Interactive Forum June 2014: Dominic Thiem Forehand

[John Yandell]

What we are seeing here with the legs is common and there are many varieties as David Bailey's articles show.

The game is being played in the air with one or both foot off the court to allow for the increased body rotation in Dominic's swing as well as all the other top players.

Basically the ball is too high for neutral stance in the vast majority of cases, and neutral stance blocks the body rotation as well.

[don_budge]

from worldsbesttenniscoach to 10splayer (johnyandell in between)...connecting dots

I find this discussion interesting, and (naturally) have my own opinions on this as it relates to footwork. But i would like to hear more of yours.

Here is what i see. A player simply rotating about different axis. Weight shift, or the movement of center of mass (which helps determine the axis) is always shifting around based on many factors. All i see Thiem doing is "going with the ball". The first ball forces him to move left slightly (to create proper lateral postion) and his transfer is a reflection of that. He shifts his weight to the left side and rotates around that more forward axis.

On the second ball, he steps back and rotates around an axis that is predominately over his right leg. In fact, he picks up his left leg.

Is this wrong for him to do? Moreover, what would happen if he tried to force a forward, neutral stance forehand..

...WBTC spoke of staying behind the ball. Staying behind the ball will force you to rotate your shoulders around your spine if you are going to make any meaningful impact on the ball.

If you are a 10splayer or a golfplayer you understand that if you want to hit the ball harder...you turn your shoulders more. In tennis there is some natural lateral movement in the footwork in transferring the weight to the front foot due to the fact that the ball is approaching you. But it is the synchronistic effect of that movement with the rotation from the feet up and through the shoulders...around the spine...that gives exponential power to the swing...most easily perceived in the backhand swing. But this motion is the foundation of every swing in the book (which is Tilden) from the biggest booming serve to the daintiest of drop or touch shots.

In golf...you will tell a student that if they want to hit the ball longer (read harder)...you must only turn the shoulders more as opposed to "swinging harder". The bigger turn creates more potential energy in the setup.

As for Dominic Theim...he can certainly pound it. He needs a little seasoning on the tour. Make no mistake...keep an eye on this young man. He has an aura about him. He has attitude...yet he is also well within himself. Once he learns to let the game come to him...ala Federer or Djokovic he is going to be a force to deal with. Perhaps an ideal temperament to go along with his ideal size for a tennis player.

[stotty]

I find this discussion interesting, and (naturally) have my own opinions on this as it relates to footwork. But i would like to hear more of yours.

Here is what i see. A player simply rotating about different axis. Weight shift, or the movement of center of mass (which helps determine the axis) is always shifting around based on many factors. All i see Thiem doing is "going with the ball". The first ball forces him to move left slightly (to create proper lateral postion) and his transfer is a reflection of that. He shifts his weight to the left side and rotates around that more forward axis.

On the second ball, he steps back and rotates around an axis that is predominately over his right leg. In fact, he picks up his left leg.

Is this wrong for him to do? Moreover, what would happen if he tried to force a forward, neutral stance forehand..

It certainly doesn't look wrong. A lot of pro's can be seen doing the same thing they hit really powerful shots doing just this. Oscar Wegner claims when a player drives in to a ball and hits himself backwards it creates more power. This kind of physics is beyond me but there would certainly seem to be something in it. Nadal drives himself backwards on his forehand a lot.

One imagines that wherever the centre of axis is located, it's maintained somehow through the back, the spine. Just my guess, no evidence.

You would think a neutral stance on the second ball would stop him rotating...block his rotation.

I find this kind of conundrum perplexing so it would be great to get the views of others on 10splayer's post.

[10splayer]

I find this discussion interesting, and (naturally) have my own opinions on this as it relates to footwork. But i would like to hear more of yours.

Here is what i see. A player simply rotating about different axis. Weight shift, or the movement of center of mass (which helps determine the axis) is always shifting around based on many factors. All i see Thiem doing is "going with the ball". The first ball forces him to move left slightly (to create proper lateral postion) and his transfer is a reflection of that. He shifts his weight to the left side and rotates around that more forward axis.

On the second ball, he steps back and rotates around an axis that is predominately over his right leg. In fact, he picks up his left leg.

Is this wrong for him to do? Moreover, what would happen if he tried to force a forward, neutral stance forehand..

[stotty]

Chicken wings...

Nice clips. I haven't seen him play all that much yet. I hope he progresses as much as everyone says he might.

He really lifts those elbows up as he commences the shot. We call elbows that lift up like that "chicken wings" over here.

I wonder if anyone has any thoughts about lifting the elbows like that...the benefits...or any negative effects?

[hockeyscout]

???????

Interesting, Thiem is a 1993, and Grigor Dimitriev is a 1991.

Athletically and technically it ain't even close - Grigor Dimitrov is superior by a wide mile in every aspect of the game.

His feet look so bad in this video (Thiem). And, everything for him to me looks like it's a massive effort. He looks awful in that video.

