What is your opinion on Fritz forehand?
NextGen forehands have ceiling effects in terms of SW
- Thread starter Zoid
- Start date
What’s Tsitsipas’s swing weight? He has a very classic forehand without much wrist action. Or other young guys without the “Next Gen” forehand (Sinner, Zverev, etc.)? They came up through the same conditions as the other young guys who do have this super wristy style. Would be interesting to see when and why their techniques started to diverge as they all collectively grew and improved.
Clay lover
Legend
Not sure whether this is a shared post or a combination of both original and shared content but kudos nevertheless. Always thought the nextgen technique was snappy and undependable and great to see data of the results backing it up.
His wrist is slightly flexed but he uses gravity in the take back, ticks one of the two boxes. His grip is pretty extreme but I prefer this forehand to one with a dropped racquet head
I just wrote this yesterday as i am in lockdown and bored
Rafa4LifeEver
G.O.A.T.
Interesting that Sock's SW is in the 350's, I always thought he used a lighter stick. I guess that makes sense why his RPM's are pretty high.
What do you think about Osaka's specs? I believe her specs are 340g, 324 SW.
Would you say SW has any correlation to serve speed? I know for me I serve more aces with higher SW, but im curious how Osaka and Kyrgios get so much power with low SW's.
What do you think about Osaka's specs? I believe her specs are 340g, 324 SW.
Would you say SW has any correlation to serve speed? I know for me I serve more aces with higher SW, but im curious how Osaka and Kyrgios get so much power with low SW's.
BH40love
Semi-Pro
kyrgios forehand can be got at by the top players but out of the next gen he is the one w the most powerful FH
Sock chokes up on his grip, so the reality is if you wanted a real estimate of his sw you would chop 1/2 or 3/4 of an inch off his racwuet and remeasure it that way. His spin is due to polairsed set up + western grip + lag.
I don't follow women's tennis that cloesly so i can't comment .
SW helps generate power all things being equal. Kyrgios serve speed is due to his ability to have a naturally fast arm and lag on serve, something I don't mind as the toss is completely in your control i.e. you wont get rushed.
I prefer thiem and rublev forehand
Clay lover
Legend
To be fair both users of the "nextgen" and "modern" techniques utilize the ATP "flip" which involves a change in wrist angle between the takeback and the actual swing. It's just that the wrist configuration of the nextgenners at takeback requires more extreme and abrupt "flipping" to get to the firing position, which results in more inconsistency.
If least changes = most reliable then everyone would be going with the WTA style where you just pre-lay back the wrist and fire. So I guess it's about finding the middle ground between explosiveness and consistency
If least changes = most reliable then everyone would be going with the WTA style where you just pre-lay back the wrist and fire. So I guess it's about finding the middle ground between explosiveness and consistency
Soderling did this. One issue with WTA forehands is they cross the plane (racquet head behind the back) and this makes it harder to time the ball. Men use gravity and keep the frame in front of them making it easier to time the ball but still able to achieve big power.
Traditional great for variety, taking the ball early and driving it. Maybe some issues with higher balls.
Curled Wrist great for spin, great to handle higher balls. Consistent and powerful when in your strike zone, but lands short and hard to time out of your strike zone.
I think part of the reason we see Curled Wrist is a way to deal with fast high balls. You get consistency and pretty good pop if the ball is above your waist to chest. But start losing on lower balls or balls with fast/flatter trajectory. It is harder to learn how to use the traditional stroke vs. the balls of today, but if you put in the work you are probably going to be better off. From a junior perspective do I lose ranking and prestige when I first start to struggle with heavy high spun balls by sticking with traditional or do I start letting my grip slip and just swat the ball with explosive wrist power? Keeping me at the top of my game? I also think the technology enabled people to get away with that technique better.
Curled Wrist great for spin, great to handle higher balls. Consistent and powerful when in your strike zone, but lands short and hard to time out of your strike zone.
I think part of the reason we see Curled Wrist is a way to deal with fast high balls. You get consistency and pretty good pop if the ball is above your waist to chest. But start losing on lower balls or balls with fast/flatter trajectory. It is harder to learn how to use the traditional stroke vs. the balls of today, but if you put in the work you are probably going to be better off. From a junior perspective do I lose ranking and prestige when I first start to struggle with heavy high spun balls by sticking with traditional or do I start letting my grip slip and just swat the ball with explosive wrist power? Keeping me at the top of my game? I also think the technology enabled people to get away with that technique better.
