Oscar Wegner: Neutral Stance Not Necessary When Hitting Down The Line

[Raul_SJ]

Rick Macci says to use a neutral stance when hitting down the line and open/semi-open stance when hitting cross court.

But Oscar says the feet position does not matter when directing the ball. It's all in the hand and in the angle of the hand at contact.

Oscar demonstrates down the line and cross court shots, sitting in a chair with feet off the ground.

Oscar says that tennis is simple and coaches complicate the matter by instructing players to think about position of the feet when directing the ball.

How to reconcile Oscar's and Rick's different views on this subject?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOIBiPjgIW8&feature=player_detailpage#t=91

 

[Shroud]

Rick Macci says to use a neutral stance when hitting down the line and open/semi-open stance when hitting cross court.

But Oscar says the feet position does not matter when directing the ball. It's all in the hand and in the angle of the hand at contact.

Oscar demonstrates down the line and cross court shots, sitting in a chair with feet off the ground.

Oscar says that tennis is simple and coaches complicate the matter by instructing players to think about position of the feet when directing the ball.

How to reconcile Oscar's and Rick's different views on this subject?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOIBiPjgIW8&feature=player_detailpage#t=91

When faced with conflicting info I ask myself, "what would fed do?" Then just do that:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wR306H9gkao

 

[GuyClinch]

How to reconcile the views? You can hit with either stance and hit down the line. However its EASIER with neutral. Short answer - ignore Oscar..

Oscar's promotion of the open stance all the time is just incorrect IMHO. Most pros use semi-open which is quite a bit different and they still use neutral ALOT for DTL shots.

Watch Federer's feet when he plays - a real open stance shot is not that common.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdY6Exc1_gQ

I watched one minute..

semi-open cross, semi-open cross, neutral DTL, semi open ROS DTL, neutral DTL, neutral - kinda up the middle, semi open cross court, neutral DTL, neutral DTL (into the net)..

Federer is great to watch because he is quite aggressive in his shot choice. So you don't have to wait forever before he attacks hitting the ball straight..

Again Oscar is basically wrong about footwork. You can watch a lot of Federer before you see a real open stance shot that is both feet side by side and open hips. He will very often hit with neutral or semi-open stances.

This is not surprising at all - and what Peter McGraw and other teaching pros have been saying for while. McGraw draws a distinct difference between semi-open and open - and says you should only use a full open stance shot in specific situations like with a mogul step on the run..

(sidenote: When I first heard McGraw explain how he doesn't like real open stance and likes neutral and semi-open much better I thought he was full of it - video shows me I was wrong and he was right).

If you want some 'theory' as to why its easier to hit neutral stance DTL - here you go..

http://www.feeltennis.net/cross-court-down-the-line/

The beauty is we do not NEED theory. We can watch the pros and we can go out and test ourselves.

There was a time when tennis coached only teached neutral and closed stances and pros were hitting with open and semi-open stances and Oscar's overreaction made some sense.

That time has long since passed - and we now have access to incredibly good video.. I use a frame by frame thing in Chrome BTW.. so even non slow motion video can be slowed enough for footwork. Why this forum has some strange obsession with a teaching pro who was prominent in the 90s is beyond me. If you want to talk about teaching pro's idea of footwork - why not single out a modern teaching pro?

 

[gameboy]

Nothing is "necessary". I can hit a forehand with my right feet in the front. I can hit a volley with an eastern grip.

Nothing is "necessary".

However, if you want to be consistent, you want repeatable movements that rely on large muscles like legs and torso instead of small twitchy muscles like wrist.

 

[GuyClinch]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wR306H9gkao

Fed is on the dead run there - my clip is way more instructive. On the dead run is the one time you would use full open stance.

 

[tennis_balla]

You know, maybe I'm being too simplistic here but I don't think anyone is 100% right. When I look back at my coaching I've changed a lot of things of how I teach in the past 5 years. A lot in the past 2. Everyone has their own way, and some will work better for some, some might not. Tennis is always evolving. Who would of thought 10 years ago that quite a few top ATP players would be using eastern forehand grips after the huge trend towards western grips in the 90's. Coaches surely didn't. We don't set the trends, players do. Us coaches just observe whats happening and learn to teach it.

