a coach who teaches shuffling and stepping into every ball probably is limiting his student assuming he and the student are very disciplined. The student might get to an ITF ranking of 400 but won't achieve a top 150 ranking which may be possible with better movement.

As good as Sampras was, we need to keep in mind that he didn't win Roland Garros. He didn't develop the ideal footwork or groundstrokes for the game. The same for Andre Agassi who preferred to shuffle rather than slide on the clay. His talent in ball-striking, however, did allow him to win Roland Garros, unlike Pete. Perhaps if Andre was coached on clay at a young age, he would have mastered the surface and have 3-4 Roland Garros titles (which he nearly did anyhow).

We often discuss a player may be limited by his or her technique (for example the serve or backhand). For example, Djokovic was #3 in the world for a while despite a relatively weak serve. Once he overcame that, he reached #1 (along with the gluten-free diet, improved fitness and confidence).

We also often discuss a player's unwillingness to improve discipline and focus as a limiting factor. For example, Safin, Rios or Gulbis. Or we discuss a player's limiting mental abilities, for example Novotna, Mandikova, Coria, etc. It is, of course, relative since they did quite well on the tour. So perhaps a more disciplined Safin would have won 1-2 more major titles but there is a limit.

And we discuss a player's limitations in fitness.

So why not discuss a player's footwork? It really isn't a mysterious natural consequence. Rather it often requires nurture.

But just as some people naturally develop a great serve, there are a few who will develop great footwork on their own. As the Europeans presently dominate tennis, they had an advantage over their American counterparts in playing significantly more soccer in their youth. Vic Braden noted that juniors who play soccer move significantly better (1.5 steps quicker to the ball, I think...and also probably more efficient in recovery, etc). Personally I have noted it as well and prefer tennis players with a background in soccer for development of skills.

Overall, technique is only one part of tennis. Whatever the technique, if the fighting spirit isn't there, the player won't rise to the top. However, it is a tool for every player. The role of a good coach is 1) provide the player the best technical and tactical tools to win, 2) help instill the work ethic, confidence and understanding of the game, and 3) a respect and love for the game.

[stotty]

What a thread

This is a great thread, but I think the heart of the question is much deeper than whether the style of footwork advocated in the Swedish video clips is appropriate of not. I don't think so many optional footwork patterns should be "taught". As I understand it, David Bailey's work came out of his many years of working with players at the Bollettierri Academy in Bradenton. But I doubt if anyone ever taught Andre Agassi or Pete Sampras a "mogul" footwork move. Probably early on in his development, Robert Lansdorp taught Pete to set his plant foot down pointed to the side fence, but I would bet he taught him to set up as early as possible to hit the ball from a balanced platform and then simply marveled that Pete could hit the ball so well even when he wasn't on the ground. (Hey John, could you ask Robert?!) I do know from meeting him and talking to him that he is very proud of how tough he would feed balls to his students. For me, while he may not have been the fastest player on the court, Andre has the best footwork in recent memory. I doubt very much that his dad ever taught him any of these compensating moves for adjusting to hit the ball off balance. His adjustment was to play the ball on the rise if he had to, but he almost always had his feet set beautifully.

The best movement on the court in today's game belongs to the Fab Four, with Djokovic probably the best of the group. Jelena Gencic was a career tennis coach who may have adopted specific patterns in teaching Novak, but I really doubt she ever "taught" him how to hit a ball when he was unable to get in position, at least not with a specific footwork pattern. And I can not for the life of me imagine Niki Pilic doing anything like that. Andy Murray finished his development as a teenager under the tutelage of Pato Alvarez at the Casal-Sanchez Academy in Spain, but the movement he exhibits when he covers the court with his unbelievable range seems to me to have little to do with Pato's V-shape double-rhythm footwork pattern. (Martin Balbridge's piece on the Spanish coaching system , cited below, is a great read.) Federer is characterized by his long strides as the opposite of the shuffle steps that Rafa seems to employ much more in the vein of the double-rhythm pattern. Just outside that Fab Four, Ferrer does indeed seem to employ that double-rhythm footwork pattern. No question, it works! But is it the best way to go? I'm not so sure; in fact, I don't think so. It certainly is a simple system that works. But again, I don't think that system teaches you how to put your feet down in all these crazy compensating patterns. The movement drills create situations where the player has to adjust and adapt his footwork to play the ball, but I doubt very much they are working like choreographers learning different steps. I think Stotty is very much on the money when he brings up the point that the first step is in your mind. I'm going to add that it better be connected to the racket head.

I don't think Larissa Preobrazhenskaya, when she was training Dementieva, Safina or Myskina and having them go through her disciplined stroking drills to learn their initial movement patterns, was having these future champions practice hitting the ball compensating for not getting in position in time. On the contrary, they didn't have the chance to hit as many balls as other kids, but they got very disciplined, balanced initial stroking mechanics down pat before they even got to play in any kind of competition.

