Two-handed backhand stances in a tennis match (Djokovic vs Khachanov, 2018)

[stotty]

If you practice all the stances enough, including extreme closed and open stance on the stretch, and they are learnt at a young age, they will present no difficulty at all. It is merely what a player gets used to.

I will upload a clip of the boy this weekend if I get the chance so you can see how comfortable he is hitting off all the stances, but he is not elite or a great player, just talented and plays locally.

With the older boy I mentioned I made an error. I had a fixed idea (always a dangerous thing) that it was always better to be closed. By the time I had come round to the idea open stances could be useful, it was too late. Open stance has to be taught when they are young if it is to become second nature.

Thanks for the great conversation. I will try to post the kid this weekend or if not definitely next Wednesday.

lovati4, I started a separate thread on this one if you are keen. https://www.tennisplayer.net/bulleti...e-handed-slice

[stotty]

Here is something Chris Lewit wrote that discusses Spanish footwork:
https://www.tennisplayer.net/articles/

Moving with rhythm is biomechanically slower than a sprint, but the player will never lose traction and slip on the clay and he will arrive at the ball in perfect balance and perfectly prepared to strike the ball.

Terrific article. You cannot honestly opt for one or the other as both make perfect sense. By nature I am more drawn to 'intuitive than regimented'.

[John Yandell]

Here is something Chris Lewit wrote that discusses Spanish footwork:
https://www.tennisplayer.net/articles/

[stotty]

In Spanish tennis they often use variations of a classical exercise known as 4 Vs. This exercise was created by Pato Alvarez and then became one of the basic exercises in many Spanish tennis academies.
In this series of drills players move along four Vs: backward V, forward V, forehand V and backhand V. The basic pattern can be seen here. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iweuUkTdZ1o
Pato preferred his players to use only shuffle step, moving along a V, today coaches allow other steps as well. Many players learn this pattern at a young age.
I say that because of stances this naturally leads to on a backhand side. When for example a player moves (shuffles) along backhand V forward to the ball he (she) naturally hits it in a slightly closed (or a neutral) stance. Moving back (receiving a ball) he almost always chooses (slightly) open stance. It means that in Spanish tennis they have been teaching open stance backhands (often naturally) for a long time.

Nice. I like the drill. I like the clip. No waffle, just straight down to business. I may get the chance to video a couple of kids today...if not I will do it Wednesday.

[lovati4]

In Spanish tennis they often use variations of a classical exercise known as 4 Vs. This exercise was created by Pato Alvarez and then became one of the basic exercises in many Spanish tennis academies.
In this series of drills players move along four Vs: backward V, forward V, forehand V and backhand V. The basic pattern can be seen here. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iweuUkTdZ1o
Pato preferred his players to use only shuffle step, moving along a V, today coaches allow other steps as well. Many players learn this pattern at a young age.
I say that because of stances this naturally leads to on a backhand side. When for example a player moves (shuffles) along backhand V forward to the ball he (she) naturally hits it in a slightly closed (or a neutral) stance. Moving back (receiving a ball) he almost always chooses (slightly) open stance. It means that in Spanish tennis they have been teaching open stance backhands (often naturally) for a long time.

[stotty]

It is an interesting topic for sure. Like John, I tend to characterise a closed stance as just stepping across. It's a generalised view of course and there are a host of stances in-between, as the two long-rally clips I posted clearly show.

I once coached a player, now in his late 20's, who was ranked 60 here in the UK. I taught predominantly closed stance (and neutral) back when I coached him aged 11 to 14. Today he still hits with a closed stance and never really mastered the open stance to a degree that's comfortable to use. He would certainly be what John would term an elite player in terms of his level of play. He managed fine with his closed stance and I am not even sure it hindered him all that much. That said, I would have coached him differently these days.

I think just teaching elites the difficult things might be the wrong way to go about it. It may be more a question of whether a player has the talent to do it....coupled with whether he/her needs it for the level of play he/she is likely to end up at. I have a boy, aged 14, who I coach once a week for 45 minutes. He also attends a squad with five other both which runs for an hour. He's talented, so I have taught him open stance, closed stance, neutral stance, and a fluent one-handed sliced backhand. Is he elite? No, he doesn't play enough. But he can do all these things because he has the talent.

If you practice all the stances enough, including extreme closed and open stance on the stretch, and they are learnt at a young age, they will present no difficulty at all. It is merely what a player gets used to.

I will upload a clip of the boy this weekend if I get the chance so you can see how comfortable he is hitting off all the stances, but he is not elite or a great player, just talented and plays locally.