However, here's an example of a guy who isn't a practice player (Grigor is the epitome of a practice player).

Despite his lack of speed, average quickness, feet always being way to close together he's terrific on the backhand, and he understands how to play the game of tennis, and looks good where it matters, the game (Thiem).

Guys like this can go a long way, and he's really going to have to work hard to overcome his athletic limits. The guys not naturally fast, however, that may help his development in the long term by forcing him to process and understand the game faster.

Don't think I will be studying this guy to much, however, his tennis game sense will likely take him a lot further than many others with better technique, smarter racket heads and more power.

Yesterday match with Maria Sharapova winning is a perfect example of how talent isn't a huge factor in the end equation of winning.

Sharapova is not the most talented, she does not move well, she's slow, her strokes aren't even close to being the best on the pro tour with these long shoulder buckling swings, however, she is big, strong, aggressive, tough, always trying to keep her feet moving, always engaged, 110 percent concentrated and she finds way matches no matter what! It might not look pretty, however, she finds a way to get it done.

That girl worked her ass off to make up for her lack of precocious talent!

You know, talented kids really worry me because they often do not know how to win the hard way, and most ATP and WTA tournaments need to be won the hard way as it's impossible to be on form with how much the body breaks down on the tour day in and day out.

[John Yandell]

I won't try to get into the science of it.

It's obvious that at the top level the semi open stance like Dominic uses predominates because it facilitates the rotation and also the upward explosion because the ball is so high.

This is what is creating (along with the rotation of the hitting arm) the racket head speed to hit 90mph with 3000rpm. In addition with the extreme grips this stance seems to be a requirement for getting the racket head all the way through the swing.

There is nothing wrong with neutral stance and I find that many players need it to complete the full turn. Players with turn problems usually straighten them out with a few neutral stance shots. Players who think they are playing like pros with wide open stances especially need this because even pros tend to have less turn fully open.

The front leg knee bend I believe can also be a contributor in a neutral stance. In addition it is very helpful in learning to hit with extension outward and not coming across too much too soon or back too soon.

It does tend to limit the forward rotation of the body unless the front foot comes off the ground. Interestingly also I have found many club players don't have the flexibility to rotate even 90 degrees through the forward swing with a neutral stance.

So at the pro level the racket speed required heavily favors semi-open. At the club level with a fairly conservative grip a neutral stance can have advantages but a semi-open is going to work as well or better for many players.

[10splayer]

But isn't it also a question of ground force? Doesn't leaning into the stroke result in more groundforce? (Disregarding the serve where the motion is to hit upwards...). You need groundforce to generate torsion. This is not stepping into the ball, it is shifting weight forward at impact like a corkscrew tilted forwards.

But linear momentum (movement of COM in a straight line) can be expressed in any direction. For instance, the act of stepping back, loading the right leg and pushing up (inducing ground reaction force) increases, and is a catalyst for, angular momentum. It's not just a "forward thing". And I believe this understanding is significant for adult players. I try to establish very early, movement skills in All directions...with an emphasis on right foot alignment and an ability to ALWAYS rotate on the ball regardless of stance choice.

But again, the big player is rotation/angular. One can crush the ball without stepping in, or pushing up significantly, provided they align to the ball properly and turn on it.

[tennishans 50]

the ATP forehand v the WTA forehand

[QUOTE=johnyandell;27123]Dominic Thiem Forehand

We looked at Dominic's wonderful backhand previously. Since then he recorded a big time win over Stan Wawrinka and a big part of that was his forehand. It's a powerful, technically superb weapon. Interestingly, it's hit with a double bend hitting arm structure, like Novak Djokovic, though with a slightly less extreme grip. What else though? Your thoughts please!


This is the ATP forehand. if you look at the other topplayers, they have that forehand: viz
1. the unit turn with the left on the racquet
2. the tip of the racquet pointing to the net
3: the racquet stays on the forehand side
4. the racquet head above the hand
5 establishing the power position with the feet grabbing the ground, bending in the kees as a launching pad ready to shoot up
6. the flip, because the racquet is above the wrist, is possible and here visible and this flip brings the head down and under the ball in an explosive movement, starting with the spring in the legs, the pulling of the bottom of the racquet and the hip pulling foreward
7. the finish with the wiper.

these keys are typical for the ATP forehand and are those differences to the WTA forehand, that gives the heavy balls with lots of topspin, acceleration and powe, which the WTA generally can't
take a look at the WTA and their long backswing, no flip, no wiper etc.

Hans from denmark[/LIST]

[klacr]

I think what Phil might be trying to say is being misunderstood as the old school "turn, step, hit" walking through the ball. When in fact he may be bringing up the fact that ominic Thiem may have enough time to "step down" into the fall, thus getting his weight transfer better set. here's an article that describes it.
https://www.tennisplayer.net/article/the-contact-move/

It is important to have a solid, set foundation when striking the ball like don mentions, but sometimes this is easier said then done but at pro level they do it better than most. More often you are seeing them strike the ball in the air, feet off the ground. John talks about this as well. And sometimes the players have time to actually step in or step down into the ball. I think or a player like Phil, at the club level, he may be seeing and feeling things a bit differently since he has more time than professional players.