Fundamentals will always be similar. The changes there are not as drastic.

 

[Shroud]

Fed is on the dead run there - my clip is way more instructive. On the dead run is the one time you would use full open stance.

Yeah but that is because you care more than I do

As a rec player DTL is a no no. I saw the vid

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWeGmhL7sgk

 

[5263]

First is don't listen this his misinfo....He doesn't understand what he is hearing, and it seems it because he doesn't understand the terms.

How to reconcile the views? You can hit with either stance and hit down the line.

Above is EXACTLY what Oscar says...You can hit from any stance and modern IS NOT stance dependent.

Again Oscar is basically wrong about footwork. You can watch a lot of Federer before you see a real open stance shot that is both feet side by side and open hips. He will very often hit with neutral or semi-open stances.

Again, lost in terms. "Real Open stance"? A real open stance is anything past neutral and is inclusive of semi open. The idea that McGraw want to distinguish between full open and semi open in his training is fine and maybe useful for what he teaches, but in NO WAY changes the proper meaning of the terms. Semi is but one of the Open stances. When many Instructors say OPEN Stance, they should mean ANY open stance, as they are not narrowing it to be more specific. Semi does nothing but narrow it from full Open to neutral, which is quite a wide variety in itself.

 

[SystemicAnomaly]

The problem with Oscar's demo is that he is using only his shoulder/arm to hit the ball from the chair. In reality he would be coiling and uncoiling the body to hit proper strokes DTL as well as X-court. At the every least, the torso should coil up or all shots. When the torso coils more than the hips, more energy is stored in the core for uncoiling. If the torso is not coiled sufficiently, it becomes more difficult to hit DTL w/o arming the ball. He is correct that one does not need to assume a neutral stance to hit DTL shots.

 

[sureshs]

How to reconcile the views? You can hit with either stance and hit down the line. However its EASIER with neutral. Short answer - ignore Oscar..

Oscar's promotion of the open stance all the time is just incorrect IMHO. Most pros use semi-open which is quite a bit different and they still use neutral ALOT for DTL shots.

Watch Federer's feet when he plays - a real open stance shot is not that common.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdY6Exc1_gQ

I watched one minute..

semi-open cross, semi-open cross, neutral DTL, semi open ROS DTL, neutral DTL, neutral - kinda up the middle, semi open cross court, neutral DTL, neutral DTL (into the net)..

Federer is great to watch because he is quite aggressive in his shot choice. So you don't have to wait forever before he attacks hitting the ball straight..

Again Oscar is basically wrong about footwork. You can watch a lot of Federer before you see a real open stance shot that is both feet side by side and open hips. He will very often hit with neutral or semi-open stances.

This is not surprising at all - and what Peter McGraw and other teaching pros have been saying for while. McGraw draws a distinct difference between semi-open and open - and says you should only use a full open stance shot in specific situations like with a mogul step on the run..

(sidenote: When I first heard McGraw explain how he doesn't like real open stance and likes neutral and semi-open much better I thought he was full of it - video shows me I was wrong and he was right).

If you want some 'theory' as to why its easier to hit neutral stance DTL - here you go..

http://www.feeltennis.net/cross-court-down-the-line/

The beauty is we do not NEED theory. We can watch the pros and we can go out and test ourselves.

There was a time when tennis coached only teached neutral and closed stances and pros were hitting with open and semi-open stances and Oscar's overreaction made some sense.

That time has long since passed - and we now have access to incredibly good video.. I use a frame by frame thing in Chrome BTW.. so even non slow motion video can be slowed enough for footwork. Why this forum has some strange obsession with a teaching pro who was prominent in the 90s is beyond me. If you want to talk about teaching pro's idea of footwork - why not single out a modern teaching pro?

Fantastic post.

 

[5263]

The problem with Oscar's demo is that he is using only his shoulder/arm to hit the ball from the chair. In reality he would be coiling and uncoiling the body to hit proper strokes DTL as well as X-court. At the every least, the torso should coil up or all shots. When the torso coils more than the hips, more energy is stored in the core for uncoiling. If the torso is not coiled sufficiently, it becomes more difficult to hit DTL w/o arming the ball. He is correct that one does not need to assume a neutral stance to hit DTL shots.

