Hi there. What makes a stroke efficient? Sure, everyone says that Federer's strokes are very efficient. Is this because it's simple yet elegant? Is a shot considered more efficient on average if the ratio of the forward force on the ball to the height of the net clearance is greater? I feel like I can understand that Federer's strokes are indeed efficient, with the wrist rotation and the follow through being incorporated into all kinds of shots, both standard and for improvisations. But as a copycat who imitates Federer's strokes and uses similar equipment, I know that there are some shots that Federer puts to use that would be less effective if he used, let's say, a full bed of polyester. Then, does equipment play a role in stroke efficiency?
"Efficient" Tennis Strokes?
- Thread starter Phalagoo
- Start date
roundiesee
Hall of Fame
Just 2 days ago I saw Roberto Bautista Agut despatch Benjamin Becker 60 62. I thought that was one of the best clay court tennis I've seen for a long while.
RBA's strokes to me were very efficient and I liked the way he made his strokes very simple and straightforward. Even his service action was simple, yet penetrating and effective. Perhaps a dark horse provided he can keep this form up?
RBA's strokes to me were very efficient and I liked the way he made his strokes very simple and straightforward. Even his service action was simple, yet penetrating and effective. Perhaps a dark horse provided he can keep this form up?
torpantennis
Legend
I'd say loose and relaxed form is #1 key for efficient strokes. Another ones, straight arm technique, headlight/high-swingweight racquet, low string tension.
Florian Mayer - serve and forehand.
Chardy - serve
jack Sock - forehand
off the top of my head.
Efficient strokes are strokes that contain all the basic components of the shot - set up/take back, follow through without making things harder than they already need to be. I teach my kids to have 'quiet' take backs, you don't want to make any unnecessary movements with your arm or racket, as it just adds to the list of things that can undo your shot. Murray/Federer/Dimitrov all have very simple forehands, there is no massive take back and the racket does not go through a lot of changes, unlike a jack sock or even Florian Mayer who has a massive take back above his head for a player with such a conservative trip.
Look at these forehands: simplicity
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmtkSzhB8GI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LetxCiRKSh8
And look at jack sock's forehand: extremely 'loud' racket head and a lot of movements.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWqrVOW_-SE
Essentially, Federer and jack sock both make contact with the ball a little in front of the body (jack's arm is more bent due to his grip) but you can see how much more movement jack goes through to reach the same point in the stroke. A lot more can go wrong with that shot when having to make last-moment adjustments on a bad bounce/ in the wind etc.
** addressing the second part to your question, I would reverse it and say that a player adjusts his equipment to fit the demands of his grips/strokes. james blake had a very simple, conservative and flat forehand that needed a low-powered, high tension racket to control. It was still a very effective forehand. Nadal uses babolat at 55 lbs but has a western grip and a much more severe swing path up the back of the ball to create more spin. Two very different forehands, with two different outcomes, but nonetheless, two very effective forehands.
torpantennis
Legend
Nadal's grip is pretty average semi-western... Even Djokovic has more extreme grip, much closer to full western.
As for adjusting equipment to strokes, Jack Sock uses very low tension strings, at 30s lbs. And how is his stroke inefficient? He hits more spin than Nadal. That always requires some work! And a wristy stroke (like Sock's) is efficient, as the racquet is allowed to naturally lag, generating "free" racquet head speed without muscling.
Hollywood401k
Semi-Pro
Sock has a lot of unnecessary motion in his takeback (pointing the racquet towards the net and tip towards the floor/bringing it over his head), I think that's what he's referring to.
Noisy is a good way to put it.
Noisy is a good way to put it.
torpantennis
Legend
But do you realize that it's exactly this funky tip pointing forwards, then lagging backwards, and again flowing forwards that gives Sock that crazy racquet head speed and spin. If his racquet were not doing that big a lagging motion, his FH would have much less spin, with a similar muscle effort.
