Modern Tennis Tips by Oscar Wegner

[tennisfan69]

Originally Posted by sureshs

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.

Yes, definetly.. The smaller racquet means he is able to hold on the trophy position. If the racquet is big then less control there..

[Wegner]

Originally Posted by treblings

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

Correct, treblings. It was a modern racquet, and it was unbelievable how tight he strung it. He went back to his original grip towards a Western and hit the ball below the center, which helped him put more topspin and also keep the ball in. Amazing athlete, about 45 to 47 heartbeats per minute at rest.

[Wegner]

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

Tennisfan, I would have the kid test both and listen as to his preference. Racquet preference can be different from person to person, including kids, and also dependent on amount of training ande experience. I would not put a hard rule on that based on age.

[tennis_balla]

That's the way I see it as well. It should be treated as a guide but not as a system where everyone gets put into the same mold. That's the big thing I do not like about all of this. Some juniors will develop faster, and will be more talented. I believe that the sooner you get them playing with full sized rackets the better however it needs to be taken on a case by case basis. The new system I think will delay the development of the top players, however I do see the benefit for the others. Thevproblem is not having regular full court, regular ball tournaments for U10.

On a different topic, this forum is getting dull. We need to attract more posters to participate in meaningful discussions. The problem is its always the same handful of people discussing the same stuff over and over again. Beating a dead horse that died over 2 years ago. Then we get a thread that's since been deleted about how all these discussions are meaningless from a poster who's been most involved. Funny stuff.
Anyways, this forum needs to attract more coaches and players to get better and different discussions going and not have them be interfered with certain people's agendas. Sadly, doubt that'll happen anytime soon and we'll be treated to more mindless and boring discussions that were covered back in 2009. No wondering this place is going downhill.

[treblings]

Originally Posted by tennis_balla

That's the way I see it as well. It should be treated as a guide but not as a system where everyone gets put into the same mold. That's the big thing I do not like about all of this. Some juniors will develop faster, and will be more talented. I believe that the sooner you get them playing with full sized rackets the better however it needs to be taken on a case by case basis. The new system I think will delay the development of the top players, however I do see the benefit for the others. Thevproblem is not having regular full court, regular ball tournaments for U10.

On a different topic, this forum is getting dull. We need to attract more posters to participate in meaningful discussions. The problem is its always the same handful of people discussing the same stuff over and over again. Beating a dead horse that died over 2 years ago. Then we get a thread that's since been deleted about how all these discussions are meaningless from a poster who's been most involved. Funny stuff.
Anyways, this forum needs to attract more coaches and players to get better and different discussions going and not have them be interfered with certain people's agendas. Sadly, doubt that'll happen anytime soon and we'll be treated to more mindless and boring discussions that were covered back in 2009. No wondering this place is going downhill.

we have the problem here in Austria, that if a kid is under 10 he/she´s not allowed to play tournaments with fullsize racquets on fullsize courts.
i know at least one case personally where that is really hindering the development of a young boy.
if you use this system intelligently, it´s a great learning tool though

yes, i often wonder why not more high-profile coaches aren´t posting in this forum, when it is such a warm and welcoming place

[tennis_balla]

Originally Posted by treblings

yes, i often wonder why not more high-profile coaches aren´t posting in this forum, when it is such a warm and welcoming place

....and they say Germans/Austrians don't have a sense of humour.

[treblings]

Originally Posted by tennis_balla

....and they say Germans/Austrians don't have a sense of humour.

we here in Austria say that about the Germans. and we know what we are talking about

[arche3]

Originally Posted by Wegner

Correct, treblings. It was a modern racquet, and it was unbelievable how tight he strung it. He went back to his original grip towards a Western and hit the ball below the center, which helped him put more topspin and also keep the ball in. Amazing athlete, about 45 to 47 heartbeats per minute at rest.

Did you have to tell borg to hit below center or was it just a good consequence of switching back to western?

[tennisfan69]

Originally Posted by Wegner

Tennisfan, I would have the kid test both and listen as to his preference. Racquet preference can be different from person to person, including kids, and also dependent on amount of training ande experience. I would not put a hard rule on that based on age.

thanks Oscar, the issue is also impatient parent like me. when he competes in a tournament we want his serve to get in as much as possible and win at an early stage itself. very impatient. sometimes short term success overrides long term benefits. but i will say this he feels much better when using smaller racquet.

[treblings]

Originally Posted by tennisfan69

thanks Oscar, the issue is also impatient parent like me. when he competes in a tournament we want his serve to get in as much as possible and win at an early stage itself. very impatient. sometimes short term success overrides long term benefits. but i will say this he feels much better when using smaller racquet.

that´s what´s important

[Povl Carstensen]

Originally Posted by sureshs

Yes, but the pulling in occurs before hitting out. There is no pulling in at impact.

Is this a universal truth?

[5263]

Originally Posted by Povl Carstensen

Is this a universal truth?

more like his truth

[sureshs]

Originally Posted by Povl Carstensen

Is this a universal truth?

