A belatedly late happy birthday to ye old blog. Its first post was almost a year ago on March 3.
More importantly, it's Spring time, and like the first buds of tulips poking out of the ground, the tour moves from (mostly) indoor arenas to outdoors in Indian Wells.
This happens in a cold indoor court in the middle of winter:
Not so much full of win.
Getting this close to seeing players practice is full of win.
It turns out the pros just love the relaxed atmosphere of Indian Wells too.
A toast for more shanked ground strokes! If a pro shanks a ball, you can too!
As befits a geek like me, I've been focusing a lot on my technique to up my consistency. But my primary focus hasn't been my strokes. Rather it's that under-rated part of the game: movement. Now, there's certainly a school of tennis instruction that thinks you should just do what comes naturally. One consequence of this school of thought is that the way to improve your movement is to play other sports like soccer or basketball as there's nothing all that special about movement in tennis. If you suck at moving in those sports, you're doomed to tennis mediocrity.
Yes, when a high-level pro moves around the court, it does look natural, you can always bet they've logged umpteen million hours drilling to move better so that it looks natural. When a tennis journalist evaluates a pro's game, they'll focus on the mental aspect (Bozo), how their play makes them feel (Tigs), the jugement de jour of their peers (Cronin), technology that they're using (JMac), etc. These days I suspect that if you ask a tour-level pro who has to compete against their peers, one of the first things they'll look at is movement. These folks have a post-doctoral knowledge that far exceeds the fundamentals of movement.
Why am I ranting on movement, that most numinous aspect of the game? Because many gurus have noticed that the key to TMF's balletic game is his movement. In particular the article I just linked pointed me to David Bailey an Aussie coach who developed an entire system around it. After a year of dawdling I took the plunge and invested in the DVD. Knowledge, I figured, is a good thing, and if it gives me a better eye for movement as a tennis fan, that's well worth it. Well, the Bailey system did that and helped me think much more deliberately about how I moved when I play.
Here is the basic outline from 10,000 foot view. Every point has a cycle of five parts (5 Rs). In the first part, you get READY by getting into an athletic posture (i.e. on your toes, knees bent, and butt out) by taking a split step of some form when your opponent contacts the ball. As soon as your opponent contacts the ball, you READ the approaching ball and determine what zone is the ball heading into. The zone the ball heads into will limit your footwork choices. You REACT to the ball by moving to it, decide the kind of ball you want to hit (forcing, rally, defensive, a winner, attacking or counterattacking). As you RESPOND with your stroke, you hit the ball out of a contact move with its corresponding balance move. finally, you RECOVER by getting to the midline recovery positon (middle of the opponent's angle of play) using footwork patterns, brake & recovery steps. The cycle then repeat itself if you haven't hit a winner or your opponent gets the ball back.
One thing to notice about this system is that movement is part of every phase. Most of the instruction I see on movement doesn't attempt to view movement as such a comprehensive and systematic package. If a player actually practices this system, they could gain an advantage of 0.5 - 1.0 second per shot over the opponents. By the time you get to the 2nd or 3rd shot of a rally, your opponent can be in such a disadvantaged position, that you don't have to hit a great shot to win the point.
One highlight of the system is that there are 15 moves that any pro could execute when contacting the ball at the baseline. Which move to execute depends upon the kind of the ball one receives and the intent of the stroke that you want to respond with. Here is a sampling for what one can do from the back of the court. Focus particularly on what their feet, legs and hips are doing and how they use their lower body to facilitate what their upper body is doing when they hit the ball.
Here is a sample of what one can do from the forecourt.
Despite the cheesy music, if you watch a professional tennis match, you'll actually see players execute most of these moves. And I can tell you from actually trying it myself, you will hit a better ball more consistently.
This video of Jedi-mode Darth Federer against ARod shows two long points that I'll focus upon.