Yes, you are right about the coiling for shots, but not really a problem with the demo as it does exactly as intended, illustrating that even in that position you can't easily hit dtl. It's much like how when you serve from your knees you are restricted, but can still use that to demo certain aspects of the stroke.

 

[5263]

Fantastic post.

Yes, I thought of you as I read it too. Seems that his misunderstanding's on MTM are very similar to those you have expressed. Interesting to see the 2 of you so well aligned.

 

[GuyClinch]

Open stance is not the same as semi-open.. Sorry Wegner fan..

http://mountainghosttennis.com/tennisstancesright.gif

Four different stances you can't claim that 'semi-open' and 'open' are the same anymore then you can claim that "neutral" and "closed" are the same or that 'neutral' and 'semi-open' are the same.

They are not - and if you watch Federer it's clear he uses a lot of semi-open and neutral stances. Heck if you count Fed's backhand I'd bet the number of neutral stance shots could be over 50%.

(And yes you can hit an open stance OHBH - its not a great idea but it happens).

Fed when given the time very often hits from neutral stance - and he often goes down the line on this shot..

As another poster has pointed out you can hit any direction with any stance. You can even hit cross court with a closed stance. You just can't hit effectively with that kind of footwork.

So the question really is what is the best for down the line shots practice - and the best practice is neutral. Semi open is okay but more difficult. Open stance - (see the diagram for definition) is mostly used for on the run shots in pro tennis.

It's also used by lazy 3.0 hacks who don't move their feet or turn their body or split step. Any complaints and they say I am just using the open stance...haha.

The guy on Top-Tennis-Training says with a Brit accent 'turn your whole body straight away on one of his videos. Oscar might not like that - but I feel is really much better advice for rec players.

When the pros have time they do this - even for cross court they will move their feet into at least a semi-open stance.

 

[5263]

Open stance is not the same as semi-open.. .

Didn't say it was, but guess that misunderstanding explains more of why you don't get it.

 

[ARKustom93]

First is don't listen this his misinfo....He doesn't understand what he is hearing, and it seems it because he doesn't understand the terms.

Above is EXACTLY what Oscar says...You can hit from any stance and modern IS NOT stance dependent.




Again, lost in terms. "Real Open stance"? A real open stance is anything past neutral and is inclusive of semi open. The idea that McGraw want to distinguish between full open and semi open in his training is fine and maybe useful for what he teaches, but in NO WAY changes the proper meaning of the terms. Semi is but one of the Open stances. When many Instructors say OPEN Stance, they should mean ANY open stance, as they are not narrowing it to be more specific. Semi does nothing but narrow it from full Open to neutral, which is quite a wide variety in itself.

No, ... and no.

 

[5263]

No, ... and no.

Ok, so what are you trying to say? Are you saying that Oscar does not say.... that modern is NOT stance dependent?

So what do you call any of the available stances between neutral and full open? All that is Semi open, is it not?

I've got 2 books on my desk right now as ref for some study...tennis 2000 by Vic and Visual Tennis by Yandell. It takes me a few secs to open them both and find illustrations players listed in open stances that are varying degrees of what I expect you would call semi. Now I don't see a problem you calling it semi or Vic and JY calling them open. What I don't get is how some of you here don't seem to realize the semi open is a range within Open Stance. I don't get how some of you seem to think there is this one exact spot that is semi. In visual tennis, the open stance I found depicted was barely past neutral and I expect many on here would see that is neutral.

 

[GuyClinch]

Didn't say it was, but guess that misunderstanding explains more of why you don't get it.

What don't I get? Tennis instruction should not rely on mystical phrases that need to be 'interpreted'.

With your vast knowledge of the holy Wegner videos - tell us what stance to use if we wanted to it the ball down the line and had plenty of time to set up?

 

[5263]

Four different stances you can't claim that 'semi-open' and 'open' are the same anymore then you can claim that "neutral" and "closed" are the same or that 'neutral' and 'semi-open' are the same.

