Modern Tennis Tips by Oscar Wegner

[sureshs]

I need to find out why jackal short-changed me. He gave me some Donnay racket to demo. Probably he felt that I was not deserving of Filip's frame.

[julian]

Originally Posted by guitarplayer

Sureshs, who has no problem bashing Oscar, still will not provide any of his credentials!

Answer now Suresh or don't post all your BS again. What are your credentials? How old are you? What is your rating? Let's see a video of your amazing skills before we here any more of your instruction.

Truth be known, you are a 2.0 who you admitted in a previous post that some little kids mom dropped him off to hit with you and he beat you! Yet you post a zillion post each day with your vast knowledge and have the gall to talk down to Oscar.

And where and what was this TW get together you supposedly were at? I could find nothing here on it.

From now on, every post you make, I will challenge you for your credentials.

Just to be clear:
I assume you know
TW Message Board Policies
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=3

[Wegner]

Originally Posted by Ash_Smith

^^^Oscar, Just in case you missed it amongst all the *****ing that has been filling up the thread, I have reposted my questions here...

Quote:
Some interesting points Oscar, thanks for sharing your ideas.

Just on the points above, I have heard many times the phrase "tennis is a game of emergencies", but I have always thought that makes it sound like a passive game for the player it refers to - in other words you have to just deal with what the opponent sends you. Personally I prefer players to think about what they can create rather than what they cope with.

When you refer to "footwork" do you in fact mean "movement"? I feel there is a difference between the two. From what I have read of your work and the stuff I have done with Andy and John over here, I think you mean movement to the ball should come naturally. There are a couple of specific footwork patterns which can be anything but natural which are essential skills for high level tennis, which need to be taught in my opinion.

Would be interested to hear your thoughts.

Cheers [/quote]

Ash, sorry for the delay. I consider footwork and foot movement synonymous. But I do know some patterns are very beneficial. And yes, they are essential at high level. I do coach them through drills, so the person can adjust them to be in tune with their own physique and very efficient as well.

Actually, it is the desire to be efficient that drives the player to look for simplicity and for the best way to use the forces in nature. For example, a child does not cross over the foot first to go to one side, or they would fall backwards, unless they lean into the new direction. What the child does is which is very efficient, they take the weight off the foot closest to the direction they want to move to, resulting in the center of gravity of the body "pulling" them in that direction. What many kids have but needs to be taught if not present, is an extra move to accelerate the start in that direction: sliding the leading foot outwards, together with some turn in the new direction, then the crossover as necessary. I state this simply for more clarity. No big words.

There are other situations, as in the volley, where this outside sliding foot aids net coverage. If you cross over as first reaction, you cover considerably less than if you slide the outside foot first, then step across or cross over. I usually teach the "footwork" or "movement" with drills, so I am guiding the player to select from his actions those which are more efficient and beneficial. It is a very interesting subject which I feel needs to be addressed intelligently, otherwise, if it is not aligned with nature, it makes the player slower (I have tested this extensively). Furthermore, if the player's mind gets clogged with thought about the feet, it traps attention units which should be used to focus on the ball, not the feet.

The point about emergencies. Preparing early can be misleading. Many players practice to react (prepare) fast all the time, even on a slower ball. If you react in this fashion to a slow ball, how would you react to a ball 4 or 5 times faster than the previous one? This does not promote coordination. The best technique is: slow for a slow ball, faster for a faster one, all coordinated. Since human beings tend to overreact, a player is better off with restraint than attempting to prepare as quickly as possible. The player learns a lot faster and is more efficient by waiting with the hands in front of the chest until the ball is near (tracking), finding the ball as if going to catch it, then taking a good swing, than by taking the racquet back early and swinging from all the way back.

Thank you for your questions and your patience.

Oscar
Oscar Wegner
TennisTeacher.com

[sureshs]

Oscar, good points. Thanks for responding in spite of all the childish distractions and name-calling on this thread.

Re: responding slower to a slower ball. When pros see a slow short ball, they seem to react very fast and attack, moving forward and trying to take away time for the opponent to prevent him from adjusting. If the ball is not short, they seem to seize the opportunity to immediately position themselves for an aggressive reply, sometimes readying a big swing. Club players react slowly to slow balls taking comfort in the extra time. Don't you think a slow ball should also elicit a fast and early response in order to dominate the game?

