Single handed backhand for juniors...

[sureshs]

The secret is to notice (without paying for a lesson) what the old fart coach does on a high ball. He probably slices, or moonballs it with some side spin. That is what you should learn from him.

[FrisbeeFool]

Originally Posted by luvforty

imo the girl has been taught an obsolete form... text book maybe, but obsolete.

if you go frame by frame, her racket face is never closed at the power position (borrowing a term from xtsf)... it closes on the way up to meet the ball... this is the definition of a flip... also the 'text book' finish with no wrist release confirms that.

Stan - face already closed at the power position, therefore he can rip the shot as hard as possible without losing control... his finish with racket tip pointing to the back fence with the face still looking at the same angle as at the power position confirms that.

this is why most recs struggle with this shot.... they pay $60 - 100/ hour for instruction from some old fart who hit the old text book shot, and then they come into a match and get killed because the shot is flawed.

Watch some more of xtsf's video's he teaches the one-handed backhand and I believe he hits one himself. Yes, you are right Stan's great preparation closes his racket face. The girl in the video has good prep as well and she hits a sound backhand. It's not as explosive as Stan's but whose is? She hits the ball better than 99 percent of people at the rec level, and she looks like she has all the fundamentals right.

[luvforty]

Originally Posted by sureshs

The secret is to notice (without paying for a lesson) what the old fart coach does on a high ball. He probably slices, or moonballs it with some side spin. That is what you should learn from him.

or let the ball drop, or take the ball early..... that's what the student will be told to do.......

oh yeah, with a strike zone from knees to the waist, you better have a good pair of legs lol

[luvforty]

Originally Posted by FrisbeeFool

Watch some more of xtsf's video's he teaches the one-handed backhand and I believe he hits one himself. Yes, you are right Stan's great preparation closes his racket face. The girl in the video has good prep as well and she hits a sound backhand. It's not as explosive as Stan's but whose is? She hits the ball better than 99 percent of people at the rec level, and she looks like she has all the fundamentals right.

xtsf's stuff is good.

the girl - good fundamentals in the context of the old style.... with that swing path it's humanly impossible to close the face at the power position.

hers will hold up against 99%.... problem is it will not if her goals are higher.

[FrisbeeFool]

Originally Posted by luvforty

this is why most recs struggle with this shot.... they pay $60 - 100/ hour for instruction from some old fart who hit the old text book shot, and then they come into a match and get killed because the shot is flawed.

Most rec players struggle with the one-handed backhand because they never learned the proper fundamentals. Perhaps you could tell us what the new fundamentals are, and why the old model is flawed.

You do realize Federer was taught his one-handed backhand by an Australian ex-player and coach with textbook fundamentals right? There will always be older players passing down knowledge of the game to the younger players. No one has reinvented the wheel when it comes to the one-handed backhand.

The biggest changes in the one-handed backhand I see are with the grip and takeback. No one hits conti any more. Everyone hits eastern. On the takeback they don't take the racket back low any more. They coil and take the racket head back above their hitting hand. Both Wawrinka and the girl in the video hit this way. She prepares like all the modern pros. Early prep, higher takeback than say a McEnroe, but no different than lendl or becker, good coil, compact backswing.

The preparation on groundstrokes changed decades ago. I know of very few coaches who teach students to take the racket back like Chris Evert or John McEnroe. Players still drive the ball and make clean contact though. Always have always will. The girl in the video looks like she has a good swing-path too me. What is wrong with it. How does it differ from Wawrinka??

For an older player with a continental grip, their is nothing wrong with the old Chris Evert low take-back. Their stroke won't be quite as up to date and explosive, but they can still hit a sound, effective stroke that way. A couple weeks back I watched McEnroe beat Courrier on the Senior tour. With the antiquated grips and lower takeback, the more old time players have smaller strike-zones, but they compensate by timing the ball well: either backing up or taking the ball early.

[10isfreak]

Originally Posted by LeeD

I dunno...
I suspect a good slice hit at 5.5 level is totally effective.
Ever try to volley a hard sliced ball that is low and stretches you out? It's not that simple. I remember lots of A/Open guys used only slices.
But that is a lost art nowadaze.