With the older boy I mentioned I made an error. I had a fixed idea (always a dangerous thing) that it was always better to be closed. By the time I had come round to the idea open stances could be useful, it was too late. Open stance has to be taught when they are young if it is to become second nature.

Thanks for the great conversation. I will try to post the kid this weekend or if not definitely next Wednesday.

[lovati4]

Still it is an interesting topic. I would like to sum up what seems interesting to me.
1) Good players use all stances well. They transition from neutral to slightly open to slightly closed to fully open stance when they reach for a ball. Sometimes they do it in one point as Stotty suggested. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TL4EOlUmuFg
2) On a two-handed backhand tennis players often close their stance a little (5° to 20°) when they have a choice. This allows them to turn their shoulders a bit more.
3) Definition of stances is important. Sometimes it is difficult to distinguish between neutral and slightly closed stance. For players there is a difference between using a slightly closed and fully closed stance, playing in a neutral or a slightly open stance, playing in the same stance on a back or a front foot.

[John Yandell]

lovati,
The backhands in the archives weren't selected. Basically we put up everything we film. Same with Ramos. He looked at literally hundreds of backhands for the Open both men and women. We can agree to disagree, but when I see a step across I call that closed.

[lovati4]

It is also a good idea.

[stotty]

Definition of stances seems to vary. It's a fine line it seems going from neutral to closed and everything else in-between. When you watch some of the more stretched out, aggressive rallying you get to see the whole gamut. The complete closed stance is rarer than the rest.

Here are couple of very long rallies where you get to see lots.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TL4EOlUmuFg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBpZgQZOd_E

[lovati4]

Thank you for your posts.
John, you choose what to film and keep in the archives on Tennisplayer yourself. So it is likely that your clips (sample) do not fully represent whole match(es).
It is more difficult to explain the big difference in the study by you and David Ramos of the USTA and my little study, based on one match.
I do not think that Djokovic, Khachanov are special in terms of stances or that women use closed stance more often than men. It is not very likely.
The most likely explanation is that in your study you used different definition of neutral stance. I counted backhands played in a slightly closed stance (no more than 20°) as neutral.
So I decided to change this definition to the following. In a neutral stance the front foot is in line with the back foot so that legs are in line perpendicular to the baseline. I watched the match again and I did not find more than a couple backhands hit like that.
This leads to the following idea: Djokovic and Khachanov often close their stance a little (5° to 20°) when they have a choice.

May be it gives them better shoulder turn. John writes in his article on Tennisplayer how important shoulder turn for a good two-handed backhand.
https://www.tennisplayer.net/members...es/two_hander/
I suggested explanation for that in other topic on this Forum. On a two-handed backhand of good players shoulders are usually at 45° to the net at contact point. While on the forehand they go further – parallel to the net at contact. So in preparation players turn their shoulders more on a two-handed backhand than on a forehand.
One way to turn shoulders more is to close stance a little bit. Closing their stance just a little players also avoid difficulties of playing a backhand in a fully closed stance.

[stotty]

Actually I think the extreme closed is advanced. I think lower level players should develop open for positioning and like you said balance.

So you wouldn't consider the open stance backhand to be advanced, more advanced than the closed stance. or are you just referring to an extreme closed stance?

I haven't studied all of lovati4's clip yet but extreme closed looks to be only a small percentage according to his charted data.

[John Yandell]

Actually I think the extreme closed is advanced. I think lower level players should develop open for positioning and like you said balance.

[stotty]

Interesting study by lovati4. Thanks for taking the time to do that and publishing it for all to see.

I have always assumed the majority of backhands would be played with a closed stance. Open stances have become more prevalent in recent years due to the pace of the game. I remember Borg used a closed stance as if it were his religion, but players had more time then.

Like John, I think the open stance (I think he meant to say open rather than closed!?) is advanced and only needs to be learnt if a player is elite and going to need it. I do believe, however, if an elite young player learns open stance early enough, it improves balance throughout the rest of their game and there is great advantage in it. Hitting open stance backhands as well as someone like Novak is all about balance.

Meanwhile I shall take a look at the clip lovati4 posted....

[John Yandell]

Lovati,

Data I like it! Here is my article on the two hander:

https://www.tennisplayer.net/article...khand-stances/

Looking at many dozens of clips in the archives on Tennisplayer I found 60% of two handers were hit closed. I also found I could see the biomechanical advantage and that when possible this was a preference. Most neutral stances were near the center of the court where setting up closed would have meant reverse pivoting.

Those numbers were actually confirmed in a much larger study Dave Ramos of the USTA did of men's and women's matches at the Open--part of a joint presentation we did. Having said that I think the closed stance is advanced and wouldn't teach it myself below the elite junior or college level.