If anything, that funky movement makes spin generation more efficient.
yea rafa's grip is semi, i was just generalising in comparison to blake. Djokovic is nearly full I agree.
Sock uses low tension because again, he has an extreme fh grip and his stroke path is severely 'up and down' - he comes up the back of the ball and 'covers' it with that low finish.
Just bc a player hits with a lot of spin does not mean their stroke is efficient - to go further - just because a stroke is inefficient does not mean that player's stroke is at all bad. With good footwork and preparation many strokes can be great.
I think in regards to Sock, a better word you could use is 'effective' rather than 'efficient' - He hits a very heavy forehand, but in no way is it technically an efficient stroke. I understand that the relaxed wrist allows for the late snap which gets him so much spin. But the extreme open/closing of the racket head is essentially pointless. Federer has a very loose grip and great lag on his forehand also, but his take back and prep is incredibly simple.
torpantennis
Legend
OK, we have two means for "efficient". Efficient, as in "as simple as possible, so that minimal things can go wrong". Or efficient, as in "uses less energy to generate an equal stroke". My efficient was the latter (energy efficient), and your efficient seems to be that former (simple).
President
Legend
Does any other player hit as much spin and pace (aka as heavy of a ball) as "inefficient" strokes like Sock's and Nadal's though?
torpantennis
Legend
If any of the top guys were "inefficient", I'd say that'd be Ferrer. His form seems to lack that ultimate loose/relaxed feel.
Rock Strongo
Legend
Connors was the pinnacle of efficiency stroke-wise.
Add Kimiko Date to that list aswell.
Add Kimiko Date to that list aswell.
So many factors come into what ultimately leads to spin/pace or the 'heaviness' of a ball than the efficiency of a stroke. Equipment, natural strength of the player, grips and timing all play a role.
AS torpan pointed out, we were thinking of two different kinds of efficient.
Could jack sock hit a flat forehand as hard as Blake if he used blake's lo-powered forehand? no.
Could blake hit a forehand as heavy as sock? no.
You're attributing only groundtroke 'heaviness' with efficiency, which isn't exactly correct to me, given a lot of other things come into play.
Heaviness is not necessarily better, you need to be able to flatten out your shots as well.
i interpreted the Op's question as what technically makes a forehand efficient.
Sock may produce a very heavy ball from the baseline efficiently, but i doubt he could hit forehand returns as efficiently as blake or federer, given his forehand takes a huge amount of movement and time to get into position, i.e. very inefficient.
Sock's forehand is efficient for spin, but it isn't exactly the stroke you want when returning roddick's serve, or having to deal with windy conditions and bad bounces. The more things going on in your stroke, the more that can go wrong in my humble opinion.
torpantennis
Legend
Often super compact means counterpunching. And that is of course more efficient than generating your own pace and spin.
i'd argue that a more compact stroke is used/attributed to/by players with more conventional grips. extreme grips lend themselves more often to bigger, loopier take backs, ala jack sock, nadal, novak.
Compact yet powerful - agassi, blake, federer, bagdatis,
It's not a hard and fast rule but i think there is defs a trend there.
rossi46
Professional
True about Date, small woman with a 380 gram racquet, she had no choice but to play efficiently and compact.
Hollywood401k
Semi-Pro
Just my opinion here, but I don't think "efficient" has to be compact. I actually think Nadal's forehand is efficient and it's not really compact per se. Sock doesn't need to flip his racquet tip forwards, then down, before finally arriving at the same position Nadal or Federer would have prior to the forward swing--that, to me, is inefficient. In other words, I don't think Sock's extra movements are contributing to the spin in his stroke. Nadal doesn't need them. Roddick didn't need them.