At 2-all of the first set (0:43) on Roddick's serve, there's some very solid hitting for a 10 stroke rally. Fed hits a block return off a two foot pivot. ARod uses at two foot pivot to hit a topspin forehand down the middle to keep the point neutral. Since the point is neutral and Fed knows he can outrally Arod, he keeps it neutral by hitting a rally topspin forehand down the middle out of a two-foot pivot. ARod tries to establish some progress in the rally by hitting a topspin forehand to the backhand out of the two-foot pivot. Since Fed only has to take a few steps to get to his backhand, he hits a topspin 1HBH out of a step down pivot deep and wide to the ad court into ARod's backhand. ARod tries to angle Fed off court into the ad court alley with his topspin 2HBH. Sinc ARod's backhand has a lot of spin but less pace, Fed has plenty of time to track down the ball and hit a BH slice DTL out of a closed stance. ARod tries to take advantage of the open court (which Fed is already trying to cover with one carioca step) by hitting a crosscourt forehand out of a step down stance. Fed has no problem running down the ball and hitting a forehand DTL winner out of a mogul move.
Everything ARod did would win the point against any player outside the top 10, and on most points against Fed. It was Fed's slice that set up the winner. Because the closed stance comes naturally to a one-hander, it is easy for Fed to generate racquet head speed for a tough shot. Once ARod tries to respond to the shot, he plays a response that is a bit two cautious. Perhaps the same shot shot (CC forehand) with a different contact move (front foot hop) would be more aggressive and more difficult for Fed to reply to. Regardless, Fed's quick recovery towards the deuce course, and his choice ot the mogul move gives him that extra pop to accelerate the racquet. By the way, the mogul move is usually a counter-attacking move when you respond to an attack from your opponent that is not quite good enough. Even if ARod had gotten to Fed's shot, Fed's mogul had already set him up for a perfect recovery towards the ad court.
Again there is some very solid hitting in the next game, but I conclude that Fed's movement is what gives him a crucial advantage over ARod. ARod wide ad serve successfully angles Fed off court, which Fed chips out of a closed pivot. ARod immediately tries to take control of the point with an inside in forehand out of a low spin. Fed has to neutralize this with reverse forehand into the middle out of a lateral hop. ARod hesitates a bit going forward, and opts to hit an inside out forehand out of a high spin to the around the midpoint of the ad service box. The point now neutral and Fed can hit a rally backhand out of semi closed stance down the middle. ARod hits an inside-in FH out of a high spin to the deep deuce court corner. Fed hits his second forehand out of a lateral hop (but it's the windshield wiper) out of a lateral hop to the middle of the baseline. ARod tries to hit a forcing inside out forehand out of a lateral transfer move where the shot lands in the middle of ad no-man's land. Fed hits one of his signature finesse shots, a chip backhand cross court, of a closed stance, which is the gambit move to bring ARod in. ARod takes the bait and hits an inside in forehand out of a step down pivot but the ball doesn't quite have enough weight behind it. Fed has no trouble running down the ball and passing ARod cross court with a reverse forehand out of a mogul move.
You can repeat the analysis of the last point for this point. ARod did everything right which would work against almost any player, but not against Fed. Fed not only knows that his slice troubles ARod, but because ARod's transition movement is tentative (he choses a less aggressive and "safer" contact move off of approach shots), Fed has an excellent chance of passing ARod. And again the pass is off of the contact move that best fits the situation.
I hope both of these point analyses takes away some of the mystery behind modern tennis movement. If this doesn't help you become a better tennis player, I hope it makes you a better fan.
A month ago Fuzzy Yellow Balls marketed a great online tennis instruction course called Tennis RX. The premise of that course follows a medical theme, where they teach tennis players to "become the doctor" for their own game. It means analyzing what is wrong with your own game, diagnosing the problem and then prescribing a cure. This empowers players to improve incrementally instead of making the same mistakes time and time again, and frees them from depending too much on their own coach.
To summarize, this course has three parts:
(a) Layering is the process of focusing on one area of your game (e.g. the serve) by improving your skills starting from the simple skills (e.g. the toss) to more complicated skills (e.g. a right hander placing slice serve down the middle to the ad court at 80% accuracy). The concept of layering works because if you think about a skill like driving, most of us mastered the fundamentals first (e.g. controlling the accelerator pedal) and built up to more complex skills (e.g. driving along an unfamiliar road to an unfamiliar location) to the point that we no longer think about the fundamentals.