Basically, you can't get away from the Second Law of Thermodynamics: Entropy Increases. That means disorder increases. If you start out at a certain level of orderliness, you will invariably descend to some lower order, unless some additional energy is put in to maintain or increase that level of order. If you start out with a stroke that is less than perfectly balanced under ideal conditions, when it is subjected to stress and pressure, it will not miraculously get better; it will degenerate and degrade. So we are better off trying to instill the highest order of "orderliness" initially so that when the stroke inevitably is subjected to stress and pressure, enough of the good elements of that "orderly" stroke remain to allow it to function. To put that Second Law into more colloquial terms: "S*#t happens!" and before you know it you are in the state described by the acronyms S.N.A.F.U. or F.U.B.A.R. and the player has to adjust and adapt. The point I was trying to make to Tom Alsopp (please see his thread: http://www.tennisplayer.net/bulletin...1189#post21189) is that I want to focus the initial habits of my young players as close as possible on the ideal (footwork like Agassi) and give them as high a level of "orderliness" from which they will naturally descend in the heat of competition and pressure.

When I saw how well they were hitting the ball from the point of view of classical footwork, preparation and balance in the heated exchanges of the Australian Open final, it just confirmed that belief for me. Of course they hit a lot of balls on the move and from compensated and adapted positions, but it is amazing how much of the time they were able to get into great position to hit the ball even though it was traveling into corners at over 80 mph.

I'm hoping this thread and Tom Allsopp's thread continue and we get a little more discussion here. Below are some of the links to references in my post.

I really think we need to spend more time examining the process that players like Djokovic, Murray, Nadal, Federer, Agassi, Sampras, etc went through to develop into the players they became. And I mean details of how many hours of instruction, practice, match practice and tournament practice they had at each stage of their careers, down to day to day training schedules and tournament schedules. I've been in the business (counting when I became a ballboy for lessons) for 50 years, and I can't find satisfactory information describing the journeys those kind of players took. It would be a great resource and I would think it would be something that those players would be glad to contribute to further the game.

don

Tom Allsopp's thread:

http://www.tennisplayer.net/bulletin/showthread.php?p=21189#post21189

Spartak Tennis Club: Larisa Preobrazhenskaya

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/04/sports/playmagazine/04play-talent.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Pato Alvarez's Spanish coaching system by Martin Balbridge

http://www.soyouwanttowinwimbledon.com/TG%20INSIDE%20THE%20SPANISH%20COACHNG%20SYSTEM.pdf

"forward and backward V-shape using the double-rhythm footwork pattern"

Jelena Gencic(also coached Seles and Ivanisevic) or Niki Pilic with Djokovic

http://novakdjokovic.com/en/novak-djokovic/

pictures of Jelena hitting with young Novak
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HH_3zzqReZg

This thread is developing in to everything I hoped it would.

The Spanish drills are legendary for their repetition...with all coaches singing from the same hymn sheet. Instill the basics, then see what develops.

This whole business of teaching footwork patterns is really interesting. How much can you teach, how much is innate and simply self-develops? This is what I would like to know because I simply have no idea. When Lennart Bergelin first clapped eyes on Borg, he said the first thing he noticed was his remarkable footwork, and from that alone he deduced any player who can move that well had a great chance of being a great player. His comments inferred Borg was simply a great mover by nature.

But Federer seems to have more footwork patterns and combinations. So was this taught? Or was a large part of it just down to being a great natural mover?

The Martin Balbridge article: Judy Murray (Andy's mother) instigated Andy be coached by Pato Alvarez, who had coached Nastase to success at Roland Garros decades earlier. The coaching relationship lasted one year. Murray parted with Alvarez due to the massive age gap between them. Murray was a teenager; Alvarez a man in his seventies. Murray found it difficult to relate to someone so old. I have never heard of this hardcourt/clay court story stated in the article. I could be wrong and will check on it. Judy Murray stated clearly some time ago it was purely a boy/grandad thing.

Regarding tennis_chiro's last point: I have spoken to a number of top players hoping to glean information about the training and process that made them so good. The frustrating thing is they seldom remember anything worthwhile or complimentary. They seem to have very little interest in the subject either...and never single out any particular coach or method for credit. Never do they cite a strong bond with a coach in their early formative years. Weird. If it was me I feel like I would remember everything.

I have regularly spoken with John Lloyd's father who lives just a few blocks from me. He cites John's success was down to his mother spending hours and hours teaching him the basics...nothing more...nothing less. No rocket science, just sheer practice and the will to succeed. Instill the basics, then cross your fingers and hope for the best...the player fine tunes himself...true or false?...I, like tennis_chiro, would love to know the answer.

[tennis_chiro]

It's in your head, but you have to connect the racket head!