Gulbis's Forehand
SpinToWin
Talk Tennis Guru
Efficient for me means using the kinetic chain smoothly and effectively. Djokovic's and Federer's forehands are two prime examples of this (for the double bend and straight arm technique respectively). Murray on the other hand loses out on some parts of the kinetic chain, especially the wrist lag, and they do not work in tandem ideally, so he must compensate for that by incorporating more of the larger parts of the kinetic chain into his strokes (leg drive and trunk rotation). These large parts need more energy though, which is why Murray gets tired relatively quickly for a guy in the shape he is (thinking of Murrovic matches here) IMO.
The most efficient strokes use the parts of the kinetic chain as an ideal chain; one part follows the next and builds up the force of the prior part and for the next part. Using this chain well, a pro can create a lot of pace and spin with relatively little energy. Problems arise when the transitions between parts of the chain are not smooth, or when parts of the chain are not fully exploited. The extreme example is an amateur tennis player who arms the ball and completely lacks trunk rotation, leg drive, wrist layback, etc.
Murray FH
Federer FH
Djokovic
Federer is particularly efficient at using the wrist lag, whereas Djokovic uses trunk rotation and leg drive in one of the most efficient ways I have seen (he uses it to accelerate his upper body and racquet much better than Murray, which is why his strokes seem more relaxed, whereas Murray looks like he's pushing his racquet forward at times). This difference in their efficiencies comes from their technique IMO.
Their efficiency can be seen as on court results by the average pace and spin they play. Murray plays a similar average pace, but his average spin is much lower, so he is getting less energy into his strokes.
Nadal actually has very efficient technique on the forehand, he merely decides to put a huge amount of energy into it nonetheless, in order to produce his insane forehand topspin shots. This in part has led to his rather poor physical health though.
Nadal FH
This is just my personal analysis though.
The most efficient strokes use the parts of the kinetic chain as an ideal chain; one part follows the next and builds up the force of the prior part and for the next part. Using this chain well, a pro can create a lot of pace and spin with relatively little energy. Problems arise when the transitions between parts of the chain are not smooth, or when parts of the chain are not fully exploited. The extreme example is an amateur tennis player who arms the ball and completely lacks trunk rotation, leg drive, wrist layback, etc.
Murray FH
Federer FH
Djokovic
Federer is particularly efficient at using the wrist lag, whereas Djokovic uses trunk rotation and leg drive in one of the most efficient ways I have seen (he uses it to accelerate his upper body and racquet much better than Murray, which is why his strokes seem more relaxed, whereas Murray looks like he's pushing his racquet forward at times). This difference in their efficiencies comes from their technique IMO.
Their efficiency can be seen as on court results by the average pace and spin they play. Murray plays a similar average pace, but his average spin is much lower, so he is getting less energy into his strokes.
Nadal actually has very efficient technique on the forehand, he merely decides to put a huge amount of energy into it nonetheless, in order to produce his insane forehand topspin shots. This in part has led to his rather poor physical health though.
Nadal FH
This is just my personal analysis though.
Last edited:
N
Nathaniel_Near
Guest
^^^
Outstanding post.
Outstanding post.
enishi1357
Semi-Pro
efficient strokes means swinging compactly which means not swinging for the fence
N
Nathaniel_Near
Guest
Definitely another part of it. A guy like Connors tried to get the most out of his game with the minimum effort. He reduced the aggregate amount of effort per stroke to execute his own kinetic chain.
-Efficiency in firing the kinetic chain.
-Overall required effort to complete an instance of the kinetic chain.
Roddick had a very well executed serve with quite an optimally fired sequence, but asked a lot of himself nonetheless with each sequence, building his serve for maximum potency rather than maximum efficiency.
I like it. Murray's forehand from a kinetic chain point of view is not as efficient given it doesn't maximise that system, i think if you taught this forehand though it is quite a simple take-back and follow-through IMO. It's a quiet forehand with minimal extra movements. Federer's is the benchmark in technique and efficiency/kinetic chain combined IMO. And i agree with rafa, his forehand is textbook modern i suppose, and he grips and rips.
since when does nadal have inefficient strokes? His forehand takeback and swing I would say is up there with federer's fh in terms of simplicity but his wrist position during backswing and over the head finish make it look complicated.
nguyentuanson16792
Semi-Pro
Fast, Deep, penetrate, topspin>>>> Federer Forehand
nguyentuanson16792
Semi-Pro
Povl Carstensen
Legend
Seppi?