A low slice is still hard to volley, even for a 5.5 player. It's low and it can have some pace to it... given the distance, the time he has to react is short and he needs a clean shot to avoid being passed off the second stroke. The basic principle of managing a passing shot situation is to keep it low. Slicing may even induce a few mistakes early on as people are rarely used to volley these balls. However, a 5.5 might be really good at the net which almost negates the odds of a one stroke passing strategy. You'd really need to force a contact lower than the net cord to ensure yourself an easy passing shot off the second stroke.

Usually, I would advise people to hit their first stroke right at the incoming player. And it's even better if your shot is not so solid. The idea is to figure out if your opponent can really volley or if he just tries to use the net because it's cool and pros do it too. A slice would be great to test that, even if it's a very average and lazy one, because you can manage to keep it in and force a volley response. As soon as he hits his volley, you'll know if he's used to or if he's not. Good players eat floating puppies and kill them, leaving you no chances of even touching them. They'll privilege placement and their footwork will be well coordinated. Some 5.0 or higher might be bluffing volley skills... you'll spot them right off the bat if you call their bluff on it. Experienced players get a good target and get a low bounce; other people either try to block the ball back or aim for a flashy corner shot, which they often miss. Very good players might also kill you in two shots -- if they do it and it's very clearly a well planned approach, expect them to play it a la Federer, coming forward every now and then.

[luvforty]

the 'old style' is almost an mirror image of the classic fh... addressing the ball with the strings (borrowing Oscar's terminology), staying sidways, swing forward thru the ball, no/little supination, smaller strike zone (knees to about chest high).... it's not flawed in the context of the old equipment, but it is flawed with 100 in2 rackets.

new style - addressing the ball with the leading edge, swing path is up the ACROSS the ball (therefore stance opens up at impact), supination, bigger strike zone (up to about eye level).

Federer's bh actually shows subtle shift to the new style from his ps85 days to his frame today.... there are a couple of public vids - his 2001 wimby match vs. Pete, and his junior match vs. Agassi....... he shows less supination back then due to the limitation of the ps85.

[johnchung907]

Are we really arguing between a 1-handed backhand drive vs. a two handed backhand drive? 1-handed is definitely a tad bit harder to learn. If you want a rally shot, 2-handed is better for stability reasons. If you want a passing shot, one-handed is recommended. For winners? It really doesn't matter... two handed is easier down the line while the one handed is easier to hit cross-court. Slice: Definitely the one-handed but it's still possible to have great slices if your a two-hander. Volleys: Again the one-hander. I personally use a two-handed backhand for topspin. However, since I'm an all-around player I use the one-handed slice and volley to great effect. For example if I hit an approach shot on the backhand side, I either use a slice or a topspin drive. Both work out really well. I seriously don't know HOW IN THE WORLD PEOPLE EVEN THINK ABOUT USING TWO HANDS AT THE NET!!!! IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO DEVELOP A GREAT NET GAME IF YOU USE TWO HANDS!!!! Just saying. Can you do a drop volley with two hands? No. Can you produce a low skidding volley with two-hands (aka underspin volleys) Not really. Can you do a punching volley. Yes. That's ALL JUST A PUNCHING VOLLEY! Definitely a one-hander for the volleys. Oh and for the half volley? One-hander wins for sure. No contest at all. Even great two-handed backhanders used a one-hander half volley to great effect. Look at federer vs. raonic at madrid. It's amazing!

[LeeD]

FrewMcMillian and GeneMayer would argue a 2hbh volley works at ATP top 4 doubles level.
That should be good enough for us.

[gregor.b]

Originally Posted by Ash_Smith

Something I've been pondering for the last couple of days, so I thought I'd put it out there to the coaches (and others) on the forum...

With the advent of Mini Tennis, Quickstart, Hotshots, Play+Stay etc etc why do we not teach single handed backhands at Red (I am, of course, using 'we' as a gross generalisation!) All the traditional reasons for not teaching single handed at that age (Red ball is 8&u) are taken away by the mini tennis system, yet the vast majority of coaches still teach 2 hands without fail.

I am considering an experiment!

What are your thoughts?

Cheers

Ash

As Martina N said, 'the two hander is just a more secure shot'.
I think she is right, especially when it comes to returning a 200kmh + serve.
I think that is why most coaches teach this shot rather than the 1 hander. Size and strength is also an issue in the juniors.

