Furthermore, tennis is a game of emergencies, so you are forced to hit on the move, on the run, your opponent sometimes jams you, etc.
There is no need to consciously teach “footwork”.
Just do drills that will develop speed and naturality.
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
Read the post again. I didn't say you wanted to earn respect. Just stated you
would have respect if you did as you claimed you did.
This type translation accounts for most of the misunderstanding related to
his work. Oscar Even has a Modern Footwork video!
"There is no need to consciously teach “footwork”." Oscars own words in this thread and my reason for asking for clarification from him, as i disagree (assuming he means "footwork" rather than "movement").
"There is no need to consciously teach “footwork”." Oscars own words in this thread and my reason for asking for clarification from him, as i disagree (assuming he means "footwork" rather than "movement").
LoL, Yes, ....but in this context-
"As a beginner you can learn the basic stroke just standing there facing the net with someone feeding you an easy ball. Gradually the body will adjust by itself.
Eventually, learning to lose your balance develops speed around the court.
There is no need to consciously teach “footwork”."
That makes a big difference to me.
One of my earlier coaches taught me to step out always with the outside foot. So on a fh always the right foot first. Then its either shuffle or cross over step depending on the distance needed to end up hitting open stance. I found I can cover the whole right side within 3 steps this way. Is this still the current thinking?
I do this on both sides of the court.
His thinking was 1 big step with the outside foot and your halfway to the singles line. Another 2 and your beyond the doubles alley.
Good point and I was researching the same. Let us go to Oscar directly and learn from him. For the case of the cross over, Oscar believes in starting the body lean first, and let the inside leg come over naturally. I read it as NOT doing the step out with the outside foot first for a crossover step.
From the page, it is not clear what is required for a shuffle step according to him.
http://www.tennisteacher.com/Tennis-Footwork-Instruction.htm
From my personal experience learning footwork (11 years old i think at the time) I was told to start with a cross over step with a fall to the side you want to go only if you had to go further and faster than using the first outside step can take you. So yes it is situational in my instruction as ideally you wanted to stay centered and balanced when you moved to the ball. The cross over start would really be the begining of a Sprint to the ball. Not the controlled glide of stepping out with the ourside foot. Two different situations. But to be honest I never think about any of that. I did the practices as a kid and never thought about it again.
Good point and I was researching the same. Let us go to Oscar directly and learn from him. For the case of the cross over, Oscar believes in starting the body lean first, and let the inside leg come over naturally. I read it as NOT doing the step out with the outside foot first for a crossover step.
From the page, it is not clear what is required for a shuffle step according to him.
http://www.tennisteacher.com/Tennis-Footwork-Instruction.htm
Read the wikipedia page about Guga Kuerten (English and Spanish versions) and you will find the names of Guga's coaches. Don't believe any propaganda. Learn to think on your own, for a change.
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
^^^Oscar, Just in case you missed it amongst all the stuff that has been filling up the thread, I have reposted my questions here...
Guga thanks Oscar in the flap of one of his books. As well as on the cover of the "play better tennis in 2 hours" book by Oscar wegner BORG is quoted thanking Oscar for coaching him. Let's absorb this a bit. Borg one of the best ever hired oscar as a coach.
This simple fact should show the extent of Oscars influence. The same oscar that posts free tennis tips here. Gives away his book here. And some Hack posters have to gal to harass the man over trivial things. We should do all we can to keep tennis teaching pros engaged and posting in this forum. Unless we rather have self proclaimed internet guru hacks run this place.
Thanks you Oscar for coming here despite a harsh welcome by some ill informed people,
From Wikipedia:
"As a young player, Kuerten first learned from Carlos Alves. Alves would continue to coach Kuerten for the next 8 years. When he was 14 years old, Kuerten met Larri Passos who would be his coach for the following 15 years. Passos convinced Kuerten and his family that the youth was talented enough to make a living out of playing tennis. The two started traveling all over the world to participate in junior tournaments. Kuerten turned professional in 1995."
Carlos Alves first invited me to Brazil in 1982, and I worked with him and his 60 kid student body both in in his Brazil academy in ASTEL, Florianopolis, through the 1980s, and in the South Florida tournament circuit until December 1991, when Guga got to the quarters of the Orange Bowl 14s. Carlos Alves has given me several acknowledgements in writing as to the work we did, which included Guga until December 1991. Some are posted in my website.
Suresh, did you notice that the Wikipedia article says that Passos started with Guga when he was 14? What about the story that Passos was with Guga since he was 8? No mention of it anymore? That Guga's father had asked Passos to coach his kid? Guga's father died from a heart attack when Guga was 8 (mid 80s), while umpiring a junior match at a tournament in Itajai. I doubt that Guga's father knew him. Passos was from Novo Hamburgo, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil, the very south of Brazil, and did not appear around Florianapolis until the late 80s.
^^^Oscar, Just in case you missed it amongst all the stuff that has been filling up the thread, I have reposted my questions here...
I do agree. It interesting that he has been on all morning and won't address this. I want to know about this so called TW get together that never heard of. He hides from these questions, but loves to challenge minute irrelevant details.
Just to be clear: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.
Quote:^^^Oscar, Just in case you missed it amongst all the *****ing that has been filling up the thread, I have reposted my questions here...
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?
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.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?
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
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
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.
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.
^^^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
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.
Yes that is what I was saying 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.
Exactly.Without the across pull, how would the racket come across?
That is not possible to see exactly when filmed from behind.key is to see how the racket face is perpendicular to the target direction at contact.
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.That is what imparts the power.
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
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?
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.