10 chx
10 chx
SpinToWin
Talk Tennis Guru
Not really IMO.
On serve the angle he produces with his arm while his racquet is behind his back is one of the smallest I have ever seen and this is a major part from where the power comes. He loses a lot of easy power there already.
He doesn't exploit the full kinetic chain on his backhand either, as he doesn't open up into the shot with his shoulders as much as a Djokovic for instance and the racquet lay back is absolutely minimal.
His forehand is kinda similar to the Murray forehand where he does not use certain parts of the kinetic chain effectively, especially by means of the wrist layback.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1FA93PGQVMM
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
Exactly. All pros have top level strokes.
SpinToWin
Talk Tennis Guru
Definitely, especially his forehand.
More or less. Some pros (much) more than others. Of course, no pro has the inefficiencies we speak of when referencing a rec player, but many don't have completely efficient strokes (looking at certain americans' two handed backhands for instance).
above bored
Semi-Pro
All efficiency means is less effort for the same reward. Pros are clearly not all the same, so there are differences in efficiency. The categories below are determined by the highest I have witnessed, downwards. I have put question marks by the names I think sort of straddle two categories. It's not an exact science, but these are my impressions.
Regarding your other point, equipment and set-up can affect efficiency. Lower string tension increases power and spin, therefore increases efficiency. A more powerful racket also increases efficiency. However, all things being equal in this regard, technique will be the difference.
High efficiency:
Federer
Berdych
Tomic
Nalbandian (?)
Medium High efficiency:
Nalbandian (?)
Safin
Agassi
Tsonga
Wawrinka
Del Potro (?)
Raonic
Davydenko (?)
Nishikori (?)
Medium efficiency:
Del Potro (?)
Djokovic
Nadal
Davydenko (?)
Nishikori (?)
Murray (?)
Medium Low efficiency:
Murray (?)
Roddick (?)
Ferrer
Sock
Low efficiency:
Roddick (?)
Murray (?)
Last edited:
BlueB
Legend
^ You got to be kidding with your list...
Agassi behind Nalbandian and Tomic in efficiency? The man took the ball so early and with such a compact swing, yet unleashed totally dictating shots. He's probably close to the very top of the list. Davidenko is similar too.
Also, Delpo and Raonic have no business ahead of Djokovic. Both have very unnecessary huge FH take back and mediocre BH.
Nishi is very efficient too, especially considering his body size.
Agassi behind Nalbandian and Tomic in efficiency? The man took the ball so early and with such a compact swing, yet unleashed totally dictating shots. He's probably close to the very top of the list. Davidenko is similar too.
Also, Delpo and Raonic have no business ahead of Djokovic. Both have very unnecessary huge FH take back and mediocre BH.
Nishi is very efficient too, especially considering his body size.
above bored
Semi-Pro
Like I said, it’s not an exact science, just impressions. I also should have probably mentioned that the names under each category are in no particular order.
Agassi has very efficient technique. He’s in the second highest category after all. However, I don’t think his strokes quite have that effortless quality you see from the likes of a Berdych, Federer or even Tomic. Yes, he had a compact swing and took the ball early, but compactness does not equate to efficiency. It’s probably more efficient to use the natural returning momentum of a relaxed loop take back, than to artificially abbreviate the take back, forcing you to generate more of the forward momentum yourself. Regardless, his groundstrokes are probably in the top 2 or 3 all-time, but he wasn’t a casual, lackadaisical, lazy looking sort of ball striker. That’s sort of what I’m looking for in the highest category, because that’s the standard that has been set by those guys, regarding efficiency.