Isn't it the case that both slow and fast balls should be responded to equally fast and with early preparation and movement, only that the slow balls allow more opportunities for seizing the point in a proactive way, while the faster balls may allow only reactive responses?

[Wegner]

Originally Posted by sureshs

Oscar, good points. Thanks for responding in spite of all the childish distractions and name-calling on this thread.

Re: responding slower to a slower ball. When pros see a slow short ball, they seem to react very fast and attack, moving forward and trying to take away time for the opponent to prevent him from adjusting. If the ball is not short, they seem to seize the opportunity to immediately position themselves for an aggressive reply, sometimes readying a big swing. Club players react slowly to slow balls taking comfort in the extra time. Don't you think a slow ball should also elicit a fast and early response in order to dominate the game?

Isn't it the case that both slow and fast balls should be responded to equally fast and with early preparation and movement, only that the slow balls allow more opportunities for seizing the point in a proactive way, while the faster balls may allow only reactive responses?

Correct in many points. A top player will cut time in many ways. Except that the top ten or one hundred are not our audience and looking at this thread, so we are talking about amateur tennis. I sometimes do a drill where a groundstroke is hit at one baseline, the receiving player at the other baseline does a 360 and returns the ball. This drill has a different purpose than teaching to attack a slower ball. It teaches the player to track the ball after the bounce, and in the final stages prior to the hit.

Would you believe that many times they hit the ball even better? Of course, in MTM parlance, we always reinforce stalking and hitting across with the finish in mind.

[Povl Carstensen]

Originally Posted by sureshs

Re: responding slower to a slower ball. When pros see a slow short ball, they seem to react very fast and attack, moving forward and trying to take away time for the opponent to prevent him from adjusting. If the ball is not short, they seem to seize the opportunity to immediately position themselves for an aggressive reply, sometimes readying a big swing. Club players react slowly to slow balls taking comfort in the extra time. Don't you think a slow ball should also elicit a fast and early response in order to dominate the game?

I think the discussion here is not so much about reacting fast and attacking, which is all good, but about the shot itself. Do you prepare (pull the racket back) in advance, or do you do it in the rythm of the ball. I totally accept that there are different views on this, and certainly differences among players, pros as well, as to how and how early they pull back (prepare). Great to be back on topic, btw.

[treblings]

Originally Posted by Wegner

[i]Ash, sorry for the delay. I consider footwork and foot movement synonymous. But I do know some patterns are very beneficial. And yes, they are essential at high level. I do coach them through drills, so the person can adjust them to be in tune with their own physique and very efficient as well.

Actually, it is the desire to be efficient that drives the player to look for simplicity and for the best way to use the forces in nature. For example, a child does not cross over the foot first to go to one side, or they would fall backwards, unless they lean into the new direction. What the child does is which is very efficient, they take the weight off the foot closest to the direction they want to move to, resulting in the center of gravity of the body "pulling" them in that direction. What many kids have but needs to be taught if not present, is an extra move to accelerate the start in that direction: sliding the leading foot outwards, together with some turn in the new direction, then the crossover as necessary. I state this simply for more clarity. No big words.

There are other situations, as in the volley, where this outside sliding foot aids net coverage. If you cross over as first reaction, you cover considerably less than if you slide the outside foot first, then step across or cross over. I usually teach the "footwork" or "movement" with drills, so I am guiding the player to select from his actions those which are more efficient and beneficial. It is a very interesting subject which I feel needs to be addressed intelligently, otherwise, if it is not aligned with nature, it makes the player slower (I have tested this extensively). Furthermore, if the player's mind gets clogged with thought about the feet, it traps attention units which should be used to focus on the ball, not the feet.

The point about emergencies. Preparing early can be misleading. Many players practice to react (prepare) fast all the time, even on a slower ball. If you react in this fashion to a slow ball, how would you react to a ball 4 or 5 times faster than the previous one? This does not promote coordination. The best technique is: slow for a slow ball, faster for a faster one, all coordinated. Since human beings tend to overreact, a player is better off with restraint than attempting to prepare as quickly as possible. The player learns a lot faster and is more efficient by waiting with the hands in front of the chest until the ball is near (tracking), finding the ball as if going to catch it, then taking a good swing, than by taking the racquet back early and swinging from all the way back.

Thank you for your questions and your patience.