This is a great thread, but I think the heart of the question is much deeper than whether the style of footwork advocated in the Swedish video clips is appropriate of not. I don't think so many optional footwork patterns should be "taught". As I understand it, David Bailey's work came out of his many years of working with players at the Bollettierri Academy in Bradenton. But I doubt if anyone ever taught Andre Agassi or Pete Sampras a "mogul" footwork move. Probably early on in his development, Robert Lansdorp taught Pete to set his plant foot down pointed to the side fence, but I would bet he taught him to set up as early as possible to hit the ball from a balanced platform and then simply marveled that Pete could hit the ball so well even when he wasn't on the ground. (Hey John, could you ask Robert?!) I do know from meeting him and talking to him that he is very proud of how tough he would feed balls to his students. For me, while he may not have been the fastest player on the court, Andre has the best footwork in recent memory. I doubt very much that his dad ever taught him any of these compensating moves for adjusting to hit the ball off balance. His adjustment was to play the ball on the rise if he had to, but he almost always had his feet set beautifully.

The best movement on the court in today's game belongs to the Fab Four, with Djokovic probably the best of the group. Jelena Gencic was a career tennis coach who may have adopted specific patterns in teaching Novak, but I really doubt she ever "taught" him how to hit a ball when he was unable to get in position, at least not with a specific footwork pattern. And I can not for the life of me imagine Niki Pilic doing anything like that. Andy Murray finished his development as a teenager under the tutelage of Pato Alvarez at the Casal-Sanchez Academy in Spain, but the movement he exhibits when he covers the court with his unbelievable range seems to me to have little to do with Pato's V-shape double-rhythm footwork pattern. (Martin Balbridge's piece on the Spanish coaching system , cited below, is a great read.) Federer is characterized by his long strides as the opposite of the shuffle steps that Rafa seems to employ much more in the vein of the double-rhythm pattern. Just outside that Fab Four, Ferrer does indeed seem to employ that double-rhythm footwork pattern. No question, it works! But is it the best way to go? I'm not so sure; in fact, I don't think so. It certainly is a simple system that works. But again, I don't think that system teaches you how to put your feet down in all these crazy compensating patterns. The movement drills create situations where the player has to adjust and adapt his footwork to play the ball, but I doubt very much they are working like choreographers learning different steps. I think Stotty is very much on the money when he brings up the point that the first step is in your mind. I'm going to add that it better be connected to the racket head.

I don't think Larissa Preobrazhenskaya, when she was training Dementieva, Safina or Myskina and having them go through her disciplined stroking drills to learn their initial movement patterns, was having these future champions practice hitting the ball compensating for not getting in position in time. On the contrary, they didn't have the chance to hit as many balls as other kids, but they got very disciplined, balanced initial stroking mechanics down pat before they even got to play in any kind of competition.

Basically, you can't get away from the Second Law of Thermodynamics: Entropy Increases. That means disorder increases. If you start out at a certain level of orderliness, you will invariably descend to some lower order, unless some additional energy is put in to maintain or increase that level of order. If you start out with a stroke that is less than perfectly balanced under ideal conditions, when it is subjected to stress and pressure, it will not miraculously get better; it will degenerate and degrade. So we are better off trying to instill the highest order of "orderliness" initially so that when the stroke inevitably is subjected to stress and pressure, enough of the good elements of that "orderly" stroke remain to allow it to function. To put that Second Law into more colloquial terms: "S*#t happens!" and before you know it you are in the state described by the acronyms S.N.A.F.U. or F.U.B.A.R. and the player has to adjust and adapt. The point I was trying to make to Tom Alsopp (please see his thread: http://www.tennisplayer.net/bulletin...1189#post21189) is that I want to focus the initial habits of my young players as close as possible on the ideal (footwork like Agassi) and give them as high a level of "orderliness" from which they will naturally descend in the heat of competition and pressure.

When I saw how well they were hitting the ball from the point of view of classical footwork, preparation and balance in the heated exchanges of the Australian Open final, it just confirmed that belief for me. Of course they hit a lot of balls on the move and from compensated and adapted positions, but it is amazing how much of the time they were able to get into great position to hit the ball even though it was traveling into corners at over 80 mph.

I'm hoping this thread and Tom Allsopp's thread continue and we get a little more discussion here. Below are some of the links to references in my post.