It's not about me claiming anything, but about what is. There are 2 basic groups of stances- Open & Closed. Within those 2 groups, there are infinite foot positions or stances. Semi is a range within the open stances and starts as you open your stance from neutral. Neutral is the least closed of the many closed stances and is also known as square and sideways stance. Mountain Ghost and McGraw are free to customize their instruction as they like, just as Revolutionary tennis has his own version that relates to his instruction. None of this changes the standard classic uses of the terms though. I guess things can seem mystical when they are poorly understood.

 

[GuyClinch]

Semi is a range within the open stances and starts as you open your stance from neutral. Neutral is the least closed of the many closed stances and is also known as square and sideways stance. Mountain Ghost and McGraw are free to customize their instruction as they like, just as Revolutionary tennis has his own version that relates to his instruction. None of this changes the standard classic uses of the terms though. I guess things can seem mystical when they are poorly understood.

What a bunch of sophistry - we all understand the idea of the different stances. Do we really care how the are defined according to you (they aren't in the dictionary) or do we care about the the positioning of the feet during the shots? Is the fact that I don't agree with your definition an actual lack of understanding?

No, we care about the positioning of the feet and those terms (which are widely used) illustrate it more correctly.

Again what stance would you recommend for someone who wants to hit DTL and has time to do so? What stance would you recommend for someone who is more pressed for time if he could pick between semi-open and open stances?

 

[5263]

Again what stance would you recommend for someone who wants to hit DTL and has time to do so? What stance would you recommend for someone who is more pressed for time if he could pick between semi-open and open stances?

If a player has time to set up and pick his stance for a DTL, I'd recommend what you would likely call a semi open stance, ....but that is the same stance that Oscar would recommend calling it a open stance, as depicted and called Open in Tennis 2000 & Visual Tennis. Hopefully you can see how the terms as you interpret them can be problematic. I don't think your view of Semi is off, but your perspective on "Open" has misled you when dealing with references such as info from Oscar you have cited.

 

[treblings]

the video of Oscar explaining how you can hit a forehand while sitting in a chair is easily 20 years old.
at that time, tennis was often taught by letting the beginner stand on the court and dropping balls to him/her.
it would always be a neutral or even closed stance and that part of the training could last a few hours/weeks. the same would happen with the backhand.
only when the coach was satisfied that the beginner could hit the balls with some consistency and technique while standing still, some movement would be added.
the beginning player was taught two things, on a subconscious level often:
1 you need to be in a neutral or closed position to effectively hit the ball
2 the best way to hit the ball is while standing still.therefore, run to the ball, and when you´re there, stand still to hit it
even to this day, i see adult rec players who still suffer the consequences
and i agree with Oscar, that many people saw Tennis as overly complicated and turned away as a consequence
i think that was the point Oscar tried to make in that video.

 

[GuyClinch]

Let's not get carried away - you were taught to step into the shot - not stand still. Linear momentum - just like on volleys.

Also I question whether claiming tennis is 'simple' really is the way to go. I'd argue the opposite because its so simple and people are still awful they give up..

Whereas sports that are considered difficult and technical are popular - like golf. No one thinks golf is so easy - so it has an attraction in it's mastery. Oscar's disrespecting of tennis probably doesn't help..

But none of that is here or there. Oscar is technically correct - in that you don't NEED to hit neutral stance - but its often the best way to do it.

We could say something similar about the volley. Sometimes players will just block the ball back - without taking any kind of step. I have seen some good volley's hit this way. But pros - given time will step into it.

 

[treblings]

First of all, i was talking about what i experienced 20,30 years ago.
stepping into the ball was often the progression, after the skill of hitting
the ball while standing still was mastered.

for many people, it took weeks before they actually started playing rallys.
by then they had their head full with theoretical stuff, that hindered them more than helped them.
that is some of what i experienced around the time Oscars video was made.
i´m not saying it wasn´t different somewhere else but i can see why Oscar made the remarks.

i agree with you that tennis is a technically difficult sport. add to it tactical awareness, the ability to play matches in adverse conditions, under pressure, and so on. than it might take a lifetime to really master it.for me, that is part of what still fascinates me, that you can learn your whole life

on the other hand, i can get any beginner to rally back and forth from the midcourt within half an hour.
in that respect, tennis on a rudimentary level, can also be considered easy.
that´s good news for many, who start playing the game in later years and can still become proficient.