McGradey
Hall of Fame
OP, I enjoyed your analysis and think there's plenty of merit to it. Thanks for posting.
Anecdotally, Sinner is another young player where I notice that sometimes his forehand can become either timid and overly spinny, or conversely, wild and erratic. Both in a way that you almost never see from players who have truly great forehands. Of course, he can also crack 100mph FHs when the ball's in his slot.
I wonder how much of that inconsistency is the effect of using a relatively light racquet (iirc he uses a Speed MP pro stock that is quite close to retail specs, so not exactly a "log"), one that allows the wrist to impart lots of micro movements that would not be easily made with a heavier racquet.
And at the same time, I note that his backhand technique is smoother and results in a shot that is more consistent from ball to ball, and I wonder again if that's because the 2HBH inherently allows for less wrist involvement. Or maybe his BH technique/footwork is just better than his FH.
Anecdotally, Sinner is another young player where I notice that sometimes his forehand can become either timid and overly spinny, or conversely, wild and erratic. Both in a way that you almost never see from players who have truly great forehands. Of course, he can also crack 100mph FHs when the ball's in his slot.
I wonder how much of that inconsistency is the effect of using a relatively light racquet (iirc he uses a Speed MP pro stock that is quite close to retail specs, so not exactly a "log"), one that allows the wrist to impart lots of micro movements that would not be easily made with a heavier racquet.
And at the same time, I note that his backhand technique is smoother and results in a shot that is more consistent from ball to ball, and I wonder again if that's because the 2HBH inherently allows for less wrist involvement. Or maybe his BH technique/footwork is just better than his FH.
Last edited:
Rublev pretty typical modern forehand. Uses gravity to drop it. He has the best one along with thiem of the young guys I think
NonP
Legend
Yes, that's precisely it.
And though most of you fail to see the connection that's also why S&V/net rushing (more time-intensive than baselining) has become a thing of the past, as several coaches have been grumbling in private. Tennis (helicopter) parents wanna see immediate results so coaches are forced to make short-term concessions at the expense of long-term gains. And tennis factories, uh, academies obviously compete to attract more of these parents so even they can't put their foot down and insist on grooming their students for the looooooooooong haul.
Basically philistines hold more power now than probably ever in modern times, which not only explains the godawful state of affairs in tennis (largely among men - women generally have better fundamentals regardless of sport) but also the rise of retrograde populism worldwide, the infantilization of middle- and highbrow culture, the shortsighted aims of liberal censorship aka cancel culture, etc.
Slowtwitcher
Legend
Can't get past on how inside the court that car is
Nice Federer FH for Korda
Slowtwitcher
Legend
Sinner has a lighter version of the Nadal specs: lower weight and higher SW (very towards even balanced).
ron schaap
Hall of Fame
must be because of their extreme grips
TearTheRoofOff
G.O.A.T.
You mean ALL generalisations
Bartelby
Bionic Poster
Generalisations pertain to a class of things, and people do employ them. The question is whether the class is well-drawn and exceptions explained.
This discussion reminds of the ATP/WTA forehand discussion, which similarly ran aground when an example like Stosur didn't fit the easy distinction.
Here you'd have to draw up the entire class of next gen forehands, and compare them not just to the Big Four but to the entire class of previous gen forehands.
This discussion reminds of the ATP/WTA forehand discussion, which similarly ran aground when an example like Stosur didn't fit the easy distinction.
Here you'd have to draw up the entire class of next gen forehands, and compare them not just to the Big Four but to the entire class of previous gen forehands.
You mean ALL generalisations
TearTheRoofOff
G.O.A.T.
Valid points, but the sentiment 'all generalisations are wrong' was just supposed to illicit a 'heh', really.
Bartelby
Bionic Poster
Gary Duane
G.O.A.T.
Self-imposed if he insisted on using that racket against the advice of his coaches, but if it was part of the training he received I'd want to nuance that thought a bit. But the racket definitely hurt him.
Gary Duane
G.O.A.T.
Emphasis on the underlined...
Red Rick
Bionic Poster
The dumbest thing about it to me is that these post modern forehand aren't even that powerful. Khachanov for example has the name of being this ballbasher, but I've never seen him break 160kph on a forehand. Sock is the only exception but I think his forehand is also distinctively different from the others in that it seems much more like a sideways throwing motion.
smalahove
Hall of Fame
This article based on quite a few wrong assumptions.
Casper Ruud is a NextGen with a curled wrist take back.