I really think we need to spend more time examining the process that players like Djokovic, Murray, Nadal, Federer, Agassi, Sampras, etc went through to develop into the players they became. And I mean details of how many hours of instruction, practice, match practice and tournament practice they had at each stage of their careers, down to day to day training schedules and tournament schedules. I've been in the business (counting when I became a ballboy for lessons) for 50 years, and I can't find satisfactory information describing the journeys those kind of players took. It would be a great resource and I would think it would be something that those players would be glad to contribute to further the game.

don

Tom Allsopp's thread:

http://www.tennisplayer.net/bulletin/showthread.php?p=21189#post21189

Spartak Tennis Club: Larisa Preobrazhenskaya

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/04/sports/playmagazine/04play-talent.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Pato Alvarez's Spanish coaching system by Martin Balbridge

http://www.soyouwanttowinwimbledon.com/TG%20INSIDE%20THE%20SPANISH%20COACHNG%20SYSTEM.pdf

"forward and backward V-shape using the double-rhythm footwork pattern"

Jelena Gencic(also coached Seles and Ivanisevic) or Niki Pilic with Djokovic

http://novakdjokovic.com/en/novak-djokovic/

pictures of Jelena hitting with young Novak

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HH_3zzqReZg

[stotty]

The first yard is in your head

This footwork stuff is interesting. I always knew it was one area I needed to improve at. In the UK very little emphasis is put on HOW to move. We just say (me included) “come on get on your toes and get moving”. Our high performance coaching fairs no better in the HOW-to-move department either. I’ve visited (and forwarded many kids) to performance centres so I know what goes on in these places.

I have a group of friends who were all good squash players. They laughed when I played with them because I just played tennis on a squash court. The ball would bounce off the walls and I would simply follow it round going dizzy. I was hopeless at it.

One of my friends played squash to a high standard around the time of Jahangir Khan and Jansher Khan. We would watch those two incredibles play in the only era where squash was electric to watch. Jansher’s movement was out of this world.

One thing my friend always told me that “in squash the first yard is in your head, after that you just have to be bloody quick”. Long strides and stretchy movement. Djokovic might have been good at squash. I find squash movement at the top level very elegant and graceful...effortless

It’s “the first yard is in your head” that stuck in my mind. McEnroe was quick in his head movement-wise.

[DougEng]

Doug & don_budge,

I purposely chose the clip to illustrate the work and industry involved in good footwork. The clip opens to a rally where Borg is mostly covering a small pocket of the court. But his work rate in that small area is a great example of how to keep moving in between shots...always moving, moving, working, working...never lazy.

I have plenty of young students who are quick but who are less industrious when they feel they don’t have to cover too much court. This leads to poor footwork around the ball and with it a poor set up for the stroke itself, in my view.

I could have posted a clip of Borg racing around at amazing speed. Or a modern clip of Djokovic. But none of my students are in that league and never will be. The purpose of showing the clip to students is to demonstrate good basic footwork within a rally typical of the kind they find themselves embroiled in.

I find some of the old school clips provide good illustrations of the fundamentals, and I use them frequently alongside clips of Nadal and Federer...why not?

I take don_budge’s point about the Lendl/Borg head to head. Lendl was having real trouble mastering Borg. In one of the two matches Lendl won, Borg retired injured after leading by a set and and on serve in the second. But Lendl’s peak came later. He got better. McEnroe got better, too, reaching his peak a year after Borg’s retirement. This is to take nothing away from Borg. He set the bar for his generation in much the same way Federer has set the bar in his. Borg, Lendl and Mac are all exceptional players in my book.

Onto Doug's comments...

The Federer/Borg comparisons are interesting. Federer has a large array of footwork patterns.

The 0:51 and 3:33 moves I found unusual. Interesting this back pivot stuff. Is that taught or an innate quality? Some of Federer’s moves seem ad hoc and don’t repeat. Borg’s footwork certainly does repeat. His shuffle was unmistakable, and he was a remarkably quick player.

Here is a great clip of Laver playing Borg. The clip is good quality with the ball clearly visible. It’s a great clip because at times we get Borg moving at full pelt. (Just amazes me how Laver dangles his racket like that).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RiSakiF4jzk

Can't make my mind up about Borg's left hand release on the backhand. I think it's a two-hander in every respect, then I look for the release and I'm never too sure.

All the players have good footwork, just that they are different. John Yandell likes my term "associated techniques" and it is the case here. Borg has tremendous footwork for a medium-paced game. And you are correct regarding many club players today. If they hit at a slow or medium pace, they should be able to use Borg's footwork mostly but also keep in mind they are slower. Hence, they might actually benefit from a combination of different footwork.

Footwork is relative. If the player is relatively quickly for the pace of the rally and not pressured severely, the footwork will tend to be shuffles and square or semi-open stances. In addition, footwork is also affected by stroke technique.

With increasing speed of the rally relative to the players foot speed, you should see increasing crossovers, moguls and power moves (another Bailey term).

Borg was extremely quick. So combined with medium-paced rallies, his footwork should be mostly shuffles.

The faster version of shuffles, if I coin it, should be skip shuffles (when both feet are in the air and often meet together briefly).

The back crossover that Federer uses is not unsual but being taught today. The advantage is greater speed without turning the hips. Therefore it allows Federer to move quicker but be ready to change directions. He can stay square to the net with the back crossover. If he did a front crossover, he'd turn his hip. It is a similar purpose to the carioca step on the backhand approach shot.

I think John wants to turn this conversation into an article. I have been teaching this type of footwork with technique and rally speed with good success. In seminars/training, coaches love the concept as well. It is relatively cutting edge since top academies are probably using it but not the typical academy.