[rkelley]

Originally Posted by FrisbeeFool

A couple weeks back I watched McEnroe beat Courrier on the Senior tour. With the antiquated grips and lower takeback, the more old time players have smaller strike-zones, but they compensate by timing the ball well: either backing up or taking the ball early.

McEnroe is still playing great tennis, but honestly I'd be surprised if he could legitimately take a set off Courier unless he hasn't been hitting much. Courier might have let Mac have a few too many opportunities to look good, and then couldn't pull out the set. Perhaps it was best for the business that Mac take one once in awhile. Maybe Mac really did it. I don't know, but generally Courier has the pace to break Mac's game.

[FrisbeeFool]

Originally Posted by luvforty

the 'old style' is almost an mirror image of the classic fh... addressing the ball with the strings (borrowing Oscar's terminology), staying sidways, swing forward thru the ball, no/little supination, smaller strike zone (knees to about chest high).... it's not flawed in the context of the old equipment, but it is flawed with 100 in2 rackets.

new style - addressing the ball with the leading edge, swing path is up the ACROSS the ball (therefore stance opens up at impact), supination, bigger strike zone (up to about eye level).

Federer's bh actually shows subtle shift to the new style from his ps85 days to his frame today.... there are a couple of public vids - his 2001 wimby match vs. Pete, and his junior match vs. Agassi....... he shows less supination back then due to the limitation of the ps85.

Again, they key changes are in the takeback and prep. That happened decades ago in the 80's. Watch video of Lendl and Becker hitting topspin backhands. Wawrinka Uses an eastern grip and hits through the ball. Watch this video. Look at the side view. Watch how long his follow-through is and how far in front of him he follows through.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f97Krt-SnTM

Notice how the coach emphasizes early prep, good follow through, taking the ball early, and going forward and hitting the ball in front of his body. Listen to his coach, not internet denizens.

Stan himself says he thinks about taking the ball early and stays with the ball. HE SAYS HE FOCUSES ON STAYING WITH THE BALL he doesn't pull away from the ball too early. How would he be hitting 100 mph groundies if he were pulling off the ball or using a glancing blow. Everything about this stroke is clean, solid, repeatable, and predictable.

[TheCanadian]

Originally Posted by gregor.b

As Martina N said, 'the two hander is just a more secure shot'.
I think she is right, especially when it comes to returning a 200kmh + serve.
I think that is why most coaches teach this shot rather than the 1 hander. Size and strength is also an issue in the juniors.

For women, probably. But the one-hander has more versatility and Henin did a pretty good job dominating women's tennis for a while.

[LeeD]

I think you're dreaming.
Courier is younger than Mc, that's all.
Sampras had trouble with Mac. So did Stich, Lendl, and a host of big guys.
One or two hands, if you can't do it, you can't do it.

[FrisbeeFool]

Originally Posted by rkelley

McEnroe is still playing great tennis, but honestly I'd be surprised if he could legitimately take a set off Courier unless he hasn't been hitting much. Courier might have let Mac have a few too many opportunities to look good, and then couldn't pull out the set. Perhaps it was best for the business that Mac take one once in awhile. Maybe Mac really did it. I don't know, but generally Courier has the pace to break Mac's game.

Watch the senior tour. He competes with the guys with the more modern take-backs. The most important part of the groundstroke is making clean contact. All the modern players still do this, and so do the older guys like mac.

[sureshs]

I think many club players today started using too much spin compared to their inherent abilities. Play with some of the older players, and at least they make solid contact with the ball. If you cannot do that, you can cover it up a little with spin, but it is going to come out sooner or later.

[luvforty]

early prep, clean contact, staying with ball etc.... that's a gimme for any shot.

I am pointing out the intrinsic flaw in the old style, in the fact that you can't hit above chest without flipping.

up and ACROSS is not glancing blow... WW FH is up and across also.

why is this so hard for people to get it.... WW FH is widely accepted, why is the 1hbh any different?

who is the poster child of the new generation 1hbh? Dimitrov

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_uVCOQY50OA

is his any different from lendl, edberg, sampras, becker? it will take a blind person not to see it.

[BevelDevil]

Originally Posted by 10isfreak

The funny thing about this is that many Europeans seem to privilege the one handed backhand when they are much likelier than their American counterparts to play on red clay where bounces are peculiarly high and, rallies, likely to last.