(b) Personalization is the process of figuring out what your own particular skill set is and learning to play the kind of game that maximizes your strengths and minimizes your weakness. Skill set is something that can range from a physical one (e.g. speed), through strokes (e.g. a very strong offensive forehand) to a mental one (e.g. calmness when taking risks). Personalization is applicable at all levels of the sport. For a beginner who is already quite athletic, it might mean running a lot of balls down and pushing them back This tops out very quickly if the pusher means a player who can also run a lot of balls down but hit them all in technically correct fashion. At the pro level, one notices that pros will almost always have an excellent skill set for the fundamentals (e.g. rally groundstrokes, returns and serves), but they play very different games. Nadal used to play a very defensive tennis but has evolved to an aggressive all-court player. Federer has always been an aggressive all-court player but since he's hired Paul Annacone this summer, it looks like he's evolving to rushing the net more. Even if we compare the kinds of aggressive all court games that both of those guys play, they both express that style in different ways with the most obvious difference being Nadal's lefty reverse forehand and Federer's flatter windshield wiper forehand.
(c) Profiling is the process of thinking about how your own game matches up against other players and defining the strategy that you need to play that's most likely to beat them. For me, at the recreational level, if I figure that my opponent doesn't have consistent rally ground strokes (which I do have), I'll try to get them into long rallies around my most consistent shot (the forehand). At the pro level, one of the most famous match up problems is Nadal's lefty reverse forehand which bounces high to Federer's one handed backhand. In the recent World Tour Final in London, Federer was able to negate Nadal's game plan by ripping sharply angled backhand winners by taking the ball on the rise. A reason is that he was able to do that effectively is that (my guess) is that he had been practicing his backhand drive returns off of kick serves. A kick serve to the backhand and a high bouncing reverse forehand are the same kind of ball, so it's no wonder that this is an effective point of focus in practice for Federer. Note in this explaination I've given that Federer has profiled the strategy he needed to beat Nadal (e.g. minimize a matchup problem of Nadal's forehand to his backhand), layered an improved skill set (e.g. hit drive backhands on the rise for high bouncing balls, be it a kick serve or a forehand), and personalized it (e.g. try to angle Nadal off court).
The Tennis Rx course assumes that you actually play tennis (and want to get better). How can knowing its essential principles help you become a better fan? Rather than analyzing your own game, you can apply the same principles to analyze games of the players that you're watching, and begin to understand why matches turn out the way they do. Too often in tennis fandom, we get emotionally attached to our players, and stop paying attention to what is actually going on out there. This demonstrates a lack of brains.
Right now, as I write this Tennis Channel is playing a replay of the Brisbane final between Sod and ARod.
From quick glances of a few points, I can apply the Tennis Rx course and explain why ARod lost the match and why his head to head record with Sod is 2-6.
a) Profiling: ARod hits very spinny crosscourt groundstrokes that sit up in Soderling's strike zone. This makes it easy for Soderling to tee off with his flat groundstrokes, and put ARod on his back foot. Both guys have great serves, so if they both return at the same success rate, their match isn't going to be determined by the return.
b) Personalization & Layering: ARod has gotten very comfortable with a grinder's game by emphasizing consistency with spinny groundstrokes, mixing in slices, and earning a few free points per game with his serve. Over the years, Soderling has improved his consistency by getting in better shape, staying calmer on court, and improving his movement. If both guys serve equally well, and hitting cleanly, Soderling will win every time, because his strokes penetrate through the court faster than Roddick, and he will push Roddick back. Roddick's best chance against Soderling is to coax errors from Soderling with his slice backhand. Unfortunately Roddick's slice and dice game is not at the level of Federer, where he can turn the match up around to consistently hurt Soderling. To get to that level, Roddick has to be able to tee off of returns to his slices. Usually the highest percentage return to a slice shot will be another slice shot or a rolling topspin shot. In both cases, I think Roddick has to improve hitting forehand approach shots out of the neutral stance.
Any way, with the Australian Open, tennis fans will get plenty of tennis to watch. And Aussie commentators just rock, because they understand the game! I hope this helps you become just as smart as them.
Last night, while I was hitting with my friend Bruce, I announced to him, "Time to goof off a little". So as we continued to rally, everytime I had a chance to hit reverse forehands to his one handed backhand, I did (complete with a Rafa-like grunt). After a couple of those shots I noticed the fellas on the next court actually watching us. Now it isn't as if I've never done this before. It instinctively became my running forehand, and when the pundits pointed out that this was Rafa's go-to shot, I've started to practice this shot a bit more by using it when I have to pick up the ball off my laces when I warm up doing mini tennis. Most importantly, I sometimes pretend to be Rafa when I do some sessions with my ball machine (and I always end up laughing uncontrollably at the end) and
But I proceed too quickly. What is this new fangled thang, the reverse forehand? Well at its most essential, it's just like a regular forehand, but instead of hitting through the ball, one emphasizes brushing up and across the ball, and follows through on one's dominant side. As I've already said, this Spanish lefty has really bought the stroke to mainstream attention.