Best,
Doug

[stotty]

Borg/Federer

Doug & don_budge,

I purposely chose the clip to illustrate the work and industry involved in good footwork. The clip opens to a rally where Borg is mostly covering a small pocket of the court. But his work rate in that small area is a great example of how to keep moving in between shots...always moving, moving, working, working...never lazy.

I have plenty of young students who are quick but who are less industrious when they feel they don’t have to cover too much court. This leads to poor footwork around the ball and with it a poor set up for the stroke itself, in my view.

I could have posted a clip of Borg racing around at amazing speed. Or a modern clip of Djokovic. But none of my students are in that league and never will be. The purpose of showing the clip to students is to demonstrate good basic footwork within a rally typical of the kind they find themselves embroiled in.

I find some of the old school clips provide good illustrations of the fundamentals, and I use them frequently alongside clips of Nadal and Federer...why not?

I take don_budge’s point about the Lendl/Borg head to head. Lendl was having real trouble mastering Borg. In one of the two matches Lendl won, Borg retired injured after leading by a set and and on serve in the second. But Lendl’s peak came later. He got better. McEnroe got better, too, reaching his peak a year after Borg’s retirement. This is to take nothing away from Borg. He set the bar for his generation in much the same way Federer has set the bar in his. Borg, Lendl and Mac are all exceptional players in my book.

Onto Doug's comments...

The Federer/Borg comparisons are interesting. Federer has a large array of footwork patterns.

The 0:51 and 3:33 moves I found unusual. Interesting this back pivot stuff. Is that taught or an innate quality? Some of Federer’s moves seem ad hoc and don’t repeat. Borg’s footwork certainly does repeat. His shuffle was unmistakable, and he was a remarkably quick player.

Here is a great clip of Laver playing Borg. The clip is good quality with the ball clearly visible. It’s a great clip because at times we get Borg moving at full pelt. (Just amazes me how Laver dangles his racket like that).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RiSakiF4jzk

Can't make my mind up about Borg's left hand release on the backhand. I think it's a two-hander in every respect, then I look for the release and I'm never too sure.

[don_budge]

licensedcoach...aka Stotty forum diplomat...

"Take your pick", I told my young friend Andreas the golf professional as we were discussing life and women one day not so long ago...live your life like a scientist or an artist. "I choose to live as an artist...even though I can do the math."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jZmFMUGTTU

Interesting the court positioning of both men. Neither is concerned about leaving the line open, choosing instead to blatantly cover the crosscourt shot they feel sure is coming.

Another lovely ability of the Swede in the clip is his ability to "dart", giving him immense speed over a short distances. Nastase had the same gift...made him so fast at the net over the first half a yard. The game's scientists always miss/overlook abstract stuff like this...it's there, just look.

Thanks for the video Old Boy...exquisite and sublime images. You know there is really very little that confounds me in the game of tennis but here is one of the biggest conundrums of all time. I think it beats the stuffing out of things like...which came first the chicken or the egg or is the glass half empty or is it half full. My question is this...does Borg's left hand stay on the racquet until after his racquet meets the ball or does he release just before...or does he time it perfectly and release when he meets the ball? It is a one-and-a-halfhand backhand...isn't it?

Your choice of examples of great footwork are not lost on me...my friend. Borg was sort of leading the charge into the modern game even when it was still teetering on the edge of being classical. His back foot does square up on his forehand but he is perfectly balanced at impact and it doesn't merely come traipsing through as his fellow Swede demonstrates in the Swedish School of Tennis. No...his foot comes through as a part of his momentum towards recovery which is of course technique that is proper and always has been. His bigger follow through with the strong grip on the forehand was the catalyst of the move...it's fundamentally correct. Haha...a new term from don_budge. Fundamentally correct or FC...as it applies to tennis instruction.

These two guys were true Titans of the classic game of tennis and it just so happens that they chose to play predominately from the backcourt. When they were playing it was a choice and not dictated by engineering. Each ruled and dominated like so few ever have or ever will...past, present or future. Borg came on as a teenager and took the tennis world by the short hairs almost instantly...then he was gone. Lendl on the other hand, melancholy and moody, went through a period when everyone wanted to cast him as a mere choke artist then he went on to being arguably one of the best tennis players of all time. Certainly during his reign there were few that could match his confidence or his arrogance. Andy Murray may have made an astute decision in hiring him as his Svengali.

Lendl is perhaps one of the all-time FC tennis players ever from the backcourt. He sets up perfectly for every ball off of the bounce and it was virtually impossible to hit through him. The music video series of Lendl and John McEnroe could perhaps be the best ever instructional tennis videos...without a single word being said. Hmmm....the sounds of silence. The contrast between the apparent artistry of the Mad Hatter McEnroe and the Dour Czech Lendl will forever be a study in the art and engineering of a tennis player.