If you pull the racket in, and it in turn is in physical contact with the ball at impact, do you think it will pull the ball further in towards you or send it out at 80 mph? You can try it by leaving a ball on the court, touching it anyway you want with the racket at any angle you like, and pulling the racket. See if the ball comes in towards you or goes out speeding in the other direction.

The Federer forehand consists of a tucking in of the arm (inwards pull) as part of the rotation before contact, followed by an extension towards the target at contact, eventually coming inwards again across the body after contact, the last phase being mostly due to the accumulated inertia and not a conscious action.

[5263]

Originally Posted by sureshs

The Federer forehand consists of a tucking in of the arm (inwards pull) as part of the rotation before contact, followed by an extension towards the target at contact, eventually coming inwards again across the body after contact, the last phase being mostly due to the accumulated inertia and not a conscious action.

Fed hits a mostly straight arm Fh, so the pull to contact is a bit different.
Of course there are many variations.

[bhupaes]

Originally Posted by 5263

Fed hits a mostly straight arm Fh, so the pull to contact is a bit different.
Of course there are many variations.

I think what some folks are finding difficult to grasp is that the pulling in, which happens close to contact, is a composite action that incorporates up, across, and forward movement. It is simply a result of the human anatomy being what it is...

[5263]

Originally Posted by bhupaes

I think what some folks are finding difficult to grasp
is that the pulling in, which happens close to contact, is a composite action that
incorporates up, across, and forward movement. It is simply a result of the human
anatomy being what it is...

good points, but I don't think it is a problem for those sincerely interested.

[Wegner]

Originally Posted by arche3

Did you have to tell borg to hit below center or was it just a good consequence of switching back to western?

Arche, he hit naturally below the center as soon as he got back to his original grip. Correct. He did it whether he was aware of it or not. I didn't even have to mention it. I coach very delicately, sparsely, especially someone operating at such high level.

[Povl Carstensen]

Originally Posted by sureshs

If you pull the racket in, and it in turn is in physical contact with the ball at impact, do you think it will pull the ball further in towards you or send it out at 80 mph? You can try it by leaving a ball on the court, touching it anyway you want with the racket at any angle you like, and pulling the racket. See if the ball comes in towards you or goes out speeding in the other direction.

Thank you for the example, which I think shows that you are talking about backwards, which I think no one else here is implying when they use the word in. Perhaps we are better of with the term across.

[sureshs]

Originally Posted by Povl Carstensen

Thank you for the example, which I think shows that you are talking about backwards, which I think no one else here is implying when they use the word in. Perhaps we are better of with the term across.

Yes, across is much better than yank or pull in as it is more accurate.

[FrisbeeFool]

Serious question about addressing the ball with frame rather than the strings.

I know I was as culpable as anyone for all the stupid modern vs traditional arguments. I apologize, and I'm trying to not act like a crazy person and let the anonymity of the net get the best of me.

Back on topic though, serious question about addressing the ball with the frame rather than strings. When Federer and some of the other current players first came on the scene, to my naked eye, I thought it looked like they were doing something like this, although I would never word it that way, I did notice the more closed racket faces.

I tried to copy this and do it in my own game. Never could. I just framed a lot of of balls and hit slow spinny balls that sat up. Oscar could you explain a little more how you coach players to address the ball with the frame. Would I have to change my grip to a more extreme variety, or can I keep my current grip and still accomplish this?

Oscar could you also explain more the hitting the ball at the bottom of the strings near the frame? I am still very confused by this. I just always assumed on topspin shots the ball contacted the strings near the center of the strings or slightly above center, and as you hit low to high, the strings appear to be above the ball by the time it's left the racket and is going back towards your opponent?

Oscar is this a visualization technique you use to help players start out with a closed racket face and then meet the ball out in front, or do you actually believe they're making contact near the bottom edge of the frame on groundstrokes?

Oscar, after taking lessons for awhile from a coach, who offered me advice one might call "traditional" I've developed pretty decent groundstrokes. I don't really even think about the angle of the racket face on my groundstrokes. I think more about things like getting coiled early and following through fully.

Do you think everybody should be thinking about addressing the ball with the frame, or only certain people with certain issues?

Oscar, my racket face is closed somewhat in my backswing. But I accomplish this by thinking about turning my shoulders and coiling. I don't really manipulate my hand or change my grip at all in order to close the racket face. I feel like it happens on it's own if I coil my shoulders and get a good unit turn.

Do you think my approach can work for me, or in order to see more improvement, would you recommend I focus more on my racket face angle. I just always assumed as players progressed and developed solid fundamentals, it was something they stopped worrying about...

With your work with Borg, it sounds like he had tinkered with his grip over the years, and you helped him change his grip back to one he was more comfortable with. As you said, after the grip change, he addressed the ball with the frame on his own without thinking about it. If someone is comfortable with their current grip and is not having grip issues, should they worry about any of this? Is it more of a concern for certain people in certain situations?