Look at his FH in this exchange against Djokovic:
This is a super heavy TS FH with loads of margins and height over net. And it's 177 kmh. Look at how Novak has to throw his whole weight into the shot to be able to resist it.
Notice how most fastest-FH-reel-shots are low percentage, flat Hail Marys.
- The author uses Nadals and Federers FH as examples of the pinnacle of the modern FH, which is ironic as Federer's FH is perhaps the ultimate FH in the history of tennis when it comes to creating lag. And they both hit with straight arms(!). The argument can def be made that these FHs have even less margins for error, and are harder to time. Which is the main reason Fed's FH is the last FH anyone should try to emulate.
- The article also makes the assumption that the curled wrist in the take-back is the main culprit of it all. That claim rest on the assumption that a) old FH is better that NextGen FH and b) the curling of the wrist in the take back has negative effect on the swing itself. The former can be argued against (see C Ruud video below) and the latter is an irrelevant observation as long as most ATP players have very similar form (and positions) from the moment wrist lies back and through impact, regardless of wrist position and take back style.
- The the article brings in Del Potro's and Gonzalez' FH alongside Nadal and Fed, which is funny, since the two former are categorically different when it comes to take-back and follow through. For most (recreational) players, these are the FH most easily replicable that will work under pressure. Focusing on DelPo/Gonzalez FH could have been an interesting perspective vs the "NextGen" FH, but doing so, one should also consider the possibility that that type of FH has disappeared for a reason, and that reason could just as well being it's not the ideal FH for the modern game (slower courts, better baseline grinding), and not necessarily because youngster train with lighter rackets and curled wrists.
Casper Ruud is a NextGen with a curled wrist take back.
Look at his FH in this exchange against Djokovic:
This is a super heavy TS FH with loads of margins and height over net. And it's 177 kmh. Look at how Novak has to throw his whole weight into the shot to be able to resist it.
Notice how most fastest-FH-reel-shots are low percentage, flat Hail Marys.
smalahove
Hall of Fame
It seems there's a lot confusion about the wrist, and what role it plays through the swing. Should it be curled on the take back (flexed) like some of the NextGen seem to do? Or should it be bent backwards (extended) in the take back like Nadal does?
These are the facts to consider:
However, just before he starts the forward motion of this swing, i.e. the whipping motion, his wrist is flat, almost flexed, to allow for that whipping motion. Just watch the first few FHs in the vid below.
This is common knowledge in golf f.inst. where there's the constant focus on lag and "setting the wrists", which many misunderstand. If you don't understand, try throwing a frisbee, and observe how your wrist works, in a whipping motion going from neutral (or even flexed since it's the opposite motion) to flexed to extended, just as the best OHBH.
Btw. the OHBH is the tell, as all good ohbh have an extended wrist in the take back. (which equals a flexed one for the FH).
These are the facts to consider:
- You generate the most force going from an extended position to a flex one.
- To maximize this force, you need to let the wrist snap from a neutral/flexed position into the fully extended, to maximize the speed into the (fully) flexed position. This is where (racket) lag comes in.
- If you try to "set" the wrist (and thus racket position), and hold that position as a starting point, you will lose the speed of the snapping wrist motion (and thus force), because you won't be able to whip properly (it will be a pushing motion).
However, just before he starts the forward motion of this swing, i.e. the whipping motion, his wrist is flat, almost flexed, to allow for that whipping motion. Just watch the first few FHs in the vid below.
This is common knowledge in golf f.inst. where there's the constant focus on lag and "setting the wrists", which many misunderstand. If you don't understand, try throwing a frisbee, and observe how your wrist works, in a whipping motion going from neutral (or even flexed since it's the opposite motion) to flexed to extended, just as the best OHBH.
Btw. the OHBH is the tell, as all good ohbh have an extended wrist in the take back. (which equals a flexed one for the FH).
BH40love
Semi-Pro
I prefer Rublev forehand too. He controls a match with it and kyrgios cannot do the same
Red Rick
Bionic Poster
I think there's perhaps a bit of overemphasis on wrist lag? I think ideally you hit your most extended arm right before contact cause that's the whipping effect you're looking for. It also involves the elbow joint in generating pace, etc.
Del Potro and Gonzalez forehand I think rely very heavily on their indvidual physical make up and are nearly impossible to replicate to similar results. I think Del Potro has insanely stiff wrists which basically means you store much more energy in your muscles/tendons with far less lag, whereas Gonzalez used a lot more vertical energy and SCC in his chest as well as being brutally strong.
