Wawrinka serve

[gzhpcu]

Seems like there is more than one way to skin a cat..

[stotty]

The only truly unorthodox player I can think of (at the moment) who remains unorthodox even today....was Alberto Berasategui. He was ranked well inside the top ten also at one point. Coaches and pundits never "endorsed" his technique and the players never chose to use it either.

I think when coaches see something unusual they wait for some kind of validation or endorsement from the higher echelons of coaching before they will view it as orthodox. I guess we all like things rubber stamped.

I think Spanish coaches tend not to look at things as being unorthodox or not - more does it work, is it effective? Overall, this is probably a better plan.

Rafa's reverse forehand is by no means unique. Borg was using the reverse forehand 40 years ago. Rafa uses it all the time whereas Borg used it in given situations, but use it he did and quite a lot. And you can bet someone was using it before Borg.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7AVKMtge4aA

The one player that did throw everyone on this side of the pond was McEnroe, but not, oddly enough, for his serve. It was his forehand that was questioned. The way he lowered the racket head downwards and didn't lay the wrist back was deemed highly questionable at a coaching course I went to in 1987, which studied technique around that era.

I find the biggest problem unorthodox players have is they become very predictable once you've seen them play a number of times. Unorthodoxy is baffling at first, but then becomes easier and easier to work out.

I think style and technique are easily confused and it's an area where coaches can easily go wrong...essentially a coach can set about changing a shot merely because he doesn't like the look of it.

I tend to leave shots alone if they work and are effective. The tricky bit is judging whether that same shot will work at the next level. This is one of the reasons why it's essential coaches watch their more talented students play matches...to see what is working and what isn't.

[John Yandell]

Yes to match play observation. Most coaches in the states don't--they are on the court feeding balls and generating income.

[hockeyscout]

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...

I would think, yes. I think we kind of forget how unusual (or quirky, or unorthodox) great athletes are when they first appear. Then, we as coaches begin to understand what that athlete is doing, and all of a sudden it becomes the mainstream deal, accepted and promoted as the new way of doing it.

[klacr]

The only truly unorthodox player I can think of (at the moment) who remains unorthodox even today....was Alberto Berasategui. He was ranked well inside the top ten also at one point. Coaches and pundits never "endorsed" his technique and the players never chose to use it either.

I think when coaches see something unusual they wait for some kind of validation or endorsement from the higher echelons of coaching before they will view it as orthodox. I guess we all like things rubber stamped.

I think Spanish coaches tend not to look at things as being unorthodox or not - more does it work, is it effective? Overall, this is probably a better plan.

Rafa's reverse forehand is by no means unique. Borg was using the reverse forehand 40 years ago. Rafa uses it all the time whereas Borg used it in given situations, but use it he did and quite a lot. And you can bet someone was using it before Borg.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7AVKMtge4aA

The one player that did throw everyone on this side of the pond was McEnroe, but not, oddly enough, for his serve. It was his forehand that was questioned. The way he lowered the racket head downwards and didn't lay the wrist back was deemed highly questionable at a coaching course I went to in 1987, which studied technique around that era.

I find the biggest problem unorthodox players have is they become very predictable once you've seen them play a number of times. Unorthodoxy is baffling at first, but then becomes easier and easier to work out.

I think style and technique are easily confused and it's an area where coaches can easily go wrong...essentially a coach can set about changing a shot merely because he doesn't like the look of it.

I tend to leave shots alone if they work and are effective. The tricky bit is judging whether that same shot will work at the next level. This is one of the reasons why it's essential coaches watch their more talented students play matches...to see what is working and what isn't.

As Gunther Bresnik said regarding the forehand of his player Ernests Gulbis in his interview with John a few months ago..
'I don't care about how it looks, I care about the results" I'm paraphrasing of course.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

[don_budge]

Orthodox versus "Pleasing to the Eye"...

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

orthodox |ˈôrTHəˌdäks|

adjective
1 (of a person or their views, esp. religious or political ones, or other beliefs or practices) conforming to what is generally or traditionally accepted as right or true; established and approved: the orthodox economics of today | orthodox medical treatment | orthodox Hindus.
• (of a person) not independent-minded; conventional and unoriginal: a relatively orthodox artist.
2 (of a thing) of the ordinary or usual type; normal: they avoided orthodox classical tennis venues.

Ha! ha! ha!…once you throw out the traditional values or traditional view of what is orthodox you create a void for the new definition. There is a period of time where the "new" orthodox is created and forged for general consensus. As it is now for instance…I am considered unorthodox because of my standards in the old orthodoxy. How's that for irony?

I really love to be the bearer of bad news in this regard. Tennis is no longer tennis in the regard that all accepted views of the original "orthodox" have been chucked out the window with the old equipment. This leaves a vacuum for the modern age to recreate and everybody and his mother is jockeying for position to be the "new", "next" creator of the orthodox. The funny thing…nothing really changed. Nor will it in the foreseeable future.

