Pat Cash instruction on Tennis Channel Academy

S

sureshs

Bionic Poster
Watched the new Tennis Channel Academy program with Pat Cash. Here are important takeaways:

1. Toss: Toss it above where your head is at the beginning of the serve.

2. Hitting down on the ball: You hit down on the ball not only on the first serve, but also on the second kick/topspin serve. It is a myth that you hit up on the ball. Pat demonstrates what happens when you hit up on the ball. And to him it is obvious that you always hit down on the first serve, and he is just clearing up the myth that it is not the case in the second serve (you also hit down on the second serve).

3. Change your grip slightly depending on the type of serve: Slightly towards backhand grip for slice, slightly towards forehand grip for flat. This enables the racket to do the work, instead of the wrist and arm. Pat actually shows how excessive pronation due to continental grip is avoided by this.

4. Ideal striking distance to the ball on groundies: About where you would feel comfortable if you are shaking hands.

5. Weight leaning backwards on topspin: Pat advises leaning forward on slices, backwards on topspin and lobs, and being vertical on flat shots and using body rotation (somehow he does not address body rotation for topspin!). Combining the last two, it would imply that for the topspin shot with body rotation, there would be a slight amount of leaning backwards. He shows a leaning tower of Pisa-like graphic showing the angle of lean on his 1 handed topspin backhand.
 
High speed video shows that asymmetric pocketing of a descending ball results in it being sent a shade below horizontal, so the ball is being hit down. A ball hit upwards would fly off behind the fence, as Pat demonstrates.
Pat explains how the common coaching advice to hit up is a myth.
 
What happened in the old thread? This thread is pretty trollish. Novak would have you believe the serve is all in the wrist....Pros can be good teachers but only if they study the game..

Weight leaning back on topspin shots? Why? It doesn't matter if your weight is forward or backward - what matters is the racquet is moving up and forward - with a slightly closed face at contact.. Most of the time your weight is balanced or moving forward with this shot..

Ever seen a Federer topspin approach - weight is moving forward - and its still topspin..
 
Pat does study the game, and has his own virtual academy and an app for it. He is not someone who started giving lessons and tips yesterday.
What you disagree with is trollish, eh? Even when it comes from a Wimbledon champion?
 
I would suggest people learn to behave themselves in this thread and conduct discourse in a civil fashion, and learn to distinguish the contents of a post about somebody's teaching from the poster's own opinions. I will report any personal insult to the mods.
 
The common mistake made in the hitting up analysis is looking only at the tip of the frame. The relevant part is the contact zone, which is deformed and pocketed downwards, resulting in the ball being hit down (most of the time, though on second serves I don't agree with Pat because in some of them the ball is indeed hit up)
 
For a 6 ft student 14 years old junior on 2nd serves I actually did tell him to hit the kick serve down. After the swing up that is. He was floating the 2nd serve a bit soft so I told him to hammer the 2nd serve. So it bounces hard into the ground. What he started doing was using much more leg and exploded more up into the serve and really got the ball moving. His kick serve went up in pace and spin significantly within 2 weeks.
 
That hammering down on the second serve was exactly what Pat showed in the segment. I am not sure if it will work for shorter players, because I think that many times they really hit up on the second serve - i.e. I am not fully agreeing with him
 
sureshs said:
That hammering down on the second serve was exactly what Pat showed in the segment. I am not sure if it will work for shorter players, because I think that many times they really hit up on the second serve - i.e. I am not fully agreeing with him
Click to expand...
Ha ha. I actually told the kid that last month before I saw the rafter segment. He was not getting the hard bounce onto the court.

I think you have to be tall. At least 6ft. I had the kid stick his arm at full extension and I placed the ball at the contact and walked ball over to the net in my hand. At his reach I showed he can hit the ball on a path straight out and use the spin to really drive the ball into the court. It seemed to work.
 
There was an observation on here that the loopy second serve which goes up and comes down may not be the reality in the modern pro game
 
sureshs said:
There was an observation on here that the loopy second serve which goes up and comes down may not be the reality in the modern pro game
Click to expand...
Who thought pros hit the loopy 2nd? Watch a pro match. 2nd serves are not that high over the net. Certainly not like the moonballs spin serves 3.5 men hit.
 
I think the hitting up idea is more about trying to describe what the stroke should feel like. Its not meant as a literal description of what the racket head is doing. There are many such analogies/metaphors/visualization aids in teaching tennis (or any sport) They are subjective and not really a fact vs. myth debate.
 