Last edited:
smalahove
Hall of Fame
I agree there's def too much focus on wrist lag, and not just in the pro ranks.
What Novak's success shows, is that given the big TS oriented FH in today's game, generating a heavy ball with height and spin, you also have to have a solid counterpunching game, i.e. being able to leverage your opponent's pace effectively. And that shot benefits from a more stable wrist.
What Novak's success shows, is that given the big TS oriented FH in today's game, generating a heavy ball with height and spin, you also have to have a solid counterpunching game, i.e. being able to leverage your opponent's pace effectively. And that shot benefits from a more stable wrist.
Djokovic has also changed is forehand compared with earlier in his career. I was watching a 2005 Aus Open match between him and Safin on youtube. The forehand is very different, almost WTA with the racquet head going very far around behind him on take-back.
Digital Atheist
Hall of Fame
False equivalence - Wikipedia
JackSockIsTheBest
Professional
Wow great research man!Aspects of Virtuous Technique
An analysis of the most devastating groundstrokes of the last 20 years has brought to mind the following forehands: Del Potro, Gonzalez, Federer, Nadal. The most devastating single-handed backhands: Wawrinka, Gasquet, Thiem, Almagro. When I use the term devastating, I am considering the ability to inject/generate huge pace, change direction, be a consistent weapon across their career. In analysing these shots, there are three key points I believe are instrumental in their success. By employing these characteristics together, these shots achieve what I like to call ‘virtuous’ or parsimonious technique; they use the simplest but most effective building blocks of pace and control. An explanation of each is outlined below.
Gravity
Look at any slow-motion video from the above player’s shot and one thread that is common in all of them is the use of gravity to generate power. The modern forehand technique is characterised by a racquet tip that is pointed at high noon, with good elbow separation. The racquet head drops considerably before being pulled through to contact. This use of gravity is an effective way to generate lag and power; gravity is a constant and irrespective of how the player is feeling this part of the swing will remain fixed. The same is true for the backhand. High take backs with the racquet above the shoulders and/or head lead to a massive drop before being pulled through. Gasquet is probably the most famous example of this as this clip demonstrates; as Robby Koenig says - it’s not often you hear a commentator say ‘vaporise’ and ‘backhand’ in the same sentence (Gasquet’s groundstrokes both utilise conservative grips and gravity, not surprisingly his SW is also very high in the 380'S).
Grip Conservation
Extreme grips are more common on tour nowadays, after all they can handle higher balls better, generate spin more easily, and are accommodated with larger racquet faces. However I still believe greatness on the forehand side rests somewhere along an eastern to semi-western grip. A more conservative grip allows a player to ‘plow’ through the ball more. Of course, generating spin is more difficult and handling higher balls are tougher, especially as a junior without the requisite wrist strength, but a player who stays the course with this grip has a better chance of generating an all-time great forehand in my opinion. The two biggest forehands of the last twenty years probably belong to Juan Martin del Potro and Fernando Gonzalez. Federer and delPotro are eastern and Nadal and Gonzalez are semi-western. A quick look at their grip and take back showcases these two characteristics perfectly.
Wrist Angles
The image below highlights the different names for wrist positions.
From this chart you can see that a NextGen forehand swing employs a flexed wrist during initial take back with radial deviation, before snapping through and requiring a supinated contact point due to their usually more extreme forehand grip. Try moving your wrist through these positions and it will give you an idea of what kind of movement occurs with the wrist in the milliseconds before contact. By comparison, now take note of the modern forehand take back that utilises my virtuous points; it involves an extended wrist position during set-up and take-back, drops into position with ulnar deviation and does not require much supination and may in fact need some pronation on contact if it is conservative. Move your hand through those positions and note how little the angles and positions of the wrist must change in this take back and contact; it follows a small and beautifully simple path. It allows a player to maximise SW and maintain easy timing with fewer moving parts. You get more power and more control.