Oscar
Oscar Wegner
TennisTeacher.com

thanks for that post, it helps me to understand your viewpoint.
i´ve seen lots of rec players with less than good movement over the years, so i have always strongly sympathized with your calling for natural movement.
usually the problem is either that players use inefficient steps to move, like only doing sidesteps on the baseline for example , or it is players taking the racquet back first and then starting any movement towards the ball. i´ve seen players trying to run down a drop shot with their racquet back wagging like the tail of a dog.
what i like about your post is, that you acknowledge the need for some drills and guiding players into certain movements that are beneficial.
i also like what you say about preparation, and that it depends on the speed on the incoming ball.
once you realize how much time you have to prepare, you can then take away time from your opponent by taking the ball early.

[Ash_Smith]

Oscar, thanks for your response. I have made some further points in red below if you have the time/opportunity to address them...

Originally Posted by Wegner

[i]

Ash, sorry for the delay. I consider footwork and foot movement synonymous. But I do know some patterns are very beneficial. And yes, they are essential at high level. I do coach them through drills, so the person can adjust them to be in tune with their own physique and very efficient as well.

Interesting that you say this and acknowledge that footwork needs to be taught/coached - I think perhaps your ideas have been mis-represented as the generally thought around your work is that you don't teach footwork/movement and allow it to just happen (which as you say later it doesn't always!)

Actually, it is the desire to be efficient that drives the player to look for simplicity and for the best way to use the forces in nature. For example, a child does not cross over the foot first to go to one side, or they would fall backwards, unless they lean into the new direction. What the child does is which is very efficient, they take the weight off the foot closest to the direction they want to move to, resulting in the center of gravity of the body "pulling" them in that direction. What many kids have but needs to be taught if not present, is an extra move to accelerate the start in that direction: sliding the leading foot outwards, together with some turn in the new direction, then the crossover as necessary. I state this simply for more clarity. No big words.

Again, I am glad you acknowledge that some footwork patterns require or may require teaching. Your talking of a person taking the weight off the foot closest to the direction (Dynamic Imbalance - to use big words!) is how people walk - the centre of gravity shifts in the intended direction of travel and the legs swing out to stop you falling over! The sliding out the leading foot (some call it a jab step), for me should be taught as part of the split-step and actually requires the player to land slightly one foot before the other - thus creating the dynamic imbalance referred to earlier and allowing the player to "fall" to the side they intend to move. Your thoughts - do you ever teach it this way? How do you reconcile your approach to teaching or "not teaching" footwork with the approach of somebody like Jez Green, whom I know and have had the privilege of being on court with when he's worked with Murray - he is very specific with his biomechanics and positioning of the body?

There are other situations, as in the volley, where this outside sliding foot aids net coverage. If you cross over as first reaction, you cover considerably less than if you slide the outside foot first, then step across or cross over. I usually teach the "footwork" or "movement" with drills, so I am guiding the player to select from his actions those which are more efficient and beneficial. It is a very interesting subject which I feel needs to be addressed intelligently, otherwise, if it is not aligned with nature, it makes the player slower (I have tested this extensively).

yep, agree with this

The point about emergencies. Preparing early can be misleading. Many players practice to react (prepare) fast all the time, even on a slower ball. If you react in this fashion to a slow ball, how would you react to a ball 4 or 5 times faster than the previous one? This does not promote coordination. The best technique is: slow for a slow ball, faster for a faster one, all coordinated.

Sorry, my point was more to do with the image of calling tennis a game of emergencies encouraging players to be reactive rather than active! It promotes the idea that you have to react and cope rather be proactive and create - to me anyway

Cheers

[TCF]

Ash, as Oscar said, the target for his '2 hour tennis' and most of his tips are rec players and beginners. He teaches top juniors and pros differently of course. Like you said, elements of footwork must be taught at a certain level of tennis.

[Ash_Smith]

^^^Appreciate that TCF, what I am interested in is how "scaleable" his "system" is - in other words how applicable is it at higher levels and what needs to change or have a different approach accordingly. Plus, Oscar still seems to take a more "holistic" approach than others, hence my comparison to Jez and his style of approach. The talk is often around his work for beginners ("Tennis in 2 Hours" etc), but I am interested in the work he does with, as you say, top juniors and pro's.

That's why I would be interested to hear Oscars thoughts on my points above.

