Modern Tennis Tips by Oscar Wegner

[Wegner]

The Frame

In older times the ball was adressed squarely with the strings.

In modern tennis you approach the ball with the racquet’s frame, the upper edge, starting from below the ball for topspin, the lower edge, starting from above for slice.

Tennis today is more of brushing, massaging, deflecting the ball.

Not only is contact longer in this fashion, it also elicits spins and more control.

Power is no longer the main consideration. Modern racquets and strings have great response and generate ball speed with a lesser effort that racquets of old.

Even further, when you are looking at the ball you are about to strike, having the edges in mind increases your awareness of the racquet angle, especially of the vertical angle that determines the height of your shot.

It is almost as if playing tennis with the hand. The fingers have feel, have awareness. The racquet has not.

[treblings]

Originally Posted by Wegner

The Frame

In older times the ball was adressed squarely with the strings.

In modern tennis you approach the ball with the racquet’s frame, the upper edge, starting from below the ball for topspin, the lower edge, starting from above for slice.

Tennis today is more of brushing, massaging, deflecting the ball.

Not only is contact longer in this fashion, it also elicits spins and more control.

Power is no longer the main consideration. Modern racquets and strings have great response and generate ball speed with a lesser effort that racquets of old.

Even further, when you are looking at the ball you are about to strike, having the edges in mind increases your awareness of the racquet angle, especially of the vertical angle that determines the height of your shot.

It is almost as if playing tennis with the hand. The fingers have feel, have awareness. The racquet has not.

i actually like the fact, that you post the same things more than once. much like a teacher would expect to make certain points over and over, till the student can relate to it

i am interested in something different. i was a very big fan of Bjorn Borg in my youth, and would lik to know, what your focus was in coaching him and getting his game back in shape. i assume you weren´t there for his match against Arrese in Monte Carlo but for the later comeback that he did.

[Wegner]

Originally Posted by treblings

i actually like the fact, that you post the same things more than once. much like a teacher would expect to make certain points over and over, till the student can relate to it

i am interested in something different. i was a very big fan of Bjorn Borg in my youth, and would lik to know, what your focus was in coaching him and getting his game back in shape. i assume you weren´t there for his match against Arrese in Monte Carlo but for the later comeback that he did.

Treblings, I reposted this article as an interesting viewpoint on racquet angle at impact, which was the latest point of discussion at the time. Thinking of the edges of the racquet makes you much more aware of the angle than if your focus on the angle of the center of the strings.

The Arrese-Borg match was in 1991, and definitely a disaster. That is why I was asked by Bud Collins and the owner of the Colony in Longboat Key (Sarasota) in January 1992 if I would work with Bjorn, which I very willingly did for close to a month.

The main focus was regaining his strokes, which he had lost (woud you believe he had changed to a forehand Eastern grip?), and his timing. It wasn't difficult once I reminded details of what he did at his prime. The famous match in the Wimbledon final with John McEnroe and how Borg (per his own recollection) saw the ball very slow (the Zone) was a good clue to regain his game. So was his topspin and height over the net and the fact that in that fashion he rarely missed.

Bjorn was so tuned-in by February 20th, 1992, that in a practice with Pete Sampras indoors on hard courts he lost 7/5 7/6 with two set points in the second set. He told me at the finish: "Oscar, I have so much time now". That was the time he gave me a quote and permission to publish it, which is in the cover of my 2005 McGraw-Hill book.

[treblings]

Originally Posted by Wegner

Treblings, I reposted this article as an interesting viewpoint on racquet angle at impact, which was the latest point of discussion at the time. Thinking of the edges of the racquet makes you much more aware of the angle than if your focus on the angle of the center of the strings.

The Arrese-Borg match was in 1991, and definitely a disaster. That is why I was asked by Bud Collins and the owner of the Colony in Longboat Key (Sarasota) in January 1992 if I would work with Bjorn, which I very willingly did for close to a month.

The main focus was regaining his strokes, which he had lost (woud you believe he had changed to a forehand Eastern grip?), and his timing. It wasn't difficult once I reminded details of what he did at his prime. The famous match in the Wimbledon final with John McEnroe and how Borg (per his own recollection) saw the ball very slow (the Zone) was a good clue to regain his game. So was his topspin and height over the net and the fact that in that fashion he rarely missed.