Borg finished with a 6-2 career advantage of Lendl. He got out when the going was good...Lendl had not reached his potential. Overall Borg was 608-127 in wins and losses while Lendl reached the astounding 1,071- 239 mark. You be the judge...which is more impressive. In this match at the masters in New York which was being witnessed by none other than the legendary J. Donald Budge and his wife Lori...Borg does a tap dance on Lendl's game to the tune of 6-4, 6-2, 6-2. He taught him a lesson that day. I will bet that it was one that Lendl never forgot...a sterling performance by a platinum Borg. What a great choice to post...under the thread, "Footwork...Swedish Style". Thanks again...Stotty.

[DougEng]

Great input from Doug as usual. Sometimes I feel we're all getting educated in many of the posts he writes. What a forum contributor!

What a great thread, too, from don_budge...another of the game's great educators. No one treads a surer path than don_budge. No one on the forum is so unwavering, so certain.

But take a look at this. I could have shown you Nadal or Djokovic...two court-shrinkers when it comes to court coverage. Instead I chose someone else.

I show this clip to students to educate them about footwork and the importance of keeping busy on court in the hope they will try and do the same...wishful thinking perhaps, but how many coaches wouldn't love their students to be as busy in their footwork as the Swede in the clip.

We see plenty of shuffling side steps and quick recovery back into position. It's always the side steps until real speed is needed, then it's a quick switch to gravity steps...the afterburners.

It's a super example, I think, of busy, relentless footwork which every aspiring player should try to emulate.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jZmFMUGTTU

Interesting the court positioning of both men. Neither is concerned about leaving the line open, choosing instead to blatantly cover the crosscourt shot they feel sure is coming.

Another lovely ability of the Swede in the clip is his ability to "dart", giving him immense speed over a short distances. Nastase had the same gift...made him so fast at the net over the first half a yard. The game's scientists always miss/overlook abstract stuff like this...it's there, just look.

Wonderful first point demostrating solid basic footwork!
During Borg's time, movement wasn't as violent/forceful. And Borg with great anticipation could afford to mostly shuffle. There are notable exceptions, however to the maybe 70% classic shuffle steps:

NOTES
0:45 On the FH, Borg uses a mogul move - he's slightly wider than usual and adds a bit more pace to the shot. Note the back (right) foot slides ahead of left foot. That typically happens on the FH, not the BH.
0:49 After the FH, Borg is wider off the court and needs to accelerate in recovery so he uses a crossover step.
1:03 Again Borg adds more rotation so the back foot pivots forward.
1:58 Borg uses a spin move on the wide ball
2:06 Borg moving backwards on the deep BH, backwards spin move.
2:12 I call this the running through the approach shot. Or it's a bit of a fast walk. Borg does not break a stride on the wide forward ball. For wide short balls, this footwork is very useful. I don't believe Bailey classifies this footwork. But it is an important type of movement. Not to be confused with the "walking" given in the Swedish video which is Bailey's hop step (I call it a double step...that is two steps on the same foot going forward).
2:48 again a FH spin move on the wide shot from Borg.
2:51 not sure if Bailey classifies this movement, but it you can see Borg has to run to the BH harder than usual so his acceleration/deceleration and strides are longer and his recovery step is far wider.
2:54 Borg spin moves on the inside-in FH.
2:57 Borg from the center of the court uses one of his more closed semi-open stances. Look carefully as he almost goes square. He does not need to move much and hence aligns his feet differently. Because he does not have the usual acceleration/deceleration, his recovery footwork is simpler and not as forceful. Look at the feet after hitting. Very casual.
3:06 another running approach shot through the middle of the court
Note it's dynamic nature almost never breaking a stride.
3:38 Borg run-around inside-out FH requires a spin move to facilitate recovery.
3:41 Borg is most off the court on his BH (like 2:06) and uses a spin move that is well elevated (arial). He uses more ground forces to decelerate eccentrically. Contract that to:
3:43 when Lendl hits the shot to Borg's BH...Bjorn does not need to move and hence after hitting, the back foot does not move as violently forward as in other situations. He casually recovers and again at 3:46 when Lendl again hits to the BH. Contract that to
3:52 on the running forehand. Note the widest stance and arial mogul/slalom move on recovery. Note the crossover step used for recovery.

For the most part, Borg uses a shuffle step recovery as the ball is slow-paced by modern standards. He also uses a in-air foot-bump technique. I don't see anyone describe it which is different from a grounded shuffle step (slowest). Federer also frequently uses the mid-air foot-bump which is a faster version of a shuffle step.

Today's players need to move faster.