Cheers

[treblings]

Originally Posted by TCF

Ash, as Oscar said, the target for his '2 hour tennis' and most of his tips are rec players and beginners. He teaches top juniors and pros differently of course. Like you said, elements of footwork must be taught at a certain level of tennis.

that is a point that is often misunderstood in this forum and worth clarifying.

[sureshs]

Originally Posted by Povl Carstensen

I think the discussion here is not so much about reacting fast and attacking, which is all good, but about the shot itself. Do you prepare (pull the racket back) in advance, or do you do it in the rythm of the ball. I totally accept that there are different views on this, and certainly differences among players, pros as well, as to how and how early they pull back (prepare). Great to be back on topic, btw.

Yes. I saw Oscar's response too. It seems to be a teaching aid to not rush the shot early by showing how the shot can be hit with a wait period also.

Re: your comment, on a ball which is much slower than a regular ball, some pros will have their racket fully back much before they are close to attack the ball, while others might come closer to the ball and then do a quicker deceptive back and forth swing. In either case, the slow ball was also reacted to as fast as a fast ball. Another example is Federer might hardly get a chance to budge on a first serve, but as soon as he sees a weak second serve heading over the net, he starts moving around his backhand at once, preparing to crush the ball with his forehand as early as possible.

[Wegner]

Originally Posted by Ash_Smith

^^^Appreciate that TCF, what I am interested in is how "scaleable" his "system" is - in other words how applicable is it at higher levels and what needs to change or have a different approach accordingly. Plus, Oscar still seems to take a more "holistic" approach than others, hence my comparison to Jez and his style of approach. The talk is often around his work for beginners ("Tennis in 2 Hours" etc), but I am interested in the work he does with, as you say, top juniors and pro's.

That's why I would be interested to hear Oscars thoughts on my points above.

Cheers

Ash, your points are very well taken. They are true, and the only challenge is how do you teach them? I have been working, since I started coaching in 1968, to teach as little as possible and obtain maximum results. You can say I rely on instinct for the player, at any level (including with Borg in 1992, helping him recuperate his game), to discover which is the most effective pattern, and I just guide them so they realize this discovery. Why? Because there are, in the main, two realms that sometimes conflict with each other: instinct and thought. You could call instinct pure thought, of which we are aware of by feel, and regular thought, the processing of mental image pictures and conclusions thereof.

in the main, instinct has billions of computations per second of which we are unaware of, while mental image pictures computation of which we are aware of is much slower. Human beings tend to get partially stuck in mental image pictures, while the few that escape that trap, in tennis, for example, achieve a different plateau.

I have worked on bypassing mental image pictures of positions, or of operating, as much as possible, and observe the results of the learning experience in the student to understand what is his viewpoint and feel. Or you could say that I assume the viewpoint of the student as if I was in his point of view. From there, and this is what is interesting, without thinking in mental image pictures the solution to any outstanding problem in fluidity or efficiency or comfort or feel appears to me and that is what I transmit to the student, usually as a suggestion to try something to see if it works. Since this way of instructing is non-intrusive, the student feels free to chose for himself what works best. I tend to induce changes by drills in which I exaggerate a situation, so a middle ground is easily achieved.

It's kind of difficult to transmit this type teaching philosophy in words, or books, so I rely on video or personal coaching and always resorted to insist on playing like the pros and explained what the pros do. Of course each pro plays differently from each other, but there are principles or you could call it commonalities that tend to lead to a remarkable success. There is where my experience as a player on the tour in the 1960s and the problems to excel within it, and my 45 years of coaching have permitted to ascertain what is important and what is not. On groundstrokes, for example, tracking is a dynamic computation and the only static mental image picture I teach is the finish of the stroke. That permits the rest to be fluid, and perhaps copying your favorite pro gives you a guide as what you are doing with the ball.

That is why I teach footwork with drills, and I just explain to the student, as a guide, what the top pros do. Which leads to our present conflict, in this and other threads, as many think the pros do one thing, and others other things. In written form this is a challenge. And I think (I perceive) you explained your viewpoint very accurately and very easily, where I can assume your viewpoint.

Thank you.