Bjorn was so tuned-in by February 20th, 1992, that in a practice with Pete Sampras indoors on hard courts he lost 7/5 7/6 with two set points in the second set. He told me at the finish: "Oscar, I have so much time now". That was the time he gave me a quote and permission to publish it, which is in the cover of my 2005 McGraw-Hill book.

thanks for sharing, fascinating detail about the forehand grip
so you basically guided Borg back to his roots and his old game? did you make adjustments to the fact, that the game of tennis and the racquet material had progressed within these ten years? if i remember correctly he used a modern graphite frame for his second comeback

[julian]

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

Greetings,
I believe Bruce Elliot has a recent paper on the subject why serve is NOT scalable.
I did NOT see the full paper,I believe I saw an abstract
Regards,
Julian
The Effect of Age on Discrete Kinematics of the Elite Female Tennis Serve.
David Whiteside, Bruce Elliott, Brendan Lay, Machar Reid
School of Sport Science, Exercise and Health, The University of Western Australia, Crawley, and also the Sport Science and Medicine Unit, Tennis Australia, Victoria, Australia.
Journal of applied biomechanics (impact factor: 0.76). 12/2012;
Bookmark
Share
0 0
·
0 Bookmarks
Edit
Abstract
The importance of the flat serve in tennis is well documented, with an abundance of research evaluating the service technique of adult male players. Comparatively, the female and junior serves have received far less attention. Therefore, the aims of this study were to quantify the flat serve kinematics in elite pre-pubescent, pubescent and post-pubescent female tennis players. Full body, racket and ball kinematics were derived using a 22-camera VICON motion capture system. Racket velocity was significantly lower in the pre-pubescent group than the two older groups. In generating racket velocity, the role of the serving arm appears to become more pronounced after the onset of puberty, while leg drive and 'shoulder-over-shoulder' rotation mature even later in development. These factors are proposed to relate to strength deficits and junior players' intentions to reduce the complexity of the skill. Temporally, coupling perception (cues from the ball) and action (body movements) is less refined in the pre-pubescent serve, presumably reducing the 'rhythm' (and dynamism) of the service action. Practically, there appears scope for equipment scaling to preserve kinematic relevance between the junior and senior serve and promote skill acquisition.

[5263]

I could see how the serve might not be scale-able if as Dave Smith says,
the wrong grips...etc...
were used at the start, but seems all technique is scale-able from the right
basics.

[sureshs]

Originally Posted by julian

Greetings,
I believe Bruce Elliot has a recent paper on the subject why serve is NOT scalable.
I did NOT see the full paper,I believe I saw an abstract
Regards,
Julian

Not scalable under what conditions?

[julian]

Originally Posted by sureshs

Not scalable under what conditions?

If you need it promptly please google for an abstract
I do NOT have a laptop with me-very difficult to post using a Blackberry
and being on a tennis court at the same time.
Try to understand.

Julian W.Mielniczuk
Medfield High School Head Tennis Coach (Boys)
Medfield,MA,USA

[5263]

Maybe I don't understand how scalable is meant, but this would seem to be
him talking of ways the serve is-

• Purposeful practise of internal rotation at the shoulder joint - this may be commenced at an early age, if an appropriate racket and ball are being used.
When shoulder internal rotation should be introduced into the teaching sequence is a question with no real answer. It can be taught relatively early in the learning process, however, it certainly will not achieve its ultimate goal of dramatically increasing racket speed until the factors discussed in point 7, as well as muscle strength have been appropriately developed.

probably not the correct link or correct paper to see the proper ref to the topic though

[arche3]

Originally Posted by julian

If you need it promptly please google for an abstract
I do NOT have a laptop with me-very difficult to post using a Blackberry
and being on a tennis court at the same time.
Try to understand.

Ha ha. You know your a ttw junkie if your posting between first and second serves.