Compare to:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGK3L5dDsq8

0:02 Federer uses 2 crossover steps to recover
0:12 Federer uses a mogul and crossover to recover
On the same rally from the center of the court he uses a hop step to approach or attack the short ball at 0:15
0:32 Federer with another crossover on the wide FH recovery.
0:38 Watch closely, Federer uses a crossover to set up a run-around the BH.
0:51 Federer uses a back crossover to recover from the BH. This is interesting since years ago (25 years about) when I was filming myself on the backhand, I noted I used a very similar footwork. But at the time, no one developed any kind of theory or idea of movement. I was just starting to teach but I noted it was the fastest way of recovering. Basically I used a quick recovery step (outwards with the back foot) which then almost immediately goes into a back crossover. Strangely I never taught it since no one else mentioned it. And when you have only a year or two teaching experience, you don't try to reinvent the wheel.
1:04 Federer again uses the back crossover step on the BH recovery which he does again at 1:06.
1:17 Federer uses a backwards pivot move to create space on the deep run-around the BH. Right after that, he is very deep in the court and uses a back crossover. At the end of the point 1:21 from the center, he again uses a backwards pivot (I call it a one-legged spin move) rather than squaring his stance and stepping in. Andy's ball wasn't that deep.
3:33 Federer often uses this type of movement on the BH. He uses a backkick and front foot recovery. On many BHs, he remains square and as he hits, the back foot comes off the ground and moves backwards (like his arms apart). He then touches down and moves the front foot back to the center. You can see it again at
3:36 and 4:01
5:31 an open stance BH by Federer on the wide serve. He adds a back crossover.
5:34 Federer uses a back pivot. Often he drives off the back leg which signifies more vertical/angular forces (topspin) than a Borg.
6:28 watch Federer's next few shots. He uses a back pivot move on 3 FHs and a backkick on the BH.


Federer usually moves the front (left) leg backwards even on fairly offensive balls. He rarely steps in unless it is a hop step.
7:34 Federer uses a rare step in. But note the right side comes forward ahead of his left foot after the shot.

Compare to Dinara Safina

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oV0ACwwZcvk

0:26-0:32 3 FHs off a square stance transferring weight to the front leg.
0:40 a step-down BH
1:04 3 BH, 2 with the back leg stepping up afterwards but one with planting.
2:23 square stance with back foot coming up (ahead of front)
2:26 step down FH


Safina, like many of the 'big babe' tennis generation tends to hit flatter than the men. In addition, a 6'1" female usually is not a strong mover on the court and it takes more force to get her off the ground than a Henin, Errani or Stosur.

Hence, it is important to acknowledge technical styles of players (and athleticism and size) do impact types of footwork involved.

[stotty]

Talking of footwork and Swedes

Great input from Doug as usual. Sometimes I feel we're all getting educated in many of the posts he writes. What a forum contributor!

What a great thread, too, from don_budge...another of the game's great educators. No one treads a surer path than don_budge. No one on the forum is so unwavering, so certain.

But take a look at this. I could have shown you Nadal or Djokovic...two court-shrinkers when it comes to court coverage. Instead I chose someone else.

I show this clip to students to educate them about footwork and the importance of keeping busy on court in the hope they will try and do the same...wishful thinking perhaps, but how many coaches wouldn't love their students to be as busy in their footwork as the Swede in the clip.

We see plenty of shuffling side steps and quick recovery back into position. It's always the side steps until real speed is needed, then it's a quick switch to gravity steps...the afterburners.

It's a super example, I think, of busy, relentless footwork which every aspiring player should try to emulate.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jZmFMUGTTU

Interesting the court positioning of both men. Neither is concerned about leaving the line open, choosing instead to blatantly cover the crosscourt shot they feel sure is coming.

Another lovely ability of the Swede in the clip is his ability to "dart", giving him immense speed over a short distances. Nastase had the same gift...made him so fast at the net over the first half a yard. The game's scientists always miss/overlook abstract stuff like this...it's there, just look.

[DougEng]

I agree with vcr10s and John Yandell.

First, this should be taught. But how? Definitely not as shown.
Second, personally I like Bailey's footwork but I think it has to be taught in context of tactical and technical situations. The Swedish situation gives very basic situations and doesn't show development of racquet head speed or spin (tactical). Most of footwork depends on several factors:
1) directional forces on the body, 2) acceleration/velocity required to move to the ball and also in hitting the ball, 3) spin and grips types.

In also reference to Bailey's work. I've seen coaches try to teach Bailey's footwork to juniors but again, it's taken out of context, technical or tactical situations. Similar to this Swedish variation (which is a small piece of Bailey's).

I think a problem in coaching is to teach a model that you were shown without truly understanding the reasoning behind it. Hence, technique, games, drills are given to players without really trying to build a cohesive game. So it is important to have a clear reasoning behind what we teach. Science, videography, match charting, etc give very clear reasons to what we do and need to do. I agree, didactic teaching if misguided can lead down the wrong path (hence we get indoctrination).

For example, consider:
A) A player moving laterally hard using significant topspin. You will see a semi-open stance, not necessarily stepping backwards to the extend as shown. The player may use Bailey's spin move or mogul. Topspin (body rotation) and decelerative forces will force the body to come off the ground and landing forces on the outside foot. The fast lateral movement will necessitate those forces.