Development of a Forehand
It is my belief that juniors should not be overly pandered to in terms of equipment, soft balls, polyester strings, and slow courts. These things are inherently easier to use and master compared to traditional tennis conditions and given that humans are misers, you are setting a player on a path of least resistance that does no good for him down the road. Tough conditions create tough players with tough technique. Easy conditions….You know. If I was to take a player from scratch at the age of 7 or 8 today, I would find some old garage sale racquet—perhaps a Dunlop Max 200G or ProStaff or any wooden frame, and chop it down. A heavy racquet does not promote a flexed wrist and a young player will instinctively seek power generation through a longer and higher take back with an extended wrist. Further, I would be wary of playing on bouncy courts — a high bounce promotes a more extreme grip for a youngster, and this has ceiling effects as discussed above. Clay or low and fast hard courts (ideally a combination of the two) would be best. Lastly, mix up occasionally the conditions; play with wooden racquets, synthetic strings, old balls, new balls, tattered balls. Variety develops resistance.
1. Wrong. Lag is created when the arm starts to get pulled forward/swing 'starts', but the racquet head stays back/put. To do this to an extreme amount you need a to go from flexed ---> extended. Sock has the most lag i've ever seen,
You have to understand that lag is not the everything when it comes to spin and power, an even balanced frame is much harder to lag than 9-points head light, and so creating spin and power is a combination of grip, swing, and racquet specs ((de)/polarised, HL/even/HH, weight, grip size, length etc.) If i were to create a frame with the max lag, I would go polarised, head light, small grips, shorter length; which is essentially what sock has. Kyrgios also has a light, and head light frame. The flexed wrist necessiates a lighter frame - part of the article's point.
2a) Yes, I believe a modern style forehand that uses gravity in the racquet head and a more neutral/extended wrist take back is better; your argument against that is to use Ruud, who is a clay courter with a solid forehand (he also uses gravity, so he has 2/3 factors going for him), but nothing of real note when compared to the ones I put forward. He will struggle with a lot of pace/he needs time to play his forehand and it's no surprise he likes clay 2b) Your second point, "an irrelevant observation as long as most ATP players have very similar form (and positions) from the moment wrist lies back and through impact, regardless of wrist position and take back style' discards that wrist position is important because before contact they all get into same position. Sure, but which is EASIER to time / be consistent?? and importantly, does one allow a heavier frame over the other which can have massive performance effects? I contend that the curled wrist struggles with pace more and cannot accomodate a high sw. From my own experience experimenting with these forehands and from pro results.
3) 'Categorically different' - I think they are both modern forehand elements with a larger take back. A larger take back is not it's own category, it's a degree of difference from within the category 'modern take back with racquet tip up). Delpo made US open final only a few years ago with a slice backhand, to think his forehand style doesn't work on these courts is laughable. When he is fit it's still one of the deadliest shots in tennis. It sh*ts on Sock/Kyrgios/Khach FH IMHO.
Last edited:
It seems there's a lot confusion about the wrist, and what role it plays through the swing. Should it be curled on the take back (flexed) like some of the NextGen seem to do? Or should it be bent backwards (extended) in the take back like Nadal does?
These are the facts to consider:
Yes, Nadal has a fully extended wrist in his take back, which is the exact opposite of the NextGen FH.
- You generate the most force going from an extended position to a flex one.
- To maximize this force, you need to let the wrist snap from a neutral/flexed position into the fully extended, to maximize the speed into the (fully) flexed position. This is where (racket) lag comes in.
- If you try to "set" the wrist (and thus racket position), and hold that position as a starting point, you will lose the speed of the snapping wrist motion (and thus force), because you won't be able to whip properly (it will be a pushing motion).
However, just before he starts the forward motion of this swing, i.e. the whipping motion, his wrist is flat, almost flexed, to allow for that whipping motion. Just watch the first few FHs in the vid below.
This is common knowledge in golf f.inst. where there's the constant focus on lag and "setting the wrists", which many misunderstand. If you don't understand, try throwing a frisbee, and observe how your wrist works, in a whipping motion going from neutral (or even flexed since it's the opposite motion) to flexed to extended, just as the best OHBH.
Btw. the OHBH is the tell, as all good ohbh have an extended wrist in the take back. (which equals a flexed one for the FH).
You missed the whole point of the article (if you read it). Your 'facts';
You generate the most force from 'neutral/flexed to extended' a) there is a big difference in neutral and flexed, b) you must consider equipment, a heavier object is harder to lag, which is why nextgen players with his flexed wrist use lighter equipment. Further, Nadal goes into a relaxed wrist in his drop position to generate more lag when he has time, but you don't consider that it is easier to go from relaxed -> extended (1 move) than it is to go from flexed -> relaxed -> extended (2 moves). It has one less moving part.