 

[dominikk1985]

for beginners that is a good advice but pros obviously don't Change their stance or they would tell off their Intention before they even hit.

 

[Povl Carstensen]

Uhm, love these Wegner discussions.

 

[tennis_balla]

for beginners that is a good advice but pros obviously don't Change their stance or they would tell off their Intention before they even hit.

Stance doesn't matter. I can be semi-open and hit up the line, neutral to slightly closed and go cross court.

 

[sureshs]

run to the ball, and when you´re there, stand still to hit it

You were taught to stand still to hit it?

 

[sureshs]

Oscar's disrespecting of tennis probably doesn't help..

It helps to sell his stuff.

 

[treblings]

You were taught to stand still to hit it?

No, can't say i was. Not at all what i wrote in my post if you read it carefully

 

[julian]

You are very demanding person

No, can't say i was. Not at all what i wrote in my post if you read it carefully

You are a very demanding person

 

[treblings]

You are a very demanding person

Not many people know that

 

[Ash_Smith]

For what I hope will be the final time (but I have serious doubts it will be)... Your feet do not dictate where the ball will go.

 

[Raul_SJ]

If you want some 'theory' as to why its easier to hit neutral stance DTL - here you go..

http://www.feeltennis.net/cross-court-down-the-line/

The beauty is we do not NEED theory. We can watch the pros and we can go out and test ourselves.

I watched the Tomaz's feeltennis video.

As I see it, Oscar and Tomaz have different views on the fundamental question of directing the ball.

Oscar's Approach:

• Use slight adjustments of the wrist so the racquet angle is pointing towards the target (cross court or down the line).
  
• Focus on the hand. Tennis is played with the hand. Do not worry about the foot stance and body alignment.

Tomaz's Approach:

• Do NOT use slight adjustments of the wrist to change the racquet angle.

The most common mistake is to change the racquet angle by movement in the wrist.
The reason this is not a good solution is that the wrist is now not in a locked position and can be shifted to an almost infinite number of angles.
And because even a small change in the racquet head angle creates a big change in where the ball lands on the other side, this solution creates a very inconsistent shot down the line.​

• Change the foot stance and body alignment to direct the ball as shown below.

CROSS COURT SHOT vs DOWN THE LINE​

​

Both Oscar's and Tomaz approaches are valid and players can try both and see what works for them.

 

[tennis_balla]

For what I hope will be the final time (but I have serious doubts it will be)... Your feet do not dictate where the ball will go.

Nope, not even close to being the final time. Copy that statement somewhere, as you'll need to use it again and again.

 

[JohnYandell]

In pro tennis the vast majority of forehand stances are semi open, and the obviously preferred stance is semi open.

Imagine a line from the back toes across the front toes. It's at an angle of 45 degrees or so to the baseline, plus or minus 15 degrees. This leads to the ability to coil more completely with the hips and shoulders.

Open stance in pro tennis is used in emergencies and on returns and by some players who don't coil as well. That's with that same line across the toes parallel to the baseline or something close.

 

[Power Player]

A real open stance is anything past neutral and is inclusive of semi open.

Open stance is not the same as semi-open.. Sorry Wegner fan..

Didn't say it was, but guess that misunderstanding explains more of why you don't get it.

I am confused. It seems like you clearly lumped semi open and open stance together as seen above.

 

[JohnYandell]

Ash and Balla,

I am in agreement. The difference between the sidelines is at most a 20 degree difference in the angle the racket face points at contact...

 

[TennisCJC]

Raul_SJ, I don't think you have quite the right interpretation of Oscar or Tomaz. At least my interpretation of their approach differs.

When Oscar say use the hand to direct the ball, I don't think he is advocating changes in the wrist angle just before or during contact. I think he is saying that where the strings point is where the ball is going to go. Of course, you have to account for a glancing up and across movement of the strings to the ball but basically, the ball is going to go where the strings direct it and Oscar teaches to use the hand to direct the strings. Oscar is not saying make sudden changes to wrist angle just before or during contact.