B) A player moving slowly to the ball (close by) using a moderate topspin and a relatively controlled swing. The stance may tend to be semi-open or square and the swing more classical (e.g., eastern and follow-through high and shorter body rotation) since racquet head speed may not be as significant. The player will only slightly step forward with the back foot. The forces on the body are not as great.

C) A player moving slowly to the ball (close by) using significant topspin and racquet head speed in an aggressive ATP type swing. The stance may tend to be semi-open (sometimes square depending on style). Racquet head is more significant and more body rotation and loading is required. Hence, the back foot will often come up significantly (ahead of the left/front foot). Forces are more significant.

D) A player moving backwards on a very deep high ball. The player should use a semi or fully open stance and use a backwards pivot or spin move to allow the racquet side of the body to accelerate since the player cannot step into the ball).
Forces are angular and even backwards. To hit hard, the player must rotate/spin with significant force and the front leg with come off the ground and often move backwards or stay in the air. A semi-western grip is often advantageous.

E) A player choosing to slice from the center of the court. Forces are more gentle on the body and less angular momentum is used. Instead a more linear, forward force is applied. The body does not rotate as much as during topspin strokes. Hence, feet tend to be grounded during the whole stroke as the upward vertical force is not major. Stances tend to be more square with the linear forces and less vertical force.


In addition, a counterattacking, heavily topspin style player (e.g, Ferrer or Nadal) will use more arial footwork than a flatter hitting, tall attacking player (e.g, Sharapova) meaning they will use more open stances, spin or mogul moves, rather than grounded (both feet usually remaining in contact with the ground) and more square stances. Men tend to use more spin and often more faster and develop greater forces so their footwork will differ from women's footwork. We often talk about the men's ground as more all-court, athletics and using spin, angles, etc whereas the women's especially late 1990s was dominated by big flatter hitters (Venus, Sharapova, Mary Pierce, Davenport, Ivanovic, etc). The more athletic women who are smaller and rely on movement and spin include Stosur, Henin, Schiavone use different footwork patterns. The latter type is more complex.

Club players if force-fed balls far away from them can learn more advanced footwork more easily. In doing so, they should also be encouraged to swing faster, etc to develop the natural forces on the body. Once they do so, movement, footwork types, recovery tend to become more natural. Often they don't and that becomes the teaching moment. If you feed balls near your student and they take easy strokes, they won't correctly develop the more advanced footwork. In doing so, have the players exaggerate the situations. Or give them relative extremes in cases (e.g, extremely short high ball or wide ball). Given that, physical training may be necessary with some players (e.g, core work, leg strength training, light plyometrics) but it becomes clearer what they need to do (to them).

I've seen pros teach Bailey's or similar to the Swedish movement without the accelerative/decelerative forces which makes it very artificial. In addition, they learn not only to be artificial (and as vcr10s points out, the kinetic chain is released incorrectly), but their technical approach to a tactical situation becomes flawed. Hence you see open stances when it should be square (e.g, short balls in the center of the court), square and (trying to) stepping in when it should be open, etc (e.g, wide balls).

I now use an integrated approach to footwork, technique, tactics and court position (or integrating the hitting cycle with tactical/court position) which is easy to learn. Even advanced beginners (2.0-2.5 in US) and definitely intermediate players (2.5-3.5 NTRP) can use develop correct tactics with appropriate footwork. Often we think it is too complex. Given that, I have gotten away from the teach one thing at a time (or one correction at a time). The human body and mind actually learns more than one thing and we are capable of multi-tasking. However, verbalizing this should be limited and progressions should be logical. Let the body learn the 3-4 things together. A problem in teaching is that we teach a player to hit a forehand. And we make them do it many times over. Then they believe that the forehand is just that one stroke and they try the same thing all over the court. We sometimes do the same thing with footwork and they only learn a couple ways to move. When they have those limited choices, they make technical mistakes from different parts on the court. When that happens, it becomes a tactical mistake (e.g, open stance with weight going back on an approach shot). Great athletes often override those mistakes (e.g, Nadal) since they have other ways to compensate (Nadal's tenacity, footspeed, topspin and consistency). Emilio Sanchez said a couple years back he was consulting with the Nadals and trying to get Rafa to move more forward in aggressive shots. Tim Mayotte (once ATP #7 in the 1980s) used to double fault frequently. But no one told him about his flawed footwork/stance on the serve. He corrected it after retiring and when starting to coach (you often learn more then even about your own game!). But when playing, he got enough aces and played aggressively enough that he was tough to break.

When I show this integrated system of learning in seminars or training, it's extremely well received. It's simple, elegant and easier to learn than people think. A bit like Grand Unification Theory in physics. So a good-hitting 10-year old can learn it in a few lessons.

Hope this is clear.