Nalbandian was a bit more difficult to categorize, that’s why he has the (?) by his name. He’s not as effortless as the top group, but is a little more casual in his stroke production than the medium-high group.
Yes, witn Davydenko, I think I misjudged slightly. He is higher than medium, but then not quite as efficient as Agassi, so he should probably have the (?) by his name to indicate he is somewhere in between. Nishikori is probably the same in this regard. I’ll change them.
I think Delpo and Raonic have more efficient strokes than Djokovic. Even though Djokovic can hit the ball hard, as all pros can, you sometimes hear him described as a counter-puncher or aggressive counter-puncher or grinder. That’s because his natural strokes do not generate effortless pace, in large part due to his western grip. He has to put in quite high physical effort to generate that extra bit of pace. He’s a bigger, taller, stronger version of someone like Hewitt. Both Delpo and Raonic hit harder than him and more effortlessly. I’m not sure there’s much of a difference in how pronounced their take backs are, but the long limbs of Delpo and Raonic may make them look more ungainly. In any case, even if they are more pronounced, this is offset by the fact they hit a harder average ball than Djokovic, and, as stated earlier, may actually be increasing efficiency with a larger take back. Those long limbs are also a factor in enabling them to generate easier power.
Remember, these are just my impressions. It’s not an exact science.
above bored
Semi-Pro
I doubt that. It doesn't look like it, watching his matches on tv or live.
If Delpo said that, I suspect he was just being complimentary of Djokovic, without actually conveying factual or accurate information. Players do that all the time. Active players are too focused on their own careers to pay close attention to the tour in the way an avid fan might.
A lot of the information that comes out of the tennis business is inaccurate, especially from journalists. However, I would be interested in an impartial and credible list of average shot speeds on tour. Not one match or one tournament, but over a good chunk of time.
HailDjokovic
Semi-Pro
Actually I think Djokovic's average groundstroke speed is UP there. Groundstroke speed is a mix of both forehand speed and backhand speed averaged together. For an ATP pro djokovic's forehand speed is pretty fast, not the fastest but definitely fast and ultra heavy. Backhand side is pretty obvious. Speed is ridiculously up there compared to everyone else except maybe wawrinka and nishikori.
Pros' backhands tend to be alot slower than the forehand which drags their average down. However Djokovic can hit his backhand nearly the same as his forehand which helps alot.
Combine those two numbers together and you get a pretty pacey groundstroke average.
In terms of efficiency Djokovic is up there too. His forehand and backhand are pretty textbook and not that hard to emulate. His technique uses alot of kinetic chain and coiling up in order to get power. It doesn't drain him that much and he moves quite well at the same time. I think Djokovic's kinetic chain on both wings are phenomenal.
Last edited:
captainbryce
Hall of Fame
Given the choice between Nadal's forehand, and Blake's, I'd actually rather have Blake's.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-eltQDerPc
It's a simple answer. If you expend less energy to achieve the same result, you are efficient. That's it.
Federer does it without breaking his body, so that is efficient.
Also some pros have more fragile bodies, like Federer and are maybe forced to be more efficient.
Also some players don't consider the long picture. Some players see only 1-2 years ahead and don't event want longevity, some see 5-10 years ahead.
above bored
Semi-Pro
No sorry, Djokovic is not one of the bigger ball strikers. He hits a decent pacey ball of course, but his game is about great movement, balance and ball control. These are the physical skills that distinguish him, not his power, which is very run-of-the-mill at this level. He is not a power player or an especially efficient ball striker. He is not Agassi, standing at the centre of the baseline, sending opponents scampering left and right. He is the one doing a large percentage of the defending and effectively acting like a brick wall. That's his game and it's very effective.
Last edited:
Noelan
Legend
Nooo, for avarage computer warrior, speed of a tennis stroke is how hard player can smack FH
LOL at the list of that poster
Such things one can read only here.Similar threads