Orthodoxy in tennis basically boils down to "pleasing to the eye". What you see in Roger Federer is a fluid blending of the old classic game that has been "reinvented" in the modern game. All of a sudden there is a rush to label or apply one's signature to the new nuances so as to be thought of as an inventor or a creator. The truth is there is nothing really new under the sun…it is only that new and bigger equipment gives players much more wiggle room to attempt to be "Fundamentally Correct". Federer is the closest thing there is to the old "orthodoxy" as you connect the dots from the past…historically speaking. Even though this is an unpopular endeavour these days in the face of rabid political correctness.

Take the case of a Stanislas Wawrinka service motion.

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.

This guy has so much "quirky" business going on that it is almost laughable. I remember analysing and skewering his motion in one of the interactive forums with his serve as the focal point…or was it his backhand that was initiated by a serve. That's right…I got so carried away skewering his motion that I never got around to writing about his backhand because I had exhausted myself on his serve. By my standards this is an unorthodox motion and I don't care how many points of position that he hits that someone deems as acceptable or necessary. His motion is simply not pleasing to the eye…by classical standards so I deem it to be unorthodox. But here lies the kicker…with the new standards because of the leeway created by bigger and more "superior" racquet…less than superior strokes can be deemed orthodox.

Most modern coaches simply say to themselves…well this guy has won two Grand Slams and he is ranked #4 in the world so it must be orthodox even if it looks somewhat contrived. This didn't used to be the case and thus you have a sport that still has not identified what exactly it means by orthodox or even FC (Fundamentally Correct) or at least it struggles and argues about what it is exactly. What is the new standard?

The Wawrinka serve motion is certainly not very pleasing to the eye in that it is not fluid in the sense that Roger Federer's serve motion is. But as noted…"it gets the job done". But my question in the world of the new "orthodoxy" is…could he have done better career-wise with a more "conventional" and more "pleasing to the eye" motion? To me the answer is an obvious yes. For me an orthodox serving motion is one that carries a player into the court and at least with the option of moving towards the net comfortably. Since Stan Wawrinka has never demonstrated to anyone that he can play serve and volley consistently he has left a void in his game that could not potentially be developed.

I am not so sure that Wawrinka can serve the variety of service deliveries from his aesthetically challenged motion that he needs to. If he is incrementally struggling to win his service game it puts added pressure on the return game. Does some of this rub off on his return game? I have heard him questioned about playing to conservatively or defensive in his return game. If he was more aggressive serving wise would this allow him to be more aggressive returning? We have to be a bit careful in analyzing only one individual aspect of a players game because everything has ramifications on everything else. Orthodox or not.

His results have been superlative with two Grand Slam wins on different surfaces now and his backhand has become perhaps the singular best shot in tennis. The backhand is pleasing to the eye is it not? It's fluid under all different circumstances and under duress…it not only looks good but it is ultimately functional. But the thing is with the serve is that Stan has had some rather mediocre results even as he has elevated himself into the Grand Slam Champion stratosphere…could it be that the serve is not as ultimate as it could have been? I think that this is the case here.

The lack of aesthetics indicates a lack of fluidity and fluidity under duress is what produces winning results. Consistently speaking…not the flash in a pan variety. There is a confidence that in looking good it is good. I remember the great, great tennis match that he played against his Swiss doubles partner Federer in London at the end of the year…it was perhaps the single best match of the year…I felt that it was the serve of Wawrinka that sort of let him down just a bit. Not much…but the difference in winning and losing that tennis match was the slimmest of margins. A first serve here or there might have been the difference.

The modern game of tennis struggles with the concept of orthodox. But this is misleading too. There is a lot of hype and jockeying for position behind the scenes going on. Suffice it to say that Roger Federer is "The Living Proof" of the gold standard of orthodoxy and even he let some of his orthodox skills erode during the course of his career because of equipment issues. Now as he attempts to resurrect these very same skills at Wimbledon we shall get a glimpse of the old orthodoxy versus the new. If you know what I mean.

[don_budge]

The Stan Wawrinka Service Motion…did it cost him?

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?

The quirky are never #1.

So looking back on the five set match with Gasquet I asked myself the question about the Wawrinka service motion and how what I had written in the post before relates. Stan's serve is good…very good. Let's put it that way. But is it great? I think it falls short of great.

When it came down to the end of the match…the deciding factor was that Wawrinka lost his serve in the fifth set when he needed to hold it most. He was nearly broken at love. His lack of fluidity may just have cost him a big match. He cracked first when he appeared to have his opponent outgunned.

I love the fact that there is no tie-breaker in the fifth set and the winner must break serve to win. This is another major facet that used to be the game of tennis. You do know that there never was a tie-breaker before 1970-something.