I noticed this too. Something similar with South America, I wonder?

My guess is that they grip the racket correctly

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IurGIKVFKQ#t=0m18s

Originally Posted by luvforty

arguably the biggest disadvantage for 1hbh is time.... time required to prepare.... time you can afford on the european clay.. you can stand back and take a big cut.

time you cannot afford on hard courts.

Originally Posted by luvforty

that's the point... the posture.... requires time to get there..

Maybe on ROS, but for normal groundies the 1hbh preparation should be totally integrated into your movement. So as long as you can step towards the ball, you can hit it.

Btw, one advantage the 1hbh has is hitting on-the-run.

Originally Posted by luvforty

honestly i have not found 1 clip in the public domain that really address the issues 1hb players face - open stance, high balls being 2 of them.... every guru shows a couple of shots at waist high

Originally Posted by luvforty

ok, shoulder sounds fair enough.... so why can't we find 1 clip in the public domain showing people how to hit it... i think the answer is the gurus don't know how.

Originally Posted by luvforty

this is why most recs struggle with this shot.... they pay $60 - 100/ hour for instruction from some old fart who hit the old text book shot, and then they come into a match and get killed because the shot is flawed.

I agree with you. I think most the 1hbh videos by 'gurus' are terrible. Mainly because they teach the wrong grip that doesn't allow a clean shot on a high ball. This is probably because they learned from the "textbook" a long time ago and the game has changed faster than the textbook.

Originally Posted by FrisbeeFool

Most rec players struggle with the one-handed backhand because they never learned the proper fundamentals. Perhaps you could tell us what the new fundamentals are, and why the old model is flawed.

You do realize Federer was taught his one-handed backhand by an Australian ex-player and coach with textbook fundamentals right? There will always be older players passing down knowledge of the game to the younger players. No one has reinvented the wheel when it comes to the one-handed backhand.

True about fundamentals, BUT the modern pro stroke is different from the "textbook"/"old farts" in a few key ways.

1. Most important is grip. Too many books/videos/pics encourage the use of an Eastern "pistol" grip, where the player is holding the racket like a steak knife.

Pros, on the other hand, tend to hold the handle more like the handlebars on a mountain bike, with their fingers more bunched together and with their heelpad further behind the handle. The gives the grip a more "extreme" feel.

Do an internet comparison of textbook "eastern grips" and what the pros actually do. There's usually a huge difference.

Also look at the link I posted above, which shows the grip I'm talking about.

I think most the problems with high balls that rec players have come from a bad grip.


2. Shoulder turn. Textbook says shoulders should always be perpendicular to the net at contact (and probably at follow through). But the players with some of best backhands (especially on high balls) tend to open up their shoulders significantly. This includes Wawrinka, Gasquet, Haas, Almagro, Henin, and Mauresmo, and more.

The extra shoulder turn really helps on high balls. I think this is because it flattens the swing trajectory.


Lastly, Fed does not have a textbook 1hbh. He may have learned textbook, but (like his forehand) it evolved into something completely different:

Fed doesn't straighten his arm until very late in his swing. This is why he can generate so much rackethead speed from a relatively small motion. This is what gives his 1hbh a "wristy" and "whippy" motion that commentators noticed (and were somewhat suspicious of) when he first came on the scene.

So Fed's stroke is neither like the textbook nor like other 1-handers.on tour.

[FrisbeeFool]

Originally Posted by luvforty

early prep, clean contact, staying with ball etc.... that's a gimme for any shot.

I am pointing out the intrinsic flaw in the old style, in the fact that you can't hit above chest without flipping.

up and ACROSS is not glancing blow... WW FH is up and across also.

why is this so hard for people to get it.... WW FH is widely accepted, why is the 1hbh any different?

who is the poster child of the new generation 1hbh? Dimitrov

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_uVCOQY50OA

is his any different from lendl, edberg, sampras, becker? it will take a blind person not to see it.

Dimitrov has all the fundamentals. Very similar backhand to Becker. They use the same grip, and have similar prep, contact, and follow-through. What is the "intrinsic flaw in the old style" that you are pointing about obliquely but not describing in a concrete manner???

[luvforty]

post #267 and #278