[julian]

Originally Posted by 5263

Maybe I don't understand how scalable is meant, but this would seem to be
him talking of ways the serve is-

• Purposeful practise of internal rotation at the shoulder joint - this may be commenced at an early age, if an appropriate racket and ball are being used.
When shoulder internal rotation should be introduced into the teaching sequence is a question with no real answer. It can be taught relatively early in the learning process, however, it certainly will not achieve its ultimate goal of dramatically increasing racket speed until the factors discussed in point 7, as well as muscle strength have been appropriately developed.

probably not the correct link or correct paper to see the proper ref to the topic though

The word scalable is defined/used by Ash in post #90
I am out of this pickle.
I do NOT have a bone here,NOT even talking about a meat

[5263]

Originally Posted by julian

The word scalable is defined/used by Ash in post #90
I am out of this picle.
I do NOT have a bone here,NOT even talking about a meat

No one is even arguing here. Just looking at the info.

[sureshs]

That paper seems to suggest changing racket dimensions for younger ages

[tennisfan69]

Originally Posted by julian

Post #505 updated

Julian, in your coaching experience, do you think racquet size needs to be scaled in as the kid grows will help in mastering the technique. i have a 6 year old who is learning. if i give him a 25'' stick his serve is weak but may be gets more serves in across the net. but if give him a 23'' stick his technique is good and he is able to manage/manipulate the stick better.

what is your thinking based on experience? other coaches can also explain please..thnx for the time

[Ash_Smith]

^^^Tennisfan - that's a whole other debate right there! Tennis pro's all over are fighting over the merits of ROG!

Not speaking for Julian, but the simple answer (from my experience) is that yes, graduated racquets and balls do improve the speed at which the players can acquire skills, but they must be tied to an appropriate court size to be effective (hence the ROG systems). Whether you believe that is the best way to develop a player or not is another debate for another thread!

Cheers

[tennisfan69]

Originally Posted by Ash_Smith

^^^Tennisfan - that's a whole other debate right there! Tennis pro's all over are fighting over the merits of ROG!

Not speaking for Julian, but the simple answer (from my experience) is that yes, graduated racquets and balls do improve the speed at which the players can acquire skills, but they must be tied to an appropriate court size to be effective (hence the ROG systems). Whether you believe that is the best way to develop a player or not is another debate for another thread!

Cheers

i got a chance this past summer to meet Robert landsdorp (sampras coach) and Peter lundgren ( federers coach) and asked this question. they both dont seem to see any merit in ROG and 10 and under formats. they mentioned there is no statistical data to prove the ROG and 10U really helped any top pros in the past to be of any statistical importance. Rick Macci also believes in introducing full size recquets as early as possible.

so from your experience have you seen the benefits of scaled equipments at later stages agewise

[Ash_Smith]

^^^I see the benefits in respect of kids from an early age being able to develop technically sound strokes more quickly and having more fun being able to actually play the game on an appropriate court, although I disagree with the mandatory age groups that we have had here for about 5 or so years and the ITF are pushing worldwide.

Robert is Robert - he has his system, which has been successful in the past and could well be successful again - but maybe if he adapted to using graduated equipment he could be even more successful. Peter likely hasn't coached any under 10 tennis since ROG became more widespread.

Whether ROG systems have long terms benefits is a bit of a moot point - as everybody has to do it now (if they want their u10's to compete anyway)!

Not really empirical evidence, but here we have the strongest crop of juniors we have ever had at one time (most of whom grew up using graduated equipment).

Cheers

[tennisfan69]

Thanks Ash, good point.

[julian]

Originally Posted by tennisfan69

Julian, in your coaching experience, do you think racquet size needs to be scaled in as the kid grows will help in mastering the technique. i have a 6 year old who is learning. if i give him a 25'' stick his serve is weak but may be gets more serves in across the net. but if give him a 23'' stick his technique is good and he is able to manage/manipulate the stick better.

what is your thinking based on experience? other coaches can also explain please..thnx for the time

Try to get in touch with TCF

[sureshs]

Originally Posted by tennisfan69

Julian, in your coaching experience, do you think racquet size needs to be scaled in as the kid grows will help in mastering the technique. i have a 6 year old who is learning. if i give him a 25'' stick his serve is weak but may be gets more serves in across the net. but if give him a 23'' stick his technique is good and he is able to manage/manipulate the stick better.

what is your thinking based on experience? other coaches can also explain please..thnx for the time

It also depends on the frame's balance point. I have seen some kids play with frames where the head definitely seems to be too heavy for them, the way the racket moves during play. It is as if they are unable to control the lop-sided weight.