The Greatest Forehand Shanker below uses it as his backup to his preferred windshield wiper forehand (usually as his defensive shot).
Why do both of these fellows use it? Because a certain American old fogey loved to hit this shot on the run.
But really it isn't such a new thing, as gifted players have always figured out the obvious: if you brush up and across the ball, you will get more trajectory, more net clearance and more topspin. According to John Yandell, stroke guru extraordinaire, there's footage that goes way back showing luminaries such as Rod Laver, Arthur Ashe and Fred Perry the last Brit to win a slam, hitting this shot (here and here.)
So why do I laugh so hard when I try to practice this shot pretending to be Rafa? For one, it feels silly to be a total wannabee. My reverse forehand is as similar to Rafa's as your household cat is to a lion. Rafa can hit that shot in all sorts of positions and with all sorts of control. Me, I'm happy that I don't arm it, and that it ends up within a 10 degree arc of where I intended inside the court.
For another, it is hilarious to see many try to return the shot. My friend Bruce told me afterwards: it was awfully effective. The ball would clear the net by 20 feet, dive bomb near the baseline, and start to kick up over his head. Bruce told me he had to either step in and take it on the rise, or try to punch it at his shoulder. If he didn't react quick enough, the ball might sail over his head.
Third, one thing I've noticed that when I've had the privilege of playing some honest-to-god advanced players (someone who is USTA rated above a 4.0 without any sweat) is they can get some pretty wide angles with their groundies. By that I mean their balls will cross the sideline near the service box, and you might end up hitting the ball near the fence (or the next court over). If their forehand put you in that position, you can bet they hit a reverse forehand to create that kind of angle.
Next, it's just a reality of tennis that you're going to have to play defensive tennis. You're going to have to hit a forehands (or backhands) on the run. Pros have gravitated to the reverse forehand as their bread and butter shot on the run for very good reasons: it works. As the cliche goes, defense wins championships. Wouldn't it be nice to have play good defensive tennis when you have to?
Finally, it's something I don't see a lot of intermediate-level players do, and it feels great to have a trick in my bag that not many will use. Admittedly, one should learn to hit consistently through the ball first. But if you know how to do that, why not try it out? Pitchers have to throw something besides fastballs.
UPDATE: here's some great instructional videos on how to hit the reverse forehand.
Unfortunately, I already swing fairly heavy sticks: Wilson K 6.1 95s leaded up to 13 ounces and 6 pts head light. Even though the Federer-endorsed BLX 90 might be more flexible and have a smaller head size, I think hitting the practice courts might do me more good.
This cute commercial came out during the Aussie Open, which is around the time Rafa started using the new Babolat RPM Blast co-poly string. I tried it out lately and think it does deliver more spin but at the cost of less power.
This is the first in a thematic series about how a tennis nut (yours truly) tries to hack the ball instead of just being a fan. One of the interesting things about being a tennis nut (as opposed to other sports like American football) is that we're not just fans who passively enjoy the game. We play the game itself on a regular basis. As a consequence when some tennis commentators remark that a certain pro really should have zigged instead of zagged, I sigh "How little you know. Try doing it yourself." (For a brilliant comment with the same sentiments by Tigs, see here.)
I first picked up the game of tennis as thirteen year old by wanting to do what Borg and McEnroe did. After getting a wooden Wilson Jack Kramer Pro Staff, and checking out Vic Braden's Tennis for the Future from the local library for a month, I was hitting against the local backboard. Braden's instructional philosophy is fairly old school: he coaches students to model their game after Laver. Groundstrokes should be topspin with an Eastern grip, hit slice to charge the net, and pressure your opponent from the net. He was fairly progressive way back in the late 70s in his emphasis on slow motion video and scientifically studying a great stroke. So unbelievably, I learned to hack tennis from a book. I enjoyed the game but never played it regularly enough to be no better than an advanced beginner.
Like many, I took a fair bit of time off from playing tennis (15 years), before deciding to play it regularly again. Hitting balls was so much more fun than merely going to the gym. After coming back, I noticed that the game had changed significantly even at the level of tennis nuts who regularly hack at the park. It's much harder to be a netrusher, and baseline skills are at a premium. The one-handed backhand I learned as a child wasn't quite cutting it against high heavy topspin. On flat balls with tons of pace, I would meet the ball late and the ball would sail wide. So I switched to a two handed backhand. None other than Martina Navaratilova said this:
But really, if I were teaching someone to play today, I would teach the two-handed backhand and one-handed slice and one-handed volley. The two-hander is just a more secure ball.
This made a lot of sense to me (as it does to many observers of professional tennis), and I started to dabble with a two handed backhand. In the middle of one hitting session last summer where I just kept missing my one hander, I switched completely.
One thing that had changed significantly since I first picked up tennis (besides strings and the racquets) is You Tube. There are hours of video of professional players hitting balls, and an obssessive-compulsive nut like me has plenty of raw material to study. In developing my two hander, I understood that it was really a forehand with the non-dominant hand assisted by your dominant hand. Indeed when I did hit the two handed backhand, flatter shots would surprise my opponents. High balls to the backhand didn't provoke a moment of anxiety as I knew I could execute it.
But consistent execution was the problem. Too frequently my swing would be too big, and I'd hit a line drive through the fence. On approach shots I would still feel funny hitting with both hands holding the racquet. While anticipating the shot I felt like I was had to think about whether I wanted to hit a two hander, to slice it with one hand or to hit an inside-out forehand. Put me on the run, I'd revert to a slice or even my one hander. If my opponent took the net, I'd sometimes try to hit the pass or topspin lob with one hand.
At some point, it dawned on me that my footwork and my weight transfer needed much more attention. It's easy to hit the perfect stroke when the ball is hit directly into your strike zone. Notice how this man pivots off his front foot at 0:11, 0:50, 1:47 to his hip rotation to put more weight in the shot.
Watching the groundies of professional players, you'll notice the same pivot moves off of both wings, and using either foot. Out of curiosity, I wondered what a professional one hander does. Notice how the footwork and weight transfer of this fella who isn't too shabby.
At 0:10 in a neutral stance, he steps forward but with a very subtle front pivot. A very pronounced pivot in the closed position at 1:14.
After noticing the pivot, I tried it out with both backhands the next time I went to hit. Both of them became heavier shots with more pace and spin. However, I noticed with my one handed backhand that I was able to land a fairly consistent rally shot deep crosscourt, drive a flat ball in both directions when I wanted, and hit a sharp angle ball that landed in the corner of the service box. With the two handed backhand, I wondered how much I'd have to shorten my backswing. So I committed myself back to hitting the one hander.
My rally partner noticed I kept switching back and forth and asked me why I switched I was finally able to articulate my problem.
You know, for me, it isn't a physical problem. I can clearly hit both shots. It's mental. Probably in my heart of hearts, I'm a one-hander.
Besides the stroke mechanics I noticed a lot of my instincts are grooved to the one handed backhand:
How to position the distance of my body to the ball and which stance to take (closed or neutral)
How big of a swing to take
Reacting quickly to a body shot
Whether to go for a safe rally ball, hit a short sharp angle, drive cross court, or go down the line
Whether to chip an approach or to drive the topspin approach
None of these problems are fundamentally technical. They are mental, and undoubtedly developed due to hours of my hitting against a backboard like my parent's garage door (and breaking more than a few lights in the process). For someone who really owns a shot, you don't just know the basics. You know umpteen variations on the same theme and have a feel for what it takes to execute those variations. With the two hander, I knew it would take a few years to develop that instinctive feel. With the one hander, I already had the feel. I just needed to practice.
None of this is to say my one hander has become a weapon that my fellow hackers ought to fear. I still struggle with handling pace (usually over 70 mph), and with high kickers (usually at shoulder height). I've returned to the one hander and been putting in lots of sessions against a ball machine.
This is the first post by a tennis fan/wannabe. Why "forehandshanker"? because I shank a lot of forehands like my favorite player, Roger Federer. Only problem is that he shanks forehands that are coming at him with more pace and spin that I can only dream of ever hitting. I shank forehands that should have been easy putaways.
Federer has the ability to make grown men admit:
that he can cry like Roger but can't play like him.
At least I can dress like him, it's too bad I can't play like him.