Tomaz is teaching keeping the racket face angle constant just before, during and after contact. You can still have the strings pointing DTL or CC and keep a passive wrist with a smooth flowing racket path.

I think both Oscar's and Tomaz's approaches are consistent in that you can still use the hand to direct CC or DTL while maintaining a passive wrist with a consistent racket path flow. To me, they are saying stroke it instead of snap it.

Back to the original question, I think you can hit DTL from a semi-open stance just as well as a neutral or closed stance. My view is getting the shoulders turned is key for both and especially for DTL, but the feet can be semi-open, neutral or closed.

 

[tennis_balla]

Ash and Balla,

I am in agreement. The difference between the sidelines is at most a 20 degree difference in the angle the racket face points at contact...

You know John, I'm not sure if I 100% agree with all this play like the pros type of instruction thats being fed to amateur players out there. I'll use a quote of yours from another thread if you don't mind. You said:

Go look at the articles in the advanced tennis section on the slice backhand. They explain why.
The pro slice is radically downward for a reason--the velocity and topspin in the game. Pro slices actually have more total spin in many cases than any other pro shot.

The pro model isn't optimum at lower levels of pace and spin...the wood racket era slice is much more thru the ball and flatter and is a much better model for 99.999% of all players on the planet.

To me this is perfectly said, as even with the stances, forehands and backhands, serve etc its a result of the type of ball the pros receive.
For example, in a sport like skiing you need to be going a certain speed to be able to carve, and to be able to carve like the pros you need to be going at their speed. There are no exceptions. 90% of people on the hill cannot carve, they think they can but they are not doing it correctly. Same goes for tennis.

I am a firm believer however that club players can definitely benefit from watching the pros, and take certain aspects of their game and incorporate it into theirs. However, club players are not educated enough to do this themselves for the most part (Yes, TTW not everyone spends half their day watching Youtube videos and makes 50 posts a day on a tennis forum, they have a life, get over it. Besides even you guys get it wrong majority of the time ;-) ) and sadly a lot of club coaches feed the BS to get lessons that they can teach the "tricks of the pros" so to speak. This is one of the reasons I started to really hate being in the industry, but got over it.

Your slice comment John is a great example. Which also begs the question, is the open stance, semi-open stance fit for everyone? or is the neutral stance a better fit for the average weekend warrior?

 

[TennisEnvy]

I am confused. It seems like you clearly lumped semi open and open stance together as seen above.

I don't think he clearly lumped them together. He said one was a subset of the other. That doesn't mean they're exactly the same thing.

 

[JohnYandell]

Balla,

Great questions. And the ski analogy is exactly correct.

Sometimes I feel my work is misinterpreted. I have spent years filming and studying pro technique and corrected (I believe anyway...) many of the misapprehensions that stem from the limits of human perception with the naked eye--and the resulting teaching dogmas: classical, modern, and everything in between.

But that doesn't mean I am advocating play exactly like the pros across the levels. No way. At every step in writing about it, I have distinguished between understanding what pros do and what is fundamentally different, similar and possible for lower level players.

I think there are some fundamentals where the pros provide very powerful models--the best models in fact, as well as the inspiration to adopt them.

The full turn on the forehand, the extension in the forward swing, understanding grips and arm configurations on the two hander, the racket path on the serve, the core rotations on the volleys, etc!

But for example hitting two feet in the air with 180 degrees of body rotation in the forward swing, using super extreme one-handed grips, extreme body rotation on the serve, etc, etc...no.

And your slice example is one of the clearest. There is a disconnect there based on the evolution of the game.

To me it is fascinating just to try to understand what is really going on. Every teaching pro talks about Roger Federer in every lesson everyday--or it seems that way. But only if you have an understanding of the invisible elements (to the naked eye) can you really with confidence begin to apply what players at various levels can incorporate--and not.

Now as to the specifics of stance. I don't see anything wrong with lower level players using mild semi western stances. In fact I have found that with a square stance many adult players lack the flexibility to rotate the torso, say, 90 degrees in the forward swing, which is about right for most players below college level.

BUT I have repeatedly found that the first fundamental on the forehand which is a full turn with a left arm stretch is much easier for players to develop or correct with the square stance. So I often teach it.

Club players generally don't turn well because the left side gets stuck and doesn't rotate as a unit. If they try to learn open stance--particularly fully open, that full turn never happens. So the square stance is often critical in producing the full turn.

Once it's complete, then it often an improvement to move to a moderate semi-open. But the idea that the key debate in modern versus classical is about stance is I think off base. Almost any player can develop a pro level turn--and that should be the first goal in learning or improving the forehand.

Sorry for the long answer but it's not black and white, though it is I think important.

 

[tennis_balla]

John, yea for sure agree with you.

 

[sureshs]

JY you meant mild semi open stance?

 

[Power Player]

I don't think he clearly lumped them together. He said one was a subset of the other. That doesn't mean they're exactly the same thing.

He said open stance meant anything past neutral. I would agree with what you just posted, as it is worded much more clearly.

 

[JohnYandell]

Suresh,

Yes!

 

[JohnYandell]

TB,

I think until you do a substantial amount of teaching some things are harder to understand...

 

[GuyClinch]

I agree with Yandell that semi-open is the most popular stance that open is used for emergencies. This is exactly what Peter McCraw says and he is the head of New Zealand tennis..

That being said my point that neutral is better (but not the only way) to hit down the line. Pros don't hit DTL that often - but when they do - if they are given time they will often choose neutral, IMHO.

I think the take away for rec players is to use the neutral stance to hit DTL. Why? the guys I play against don't create that many 'emergencies' for me..

Since my non-internet local teaching pro also likes the neutral stance for DTL - I feel comfortable in this idea.. They teaching semi-open for cross court and neutral for dtl.

I suspect this is bog standard teaching protocol across the country.. Who cares about you "CAN" do things. You can hit all your servers with eastern grips. You can volley with a semi-western grip. You go backwards by backing up and not using a drop step. You can hit overheads but swatting the ball down like you are hitting a big fly..

There is the best way to do things - and there not as good ways to do things...

 

[tennis_balla]

TB,

I think until you do a substantial amount of teaching some things are harder to understand...

That's true. I'm also a believer that experience > certification. That's not to say I think certification is useless, not at all. In my view however nothing beats on court experience, whether it be working with other top coaches and learning from them and/or honing your skills on your own, trying new methods, watch ITF junior tournaments live, always learning and so on.

I know speaking for myself I've advanced a lot the 12+ years I've been coaching. However I don't wanna stop and always looking to refine and get better. Not just for the people I teach but for myself as well.

I keep saying it on here, it's very different sitting at a computer, posting some photos, telling others what they need to fix. Would love to give some posters a bucket of balls and watch the train wreck ensue.

 

[treblings]

That's true. I'm also a believer that experience > certification. That's not to say I think certification is useless, not at all. In my view however nothing beats on court experience, whether it be working with other top coaches and learning from them and/or honing your skills on your own, trying new methods, watch ITF junior tournaments live, always learning and so on.

I know speaking for myself I've advanced a lot the 12+ years I've been coaching. However I don't wanna stop and always looking to refine and get better. Not just for the people I teach but for myself as well.

I keep saying it on here, it's very different sitting at a computer, posting some photos, telling others what they need to fix. Would love to give some posters a bucket of balls and watch the train wreck ensue.

I agree with everything you say here.
the drive to become better as a coach keeps me interested after 28 years of coaching.
particularly in the last year i learned a few things that really helped my players. some things from unlikely sources
certifications are a good starting point to get the fundamentals right.
also, in some cases it´s good to have them to be able to show them
experience trumps certification every time. which is part of what makes
communicating in this forum so difficult at times

 

[Power Player]

Spoke with my coach who has ATP points about stance. Interestingly he said when hitting approaches, if you have time, hit neutral. It will be very easy to move your weight into the shot and hit a well placed ball without much effort. He is not a "classic" player by any means.

I tried hitting neutral down the line, and it worked rather well. I'm not sure if it is necessary, but it does make the shot a little easier. I think this is also situational. If I have the time, I will set up neutral for the shot, but if I do not have the time, I will be semi open.