^^^ That is a good point, but it keeps coming up because the racket head tip is very close to the cusp. My take on this is that the tip is rising when the ball first contacts the strings, and then either 1) the tip starts falling as the ball leaves or 2) the tip is almost level but the ball has made a pocket in the strings which is pushing the ball slightly down as it leaves. The other fact is that gravity alone cannot explain the slightly downwards path. If the ball was truly hit up at any realistic speed, gravity could not change the trajectory into a downwards one at once.
 
sureshs said:
2. Hitting down on the ball: You hit down on the ball not only on the first serve, but also on the second kick/topspin serve. It is a myth that you hit up on the ball. Pat demonstrates what happens when you hit up on the ball. And to him it is obvious that you always hit down on the first serve, and he is just clearing up the myth that it is not the case in the second serve (you also hit down on the second serve).
Click to expand...


But how can your teaching cue be to "hit down", (physically,not imagery or sensation), when the evidence clearly shows that the ball is off the strings while the racquet is still rising and tilted upwards??... As to the downward path, that is due to the descending ball and racquet rotation during dwell time, as explained in the TWU kick serve article.

j6ADcW.gif


Racquet head is still rising for a few frames even after the ball comes off the strings. Even though the ball is struck while the head is rising, the ball travels downward toward the net because of the high ball toss and rotation of the racquet during the impact. -- http://twu.tennis-warehouse.com/learning_center/kickserve.php.

And even assuming your "ball making a pocket in the strings and pushing it down" theory is true, it makes no sense to use that brief two millisecond interaction as a teaching cue to "hit down", as the overall swing motion sensation is decidedly upwards.
 
Last edited:
Raul_SJ said:
But how can your teaching cue be to "hit down", (physically,not imagery or sensation), when the evidence clearly shows that the ball is off the strings while the racquet is still rising and tilted upwards??...
Click to expand...

It can, because 1. I am not a teacher and 2. It is not my cue, it is Pat's. Please don't confuse matters here. It is stated very clearly in the first post whose claims they are. I may agree with some or all of them, fully or partially. Don't pick a fight with me.
 
Regarding the descending ball, I have already addressed it, and Pat shows a demo. If the ball is really hit up, gravity is not enough to bring it down at once. Just tapping a falling ball upwards provides a counter example.

Regarding the upward moving frame, that is also addressed. The frame and strings do not form a rigid body. The falling ball plays a role in creating a depression in the strings which has a downward orientation. This can happen near the cusp even if the tip of the frame is rising. Non-rigid bodies exhibit different behaviors at different points.

I also said very clearly that in certain arcing second serves, the ball is really hit upwards.
 
sureshs said:
?..A ball hit upwards would fly off behind the fence, as Pat demonstrates.
Pat explains how the common coaching advice to hit up is a myth.
Click to expand...

It certainly could -- if you hit up flat. But with a tilt of the racquet face it goes over and in with spin.
 
^^^^ Yes. We are just analyzing minutae here. But every time someone brings it up, whether it is Cash or a poster, it creates a big debate.

More interesting to me is the leaning backwards on TS claim, because now we have two pros saying it.
 
Well, generally, your arm is going to swing from shoulder to shoulder. If your shoulders are aimed "up," say on a forehand, (leading shoulder higher), the swing would have a natural upward path, or lift. Great for topspin. Pros can generate lift in just about any position. What they do, they do often because they can. Whereas we often need work-arounds.
 
Off The Wall said:
Well, generally, your arm is going to swing from shoulder to shoulder. If your shoulders are aimed "up," say on a forehand, (leading shoulder higher), the swing would have a natural upward path, or lift. Great for topspin. Pros can generate lift in just about any position. What they do, they do often because they can. Whereas we often need work-arounds.
Click to expand...

I think the leaning back advice is actually meant for club players. It gives more natural lift as you point out, but when I tried it, another advantage was more time and space, effectively like being a little more back without actually giving up court space. Disadvantage is obviously loss of power.
 
Raul_SJ said:
But how can your teaching cue be to "hit down", (physically,not imagery or sensation), when the evidence clearly shows that the ball is off the strings while the racquet is still rising and tilted upwards??... As to the downward path, that is due to the descending ball and racquet rotation during dwell time, as explained in the TWU kick serve article.

j6ADcW.gif


Racquet head is still rising for a few frames even after the ball comes off the strings. Even though the ball is struck while the head is rising, the ball travels downward toward the net because of the high ball toss and rotation of the racquet during the impact. -- http://twu.tennis-warehouse.com/learning_center/kickserve.php.

And even assuming your "ball making a pocket in the strings and pushing it down" theory is true, it makes no sense to use that brief two millisecond interaction as a teaching cue to "hit down", as the overall swing motion smajority of australiancoaches ensation is decidedly upwards.
Click to expand...
Raul_SJ said:
But how can your teaching cue be to "hit down", (physically,not imagery or sensation), when the evidence clearly shows that the ball is off the strings while the racquet is still rising and tilted upwards??... As to the downward path, that is due to the descending ball and racquet rotation during dwell time, as explained in the TWU kick serve article.

j6ADcW.gif


Racquet head is still rising for a few frames even after the ball comes off the strings. Even though the ball is struck while the head is rising, the ball travels downward toward the net because of the high ball toss and rotation of the racquet during the impact. -- http://twu.tennis-warehouse.com/learning_center/kickserve.php.

And even assuming your "ball making a pocket in the strings and pushing it down" theory is true, it makes no sense to use that brief two millisecond interaction as a teaching cue to "hit down", as the overall swing motion sensation is decidedly upwards.
Click to expand...
Try to check the original Web site of Pat Cash instead of relying on OP-
The essence maybe in wording.
Try to see teaching materials of Tennis Australia
I used to have a manual with a progression for serve but I cannot find it right now.
The point maybe in the term 'projection angle" used by Whiteside,
The projection line is the line connecting the contact point with a bounce point on the opposite side of the court
 
julian said:
Try to check the original Web site of Pat Cash instead of relying on OP-
The essence maybe in wording.
Try to see teaching materials of Tennis Australia
I used to have a manual with a progression for serve but I cannot find it right now.
The point maybe in the term 'projection angle" used by Whiteside,
The projection line is the line connecting the contact point with a bounce point on the opposite side of the court
Click to expand...
The projection angle is the angle of incline of the projection line.
The angle can negative (down) or positive (up).
The conjecture is that high performance angle is negative.
But the full trajectory does not have to be fully down( in a very bad wording
 
julian said:
The projection angle is the angle of incline of the projection line.
The angle can negative (down) or positive (up).
The conjecture is that high performance angle is negative.
But the full trajectory does not have to be fully down( in a very bad wording
Click to expand...
Www.researchgate contains some papers by Whiteside and Elliot on related subjects.
I have seen a practice ran by Pat Cash at the Harvard University in Boston but I do not remember serve related issues. I remember some discussions about Patrick Rafter on tennisplayer.net
 
Raul_SJ said:
But how can your teaching cue be to "hit down", (physically,not imagery or sensation), when the evidence clearly shows that the ball is off the strings while the racquet is still rising and tilted upwards??... As to the downward path, that is due to the descending ball and racquet rotation during dwell time, as explained in the TWU kick serve article.

j6ADcW.gif


Racquet head is still rising for a few frames even after the ball comes off the strings. Even though the ball is struck while the head is rising, the ball travels downward toward the net because of the high ball toss and rotation of the racquet during the impact. -- http://twu.tennis-warehouse.com/learning_center/kickserve.php.

And even assuming your "ball making a pocket in the strings and pushing it down" theory is true, it makes no sense to use that brief two millisecond interaction as a teaching cue to "hit down", as the overall swing motion sensation is decidedly upwards.
Click to expand...
The key to the answer is in the phrase "due to rotation of the frame". This is masking all the important issues due to pocketing. If rotation causes the ball to go down, then it means it is being hit down!
 
Marketing gimmick. You can see same tactic on other teaching sites... The whole "myth busting" thing. Take some age old teaching cue like "brush up" and then shout that its a myth and make some argument over semantics and/or interpretation but ultimately teach the same thing. Ultimately I think most agree that regardless what the racket head really does, thinking of hitting up on the ball will produce better results than thinking of hitting down. Imo I think of waiters tray servers as hitting down on the ball, poking it into play.
 
coupergear said:
Marketing gimmick. You can see same tactic on other teaching sites... The whole "myth busting" thing.
Click to expand...

Yes, I hate the "Myth busting" stuff... often what they then explain is just word play, nit-picking, making it overly complicated ...or even simply false.

And most videos are sooooooo many words. Talk talk talk, instead of actually showing me (the correct way and potentially the incorrect way).
 
With regard to the serve, I do not confirm the stated object of discussion existent. Any guidance I've read on serve and which has seemed trustable has refered to swinging up onto the ball, not hitting the ball up. The hit direction may vary for different levels and types of serve, though I would not make effort to hit upward myself.

Meanwhile, hitting down would have been misleading for myself, as I would have considered that as bringing the racquet higher than the expected contact point and then continuing the swing downward. Swinging upward instruction makes me produce all the racquet speed with upward effort (and ISR), while the fact that my arm is still attached to my body ensures the proper redirection of the racquet head speed through the contact.
 
Strikes me as marketing as well - preach something different and hope to make more money.. I am pretty tall so it feels like to me that the racquet ends up pretty level (not going down or up at contact) - but I don't think it really matters - Racquet goes in a circular path - at some point its going down. You will know if you are hitting the right spot on this path if it goes in. :P

The topspin bit is plainly marketing to the recreational hack who doesn't have their weight moving in the right direction.. Yes you can hit topspin 'falling back' - but you can hit topspin just fine stepping in or pivoting or spinning..<g> All that matters is the racquet is going up and forward. You can do that with all kinds of weight transfer and foot patterns.
 
Yes part of it is sensationalism. Players love to hear about secrets and tips.

In a perverse way, it is all good, because it keeps the fire kindled under the club players, something to argue about with your mates, something new to think about.
 
What do you guys think about the grip change advice to avoid pronation?

I personally think most adult players will injure themselves if they pronate more than a little.
 
tennis_balla said:
4c6e8ef6bf10549802a1aeb5635d97c4.jpg
Click to expand...
LOL!!

Clearly they are carried on a line with multiple swallows. Trick is that there MUST be some esr on the wing strokes to maximize lift. Sheesh don't you read ANYTHING!

Please make a vid of your 1st Bh lesson with a beginner where you teach them how to nail high balls with the one hander...all great coaches start there!
 
No need to nail the ball, just have one way to deal with it. I have been shocked to find guys with great 1 handers, complete with a flicky touch too, who look terrible on the first ball that jams them or comes up high. Happens a lot with old guys who play with their 2 handed sons or daughters. They hang in there great, till this happens. Sad, but true.
 
sureshs said:
No need to nail the ball, just have one way to deal with it. I have been shocked to find guys with great 1 handers, complete with a flicky touch too, who look terrible on the first ball that jams them or comes up high. Happens a lot with old guys who play with their 2 handed sons or daughters. They hang in there great, till this happens. Sad, but true.
Click to expand...
Old guys I have seen just slice them. They dont seem to have much trouble, but I have noticed that they DO on the FH if they are hitting with a continental grip.

I have no sympathy for the "high balls trouble my BH" diatribe as I dont seem to struggle much, and if I do its more with getting in the right place than hitting the shot.

But I was self taught and no self respecting coach would have taught me my bh like that.

Funny thing is that I have had a coach freak when I showed him my bh and especially my grip. He wanted to change that right away. We hit and he fed me low and high balls alike and after that didnt have much to say...mostly footwork stuff and movement. And not hitting the ball too hard...
 
Shroud said:
I have no sympathy for the "high balls trouble my BH" diatribe as I dont seem to struggle much, and if I do its more with getting in the right place than hitting the shot. .
Click to expand...

Then I guess you don't have any sympathy for Federer. Nadal exploited it very well on clay.

You have to face a good junior boy to understand this issue. The San Pablo crowd is not it. The boy will loop it to you with such spin that you will not even be able to track the ball as it curveballs and then jumps up high and leaves you. It took me years to learn how to get into the rhythm of the incoming ball, find the correct racket angle, and drive, counterspin, or slice it.

Other factor is you are tall so relatively the problem is less. Guys like Del Potro or Berdych can crush Nadal's high bouncing balls. Even a 1 hander like Gasquet can sometimes do it. Coming to think of it, Fed did struggle disproportionately with this. Even the Almagro level types did not have much problem.
 
Are we sure we're talking shots only, or are we now adding an element of playing level into the discussion?
Shroud plays at San Pablo maybe once every other week, not exactly part of the "crowd".
Take the case of the Orange Brother's. There's like 7 of them, all ambitextrious to some extent.
2 are real 5.5/Open level players, having won Oakland City, or Berkeley City OPEN level tournaments. We have trouble with their high bouncing groundies, but they are 5.5's while we're 4.0's.
Two are 4.5 level players, and we have no trouble with their high bouncing groundstrokes.
One is a 4.0, and we usually beat him pretty badly if he get's mixed into our doubles groupings.
Another comes rarely, and is between 4-4.5, but I haven't played with or against him on court.
Another lives in LA, more a drifter, and doesn't play often.
The Dad is a 3-3.5.
Can't really say a shot from a 5.5 beating a 4.0 means the shot itself is what is winning. It's more the level of the player's involved.
For sure, a top Nationally ranked junior would give us ALL problems with the high bounce, heavy topspin, pace, and placements. Us meaning Shroud, Suresh, me, or Papa Mango.
 
LeeD said:
Are we sure we're talking shots only, or are we now adding an element of playing level into the discussion?
Shroud plays at San Pablo maybe once every other week, not exactly part of the "crowd".
Take the case of the Orange Brother's. There's like 7 of them, all ambitextrious to some extent.
2 are real 5.5/Open level players, having won Oakland City, or Berkeley City OPEN level tournaments. We have trouble with their high bouncing groundies, but they are 5.5's while we're 4.0's.
Two are 4.5 level players, and we have no trouble with their high bouncing groundstrokes.
One is a 4.0, and we usually beat him pretty badly if he get's mixed into our doubles groupings.
Another comes rarely, and is between 4-4.5, but I haven't played with or against him on court.
Another lives in LA, more a drifter, and doesn't play often.
The Dad is a 3-3.5.
Can't really say a shot from a 5.5 beating a 4.0 means the shot itself is what is winning. It's more the level of the player's involved.
For sure, a top Nationally ranked junior would give us ALL problems with the high bounce, heavy topspin, pace, and placements. Us meaning Shroud, Suresh, me, or Papa Mango.
Click to expand...
Orange brothers! Have run into them before. Very interesting playing with them and their 2 forehands. That whole family is awesome.

My 2 cents is that if they hit TO ME and I didnt have to move I could do OK against the spin and pace. But add in placement and movement and I am toast. Long story but on the high ball the sw grip is really strong, so spin and pace dont really bother it. Its the timing I would struggle with I think.

Anyhow you think Suresh of all people is going to fend of Junior level balls to his bh. I want to see that on vid....another gif in the making. Its like me giving advice on pattycaking the ball....

Oh and is there an application I need to fill out to be part of the crowd...
 
sureshs said:
Then I guess you don't have any sympathy for Federer. Nadal exploited it very well on clay.

You have to face a good junior boy to understand this issue. The San Pablo crowd is not it. The boy will loop it to you with such spin that you will not even be able to track the ball as it curveballs and then jumps up high and leaves you. It took me years to learn how to get into the rhythm of the incoming ball, find the correct racket angle, and drive, counterspin, or slice it.

Other factor is you are tall so relatively the problem is less. Guys like Del Potro or Berdych can crush Nadal's high bouncing balls. Even a 1 hander like Gasquet can sometimes do it. Coming to think of it, Fed did struggle disproportionately with this. Even the Almagro level types did not have much problem.
Click to expand...
Yeah, you can handle junior shots high to your bh. Right. Good one Resh!!!

On fed, if he had a more extreme grip I dont think he would struggle at all IMHO.
 
sureshs said:
No need to nail the ball, just have one way to deal with it. I have been shocked to find guys with great 1 handers, complete with a flicky touch too, who look terrible on the first ball that jams them or comes up high. Happens a lot with old guys who play with their 2 handed sons or daughters. They hang in there great, till this happens. Sad, but true.
Click to expand...
What is the relation to Pat Cash?
 
What do you guys think about the grip change advice to avoid pronation?

I personally think most adult players will injure themselves if they pronate more than a little.
Click to expand...

I really think you live in some alternate universe.. Anyone who doesn't use a frying pan serve pronates - (ISR) if you want to get technical. Its a basic part of any serve. BASIC. You really should take some time to learn tennis with how often you post here.. This is a good clip for learning to hit a proper serve with 'pronation'.



It doesn't hurt at all..I have tried these drills and zero pain. None of the so called pronation drills cause pain if done in moderation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

P
How do you hit topspin on a low-toss serve?
Replies
11
Views
483
ballmachineguy
ballmachineguy
Raul_SJ
Pat Cash on Serve: "Knee bend means an extra 90% chance of messing up your timing".
Replies
47
Views
8K
comeback
C
C
Lansdorp drills on Tennis Channel Academy
Replies
2
Views
2K
LeeD
L
B
body rotation on 2nd serve
Replies
11
Views
393
TennisCJC
T
S
Question about Topspin serve
2
Replies
64
Views
6K
shindemac
S
Back
Top