Wawrinka serve

[gzhpcu]

he serves aces, has an average of around 200 kmph. He does not bend his knees much, does not have much shoulder turn, barely lifts off the ground after impact. So why is his serve so good?

[John Yandell]

And don't forget he drops his head at contact...

So why? Because he is Stan? He has the three positions in the upward swing. Look at the velocity of the racket he generates on all the shots. As Stotty implied in another post, technique can only take you so far. The fast twitch muscles or whatever it is--talent determines levels in the long run. Look at Tsonga and the forehand--same deal.

[klacr]

Despite Stan's imperfections, It takes a special talent to swing a racquet around and down and above your head at a high velocity and hit the ball. Is Stan's the perfect model? Probably not. But it works for him. Wawrinka is "country strong". He may not appear to have the ideal tennis body but having seen him train in Boca a few months ago and with his shirt off, he is solid muscle. There is a natural strength that he possesses in his upper body that cannot be taught.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

[stotty]

I think Stan's serve is downright weird. When you see it in slow motion it looks almost ridiculous. His arms lift up together and go into what we call a Y shape. For most students this is a n non-starter in itself.

Once Stan gets past the weird start, everything seems to come together really well, and he slips through John's checkpoints nicely.

I like weird shots that work. It restores my faith that perfect tennis technique cannot be defined, and that the game is as much about an individual's ability and their interpretation as anything else.

I thought it was terrific that Santoro survived in the modern game with that quirky game he had. He restored my faith too....

[GeoffWilliams]

The quirky are never #1.

[hockeyscout]

Quirky

Quirkiest player to ever reach number one in the world?

[John Yandell]

There are none.

[hockeyscout]

Quirkiest modern player to hit the highest ranking spot?

[gzhpcu]

And don't forget he drops his head at contact...

So why? Because he is Stan? He has the three positions in the upward swing. Look at the velocity of the racket he generates on all the shots. As Stotty implied in another post, technique can only take you so far. The fast twitch muscles or whatever it is--talent determines levels in the long run. Look at Tsonga and the forehand--same deal.

So all that counts are the three positions? Everything else is frills? Would argument for simplicity...

[John Yandell]

The positions are core. Without those the value of other elements--legs, body rotation are reduced or suspect.

[stotty]

Quirkiest modern player to hit the highest ranking spot?

By quirky I meant more in terms of style. All modern players are orthodox just as all the players form the classic era were orthodox.

Wawrinka hits the key positions, which is what counts.

Santoro certainly had a very different style of play and reached around 17 in the rankings at one point. He could make life very difficult for some players...but not for the best players. I watched him play Kiefer at Wimbledon a few years back. He had a great knack of keeping the ball very low so players couldn't get hold of it and hit him off. His used geometry...clever.

[hockeyscout]

Maybe we need to look at it from another way.

I think you need to be unorthodox to be a world number one. The best of the best have a "different" look to them, and are doing things people don't understand. I think unorthodox will be the player who hits the ATP 4 (which will come of course). It's tough to read a player who is not playing the way everyone else plays. To me, thats unorthodox. Federer for me is unorthodox, you cannot read what he's going to do, especially early in his career because no one hit the ball like him.

A few other examples were Roddick's serve, Sampras' serve, Agassi's taking the ball on the rise and return to serve, Nadal's top spin and the way Borg played. We tend to forget how different they were, and how it was unorthodox at first. Their great results brought credibility to the "new" they came up with in their player developmental models.

Probably the most unusual athlete of all time was Wayne Gretzky. CBC used to film hockey a certain way. Well, when Gretzky appeared they could not film the game because the puck would always be out of the screen, and a player would skate into space with speed and end up scoring. It was a mess until they figured out how to shoot the new game he was playing, which was unusual.

I guess I see unorthodox in a different way. You need to be very different I think to be good in tennis. I see a lot of players who all look like cookie cutter mold players, and to me, I don't think you can win at a world class level being easy to read and anticipate.

Federer's technique really screws with everyones rhythm. I think he hit the ball in a new way, no one before him ever did. And, another player will come along who has some new ideas like Roger, or Pete on the service motion, and it will be so unusual no one will be able to compete against that stroke for a long time (as was the case with both of those players).

[stotty]

I think you need to be unorthodox to be a world number one.

You misunderstand what unorthodox is. All the players you mention were/are orthodox and fundamentally correct....technically superb.

[John Yandell]

HS,

I get it though. There was nothing that wasn't sound or even advanced about any of the examples HS mentions. To the teaching and coaching orthodoxy they all seemed "unorthodox" in some way--meaning they had found their own way--and created their own "orthodoxy," which of course became the new orthodoxy of the followers...Nadal's forehand is just one example..

If there is a serve and swinging volley champion in the future he will be technically superb but initially "unorthodox" to the mainstream nay sayers...who will eventually preach it if it wins...

[klacr]

HS,

I get it though. There was nothing that wasn't sound or even advanced about any of the examples HS mentions. To the teaching and coaching orthodoxy they all seemed "unorthodox" in some way--meaning they had found their own way--and created their own "orthodoxy," which of course became the new orthodoxy of the followers...Nadal's forehand is just one example..

If there is a serve and swinging volley champion in the future he will be technically superb but initially "unorthodox" to the mainstream nay sayers...who will eventually preach it if it wins...

Orthodox to one is unorthodox to the other. Often times, A player is unorthodox until they have incredible success, then people assume it's "the way" and then that is considered orthodox. Which goes back to that question that John has asked in past discussions...Does the player make technique or technique make the player?

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton