PDA

View Full Version : Idiocyncracies in serving


love2play
09-02-2007, 05:35 PM
Doesn't Bartoli's and Roddick's serves -- and for that matter Venus's swinging volleys -- show that you don't have to conform to exactly what the pros and the seasoned players say is the one right way to hit?

Isn't it better to go out there and see what works for you, even if it isn't the accepted norm?

For instance, I have trouble getting power in serving and I think standing right at the baseline is intimidating and making me pull back on really hitting it hard; I am more apt to do that if I stand a bit farther back, say 7 inches. Someone said that reduces the angle. But really? I am 5' 4''. So seven inches back is really going to matter?

Ambivalent
09-02-2007, 05:39 PM
Standing back is a shortcut to correcting your form.

And a few inches does matter. Isner is what, maybe half a foot to a foot taller than most pros, but his serve CLEARLY stands out because of that little bit of height.

Now if Isner had Roddick's service form, that would be deadly..

dave333
09-02-2007, 05:41 PM
Well I guess it should be fine. A friend of mine stands 7 inches back, brings his back leg forward to pinpoint, then brings his front leg up to the baseline to platform, and gets a nasty serve like that.

But staying 7 inches back because you find it more effective means that you probably need some more topspin. Since you are 5 feet 4, you need topspin on all your serves. Standing 7 inches back will make you need less topspin, but give your serves less margin for error.

I think it would be better if you worked on standing closer but adding some extra topspin on your serve.

Gee Willikers Batman!
09-02-2007, 05:50 PM
You shouldn't get me started with that Bartoli they call a tennis player.
I turned the channel the second I saw that disgusting thing "serve". (IF you could call that serving)

P-Town Tennis
09-02-2007, 05:53 PM
Bartoli's going to break her wrist one day.

JRstriker12
09-02-2007, 06:02 PM
Doesn't Bartoli's and Roddick's serves -- and for that matter Venus's swinging volleys -- show that you don't have to conform to exactly what the pros and the seasoned players say is the one right way to hit?

Isn't it better to go out there and see what works for you, even if it isn't the accepted norm?

For instance, I have trouble getting power in serving and I think standing right at the baseline is intimidating and making me pull back on really hitting it hard; I am more apt to do that if I stand a bit farther back, say 7 inches. Someone said that reduces the angle. But really? I am 5' 4''. So seven inches back is really going to matter?

What's wrong with Rddick's serve? There's nothing wrong or incorrect about the abbreviated motion that he uses.

As for Bartoli, if what they say about her father/coaches training methods - I would say that it's more that just idiocycratic - it's down right strange and dangerous. They were saying that she practices with tennis balls tapped to the heels of her shoes to keep he on her toes. Sounds like a broken ankle waiting to happen. JMAC pointred out that she looses alot of power in her serve from standing on her toes.

Anyway, everyone has thier own style of plays and little habits, bit unless you have the time to hit 8 hours a day to perfect your little bad habits, then I would suggest sticking to most of the norms.

As for standing farther behind the baseline when you serve, what's the advantage to be gained in doing that? If my opponent starts deep behind the baseline, then I would take advantage with drop shots or short angles. I think you have more to gain by learning how to serve properly rather than standing behind the baseline.

Tennismastery
09-02-2007, 06:11 PM
The concept of assuming that because a handful of pros use a different stroke pattern that one should abandon convention in terms of learning. Most of these pros did in fact learn very conventional, modern tennis methods; this allows them to then evolve and find methods within such means that create more effective play for them individually.

There are dynamics involved in even the more unorthodoxed strokes that are rooted in the conventional methods.

When a beginner or intermediate tries to use unconventional form, (usually because it is more comfortable or involved more familiar aspects that they player feels confident in using), such methods are not part of those patterns that are associated with effective or consistent form. (Or, for better players, both!)

This is why you don't see the pros using the kind of strokes and techniques we almost always see players using at the public courts.

There are cases of players who did indeed reach relatively high levels of tennis...but, the question I always say is: How good would such players get if they had been taught more effective methods? In most cases, while it is hard to prove this, such players could have achieved far better levels if they had spent the same amount of time working on methods that were recognized as being more advanced...If this would occur, the talented would be able to embellish such a foundation and you would see the kind of shot-making and uniquiness that we see among the pros...not the kind of uniquiness we see on the public courts.