Modern Tennis Tips by Oscar Wegner

[luvforty]

dubs don't count

[luvforty]

well, the point is, 3 out of top 50 is under-representation, no matter how you cut it

[Relinquis]

i mentioned roddick (retired and was one of the few successes of his generation anyway).

the bryans are doing a fabulous job, but dubs is different. we're talking singles men.

with all the college players, juniors, sponsorship, access and money in tennis in the usa i can't imagine why you don't have more top players.

[TCF]

Originally Posted by Relinquis

i mentioned roddick (retired and was one of the few successes of his generation anyway).

the bryans are doing a fabulous job, but dubs is different. we're talking singles men.

with all the college players, juniors, sponsorship, access and money in tennis in the usa i can't imagine why you don't have more top players.

In most countries, athletic boys of all social classes, will play either soccer or tennis. In America, athletic boys will play or do football, basketball, baseball, soccer, lacrosse, track, volleyball, hockey, skateboarding, video games.

We just do not have enough very athletic and hungry boys involved in tennis to beat the odds of producing another champion. Also, back in the day tennis was not as global. Mac did not battle as many well trained Russians, Serbians, Spaniards, etc.

[Relinquis]

send a couple of your boys to spain for a year or two. it worked for andy murray!

[5263]

Originally Posted by sureshs

^^^ So I guess Roddick doesn't count at all? He was the only credible threat to Fed in his prime.

And like Sampras, but even more so, totally went as his serve went. Without
2-3 free pts on each svc game,....no chance.

[5263]

Originally Posted by Relinquis

send a couple of your boys to spain for a year or two. it worked for andy murray!

One of the best options going, by far.

[sureshs]

Originally Posted by 5263

And like Sampras, but even more so, totally went as his serve went. Without
2-3 free pts on each svc game,....no chance.

Serve is part of the game. People who cannot win free points on their serve can trade groundstrokes all day, so what? Often makes for boring viewing.

Ultimately, Roddick won a Slam in the Federer era. Only results matter.

[sureshs]

Originally Posted by TCF

In most countries, athletic boys of all social classes, will play either soccer or tennis. In America, athletic boys will play or do football, basketball, baseball, soccer, lacrosse, track, volleyball, hockey, skateboarding, video games.

We just do not have enough very athletic and hungry boys involved in tennis to beat the odds of producing another champion. Also, back in the day tennis was not as global. Mac did not battle as many well trained Russians, Serbians, Spaniards, etc.

Excellent points. Other factors are: dropping out from school at age 16 in Europe (some parts) to pursue tennis, reliance of social safety net in case it does not work out (this was actually explained by a poster from Germany once as to why he was taking up professional tennis), more guaranteed money and protection in unionized American sports, social image of tennis, deliberate slowing down of courts.

These are the factors of any significance.

[luvforty]

^^^ but all the stuff above was roughly the same when sampras/agassi/courier/chang emerged on the scene.

something else went wrong.

[luvforty]

not to mention the 2nd tier guys like wheaton, washington, martin etc

[sureshs]

Originally Posted by luvforty

^^^ but all the stuff above was roughly the same when sampras/agassi/courier/chang emerged on the scene.

something else went wrong.

No, global awareness of tennis is way higher now. And rackets and apparel are far more affordable today in emerging nations.

[luvforty]

Originally Posted by sureshs

No, global awareness of tennis is way higher now. And rackets and apparel are far more affordable today in emerging nations.

same argument can be made for golf, why is US not losing dominance there?

[sureshs]

Originally Posted by luvforty

same argument can be made for golf, why is US not losing dominance there?

Golf is a different beast. In many countries, nice real estate like that would be converted into living spaces in the blink of an eye. Golf is still a very elite sport globally, while tennis is becoming affordable.

But I hardly follow golf. Others can comment on your question.

[Povl Carstensen]

Originally Posted by sureshs

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

I was talking about across as opposed to backwards (which seemed too be your implication of in), not as opposed to pull. For a more detailed explanation I am more in agreance with:

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...

And:

Originally Posted by Cheetah

Incorrect.
You can pull across with any type of forehand. Oscar talks about bicep usage but there are other ways to do it. You can pull across with a minute change in torso rotation or a slight adjustment in tension in some part of the body such as the shoulder or hip or by a change in the amount of bend in your knees. You can even do it using the tilt of your shoulders or any combination of the above. Any such change during the swing no matter how small increases rhs considerably.

Many people don't get this because they've never tried, or they won't try because they don't believe it or they don't want to change or because it challenges the method's they were taught since the beginning or because they can't see it because it's usually not a big move.

The fact is it works. Not everyone does it and not everyone who does do it does it on every stroke. Pro's need every ounce of advantage they can get. A one inch tug here or there give or take that will increase rhs and spin will be utililized.

Here's one player who does it on a larger scale that is easier to see:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-4ssvjz1Sg&t=2m05s

watch it for a few mins

As you wrote yourself:

Originally Posted by sureshs

Pulling across yes, but not pulling back

Originally Posted by sureshs

The complication is with players like Fed and Nadal who can swipe the ball sideways for side spin, which a door cannot do.

I think many more players can do this than Federer and Nadal.

Actually I think swiping the ball is very descriptive of a typical modern forehand. It is a happy medium between hitting squarely, and brushing. And it has no vertical/lateral implications. Plus it sounds right: You ssswipe the ball.

[Povl Carstensen]

You can not hit with a limb arm. And hitting with a fixed arm does not seem right. So there must be some dynamic muscle action, as in contraction (pull). Just reflecting on this.

[sureshs]

Originally Posted by Povl Carstensen

You can not hit with a limb arm. And hitting with a fixed arm does not seem right. So there must be some dynamic muscle action, as in contraction (pull). Just reflecting on this.

Obviously. Even to "push" something, skeletal muscles contract in pairs (flexor and extensor) (because skeletal muscles cannot expand). That is how joints are operated. Don't confuse this contraction (or pull as you call it) with the overall effect of the body on an object.

[5263]

Originally Posted by sureshs

Serve is part of the game. People who cannot win free points on their serve can trade groundstrokes all day, so what? Often makes for boring viewing.

Ultimately, Roddick won a Slam in the Federer era. Only results matter.

Of course it is part of the game and the US has tried to lean on it way too much.
You can't expect most of your prospects to be fantastic servers, but you CAN
develop players to play well off the ground. At least they can always compete
well in that case.

And NO, big servers tend to be more boring, along with points off the ground
don't just trade all day. They develop a pt and earn it with depth to their game.
Like Fed, Great players can win free pts on serve and build pts with a level of
consistency.

[sureshs]

LOL you think Roddick cannot play off the ground? Do you even realize what you are talking about? His forehand used to be one of the best in his day.

[5263]

Originally Posted by sureshs

LOL you think Roddick cannot play off the ground? Do you even realize what you are talking about? His forehand used to be one of the best in his day.

Not a top 20 player with an avg serve...end of story.
Likely would not have ever got on tour to start with without that monster serve.