What is tricky is that we aren't seeing the ball that Thiem is receiving. Is it short enough for him to step down and he's not, or all these balls hit with enough depth and speed that his current form is the only solution.

It's important to watch a player's strokes, but sometimes it's also important to see if those strokes correlate and have the associated technique that matches the oncoming ball. At the club level, this is a huge issue. At the pro level it may not be as bad of an epidemic but still worth a thought.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

[tennis_chiro]

But isn't it also a question of ground force? Doesn't leaning into the stroke result in more groundforce? (Disregarding the serve where the motion is to hit upwards...). You need groundforce to generate torsion. This is not stepping into the ball, it is shifting weight forward at impact like a corkscrew tilted forwards.

Fall of 1967, sophmore year at Harvey Mudd, my first real engineering course: Dynamics of Elastic Systems with Dr. Alford. Learning to draw the basic force diagrams. You must have had a course like that, Phil. Go back to the basic physics. That force from right leg to left leg could create a torque on the lever from center of rotation to the contact point on the racket head, but the contribution of linear speed to the speed of the ball is relatively insignificant. I tell students to "Grab the ground with your legs" and use your core and lower body to pivot into your shot like you would in delivering a big uppercut punch.

I need some help here from some biomechanists. It's a long time since I got a B in that class. It was all down hill after that. The only other B I got in engineering after that was a Directed Reading in Engineering class I took second semester of my senior year. I wrote a paper on the kinesiology and kinesthetics of the service motion. The faculty member who supervised me had a Ph.D in Kinesiology from Stanford, I think. In any case, he was Bill Arce, the Director of Athletics at the school. And I think I was the first first string All American from Harvey Mudd in any sport. The class fulfilled a science requirement and the only way they could get it on the transcript was to make in a Directed Reading Class in Engineering. Dr. Arce was not a member of the Engineering Department. If it hadn't been for the B+ he gave me, my grade point in Engineering would have been too low for me to graduate. Of course, I skipped graduation anyway to get to the NAIA national championships in Kansas City. Just like I did all my other graduations for tennis tournaments or tennis jobs.

Come on. There must be someone out there who can put what I am saying in simple terms while respecting the physics principles that have to apply.

don

[gzhpcu]

Great posts T.C. It's not only a myth, but a reason for so much loss in angular output......All youu have to do is watch a lesson from pro's forcing their lessons to "step into every ball'. (often times when it's impossible) In many cases, the result is a position that does not allow for optimal rotation/angular momentum creation. Angular momentum must never, ever be compromised because of some preconceived weight shift notion. It is the big player in the production of RHS.

In tennis vernacular, "weight shift", linear momentum has been given too much emphasis on it's DIRECT effect on end point racquet head speed.

But isn't it also a question of ground force? Doesn't leaning into the stroke result in more groundforce? (Disregarding the serve where the motion is to hit upwards...). You need groundforce to generate torsion. This is not stepping into the ball, it is shifting weight forward at impact like a corkscrew tilted forwards.

[stroke]

Really good stuff guys. Very thought provoking.

[tennis_chiro]

Finally!

Great posts T.C. It's not only a myth, but a reason for so much loss in angular output......All youu have to do is watch a lesson from pro's forcing their lessons to "step into every ball'. (often times when it's impossible) In many cases, the result is a position that does not allow for optimal rotation/angular momentum creation. Angular momentum must never, ever be compromised because of some preconceived weight shift notion. It is the big player in the production of RHS.

In tennis vernacular, "weight shift", linear momentum has been given too much emphasis on it's DIRECT effect on end point racquet head speed.

Thanks for the response, 10sPlayer. I was hoping to open more of a discussion with my comments. I think this misunderstanding about the importance of "moving into the ball" is at the root of a lot of errors and inconsistency for many of the players I see. Also, very important in understanding why many players that seem to be using a lot of energy in their shots are still unable to generate any real power because they don't understand how to set a good rotational fulcrum and use the leverage their bodies afford them.

It's always interesting to see the proper application of these principles in the late stages of the Grand Slam events where the participants are playing at a different and higher level just how stable they are able to make their heads while generating so much power; and how well set up and balanced they are in their ball striking despite the significantly reduced amount of time they have to set up. There couldn't be a better example than tomorrow's men's final.

Hope to hear a little more feedback.

don

[10splayer]

Great posts T.C. It's not only a myth, but a reason for so much loss in angular output......All youu have to do is watch a lesson from pro's forcing their lessons to "step into every ball'. (often times when it's impossible) In many cases, the result is a position that does not allow for optimal rotation/angular momentum creation. Angular momentum must never, ever be compromised because of some preconceived weight shift notion. It is the big player in the production of RHS.

In tennis vernacular, "weight shift", linear momentum has been given too much emphasis on it's DIRECT effect on end point racquet head speed.