[Ash_Smith]

Originally Posted by Wegner

I have worked on bypassing mental image pictures of positions, or of operating, as much as possible, and observe the results of the learning experience in the student to understand what is his viewpoint and feel. Or you could say that I assume the viewpoint of the student as if I was in his point of view. From there, and this is what is interesting, without thinking in mental image pictures the solution to any outstanding problem in fluidity or efficiency or comfort or feel appears to me and that is what I transmit to the student, usually as a suggestion to try something to see if it works. Since this way of instructing is non-intrusive, the student feels free to chose for himself what works best. I tend to induce changes by drills in which I exaggerate a situation, so a middle ground is easily achieved.

Thanks Oscar - now we are getting into some interesting discussion! I totally agree with your viewpoint on helping the student discover the "correct" solution for themselves - "guided discovery" is how I teach too. However, I am a little confused by your principal of bypassing mental images? Do you mean you bypass mental images, as in you don't have a mental image of how you would like the student to look? Or do you mean that you don't use imagery to help inform your teaching? I would be surprised if it is the second as the vast majority of people are either primarily visual or kinaesthetic learners or a combination of the 2 (with audial way behind)?

Cheers

[Povl Carstensen]

Originally Posted by sureshs

Re: your comment, on a ball which is much slower than a regular ball, some pros will have their racket fully back much before they are close to attack the ball, while others might come closer to the ball and then do a quicker deceptive back and forth swing.

Yes that is what I was saying also.

[Povl Carstensen]

Originally Posted by sureshs

Without the across pull, how would the racket come across?

Exactly.

Originally Posted by sureshs

key is to see how the racket face is perpendicular to the target direction at contact.

That is not possible to see exactly when filmed from behind.

Originally Posted by sureshs

That is what imparts the power.

No, you can impart momentum, thrust, power without being perpendicular. On the other hand being unperpendicular is a major factor in generating spin, both vertical and horisontal. Imo. And unperpendicularity to the target direction is nescessary to compensate for the incomming balls direction.

Edit: Sorry, I see this has since been discussed in http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=450567.

[5263]

Racket face will rarely if ever be exactly square with the target line due to angle
of reflection of the strings. It will vary to some to degree on nearly every shot, right?

[Wegner]

Originally Posted by Ash_Smith

Thanks Oscar - now we are getting into some interesting discussion! I totally agree with your viewpoint on helping the student discover the "correct" solution for themselves - "guided discovery" is how I teach too. However, I am a little confused by your principal of bypassing mental images? Do you mean you bypass mental images, as in you don't have a mental image of how you would like the student to look? Or do you mean that you don't use imagery to help inform your teaching? I would be surprised if it is the second as the vast majority of people are either primarily visual or kinaesthetic learners or a combination of the 2 (with audial way behind)?

Cheers

Ash, two things, you can look at a static picture, or you could be looking at streams of pictures, like in a movie. If you are talking of recalling a movie, I do recall how Laver hit, Federer, Emerson, etc., in stream form, perceiving in aesthetic waves (you could call it light viewing), without looking at pictures themselves. Otherwise it is too interiorizing, meaning it traps too much attention and it takes the person out of present time.

Experience and memory is very useful, unless someone is paying too much attention to the pictures in the mind and is not looking out and in present time.

What is a human being greatest asset? Control of attention. Ability to focus where one wants. That is why I point to the distinction between stuck pictures and flowing motion of pictures. That is also why I promote waiting: to stay in present time, to observe every details and compute the composite, dynamically, as a whole.

[sureshs]

Originally Posted by 5263

Racket face will rarely if ever be exactly square with the target line due to angle
of reflection of the strings. It will vary to some to degree on nearly every shot, right?

Yes it seems to benearly vertical to slightly closed just before contact. The reflection from the strings happens only from contact.

The consensus from the other thread is that if the ball is contacted in the lower half of the strings (lower as in racket horizontal), then the recoil will cause a slight closing of the face even on vertical (or what you call square) impact BUT it is also the case that the face is often deliberately closed around 10 degrees to control a ball taken on the rise.

[sureshs]

Originally Posted by Povl Carstensen

Exactly.

That is not possible to see exactly when filmed from behind.

No, you can impart momentum, thrust, power without being perpendicular. On the other hand being unperpendicular is a major factor in generating spin, both vertical and horisontal. Imo. And unperpendicularity to the target direction is nescessary to compensate for the incomming balls direction.

Edit: Sorry, I see this has since been discussed in http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=450567.

Yes we discussed the square vs slightly closed face in depth already