'Maximizing the force' is fine in isolation, but in tennis you have a racquet and unlike golf (where equipment has become lighter over the years, the ball is static, and you have 2 hands to generate/control) the ball is moving through a near infinite possible contact points in front of you - maximizing the force has to be balanced with controlling and timing the ball.
Finally, your OHBH comment is 100% wrong. Can you please find me any world class backhand that goes from flexed to extended anywhere in the take back? Nearly all of them would be extended throughout the takeback and into contact and mostly through follow through as well. The power is generated nearly entirely from gravity/racquet drop. Seeing a bh extended and then equating the forehand by simply flipping the wrist position to flexed and assuming you've got a better forehand with a flexed wrist discounts the whole premise of the article; harder to time, need lighter equipment.
take not of gasquet's wrist throughout the entire backhand swing - constantly extended.
federer
wawrinka at best is close to neutral and he has a very conservative grip
Last edited:
Clay lover
Legend
Instead of comparing wrist configurations at takeback I tend to just focus on where the racquet head is pointing. Will that be more simple as different players will have subtle differences in wrist configurations at takeback?
What I observed is the nextgen technique tends to point the racquet head *forward* during takeback whereas the "modern technique points it upwards. More movement is required to orientate the racquet into firing position (roughly 180 degrees as opposed to just around 90 for modern) and thus the inconsistency against faster balls.
What I observed is the nextgen technique tends to point the racquet head *forward* during takeback whereas the "modern technique points it upwards. More movement is required to orientate the racquet into firing position (roughly 180 degrees as opposed to just around 90 for modern) and thus the inconsistency against faster balls.
Mixeddubskickserve
Rookie
HurtsFalse equivalence - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Digital Atheist
Hall of Fame
Let me pose the question slightly differently. Do you think Kyrgios struggles to generate power in situations where he would really like to?
If the answer is yes then we can agree to disagree; but if the answer is no, then that view directly reflects the comment by @Bartelby that you somehow took umbrage with .. and that would be quite odd.
Shroud
G.O.A.T.
Directly proportional.
Clay lover
Legend
But "rips it when he wants to" isn't any indication of good technique and having an ideal swingweight -- in fact Bartelby isn't addressing what the OP is claiming at all -- which is the *unreliability* of Kyrgios' type of technique and the swingweight that goes with it. Whether he rips it when he wants to has nothing to do with the replicability of his technique, whether the racquet is stable on contact, whether redirection is easier etc., which is what the OP is concerned about, and hence mixed's "umbrage".
Last edited:
Bartelby
Bionic Poster
I haven't bothered with this thread for a while, but my view was that its thesis regarding the next gen forehand had to do with its power.
Reliability seems to be a fall back position after the power thesis failed. In fact, Krygios' power is just put down to 'quick arms'.
I think that #smalahove held the better position. The straight arm technique is far more unreliable unless you are of course Nadal or Federer.
Reliability seems to be a fall back position after the power thesis failed. In fact, Krygios' power is just put down to 'quick arms'.
I think that #smalahove held the better position. The straight arm technique is far more unreliable unless you are of course Nadal or Federer.
Last edited:
Clay lover
Legend
Fair enough, I may have retconned some of my arguments into the OP's over time without noticing. He didn't exactly elaborate on the inconsistency point which I believe should be the primary concern.
Unreliability on the run and on return because of the moving parts, high power potential but low overall power due to the low swingweight and execution issue when pressed for time would be my focuses
Last edited:
The title talks about ceiling effects in nextgen forehand and I wrote in depth on the fact that timing was a major issue - how you arrived that 'power' was the central thesis is, again, your own doing. The article is a summary of what the best forehands have in terms of technique (gravity, grips, wrist angles) and output (handling pace/control, generating power).
Reliability is neither a fallback position or the main point, it's a central tenet but one of several in unison, not hierarchical. To deny that individuals have different abilities in terms of power is wrong. Denying that Kyrgios has a quick arm is basically saying that all of us should be able to throw a pitch at 90mph and that any difference is purely technique. laughable. The bloke is gifted with power. Not many can be MLB pitchers.
The straight arm technique is not 'less reliable' at all - Fed, Nadal, Verdasco, Dimitrov, Tsitsipas, Delpo - it's simply more common with conservative grips and conservative grips are less common. a more extreme grip requires supination on contact and that forces a bent arm, the conservative grip doesn't constrain like this so a player has the ability to straighten the arm if he chooses. I think it is better for several reasons; longer lever increases head speed, consistent contact point (a straight arm is always the same distance).
Similar threads
- Poll
