Discussion in 'Tennis Tips/Instruction' started by baseline08thrasher, Dec 28, 2008.
you didn't see where I answered that?
I don't have that info.
Apologies to the OP for this thread getting derailed a touch! Trying to get back to nearer the original topic...
5263 - You state in your post that this swing is "clearly up and across at contact" - would you not say that the freeze frame above shows extension out towards the target - infact from what I have studied of Lansdorp this position is nearly identical to the position he advocates before adding one of his three finishes?
Here is the "extension" moment capture for Landsdorp's article on the three finishes, which can be found here:
Good questions on some subtle points.
I would say to see it more clearly, it helps to see it directly from behind the direction of shot vector. From that view you can most often see how the racket face has worked up and across the contact at around 45 degrees. With Nadal you can often see the ball curve the across aspect is so pronounced.
Also you must understand that MTM or Me for that matter, never say there is no extension, but we coach that you get it by pulling across (which causes the face to start to catch up due to the change of direction of swing creating an extension) as opposed to driving the racket with it nearly inline with your forearm like RL demos in his utube vid with the young student. RL's demo'ed extension inline with his forearm is achieved quite differently than MTM's with the racket being more drug by the racket butt, but they will hit some of the same checkpoints leading to questions like yours.
Also I'm not maintaining that Fed is MTM trained and does this on every stroke. In fact I feel that his emphasis on extension over the last couple of years is what has pulled him off his game somewhat. IMO he works up and across the contact most of the time, but pushes the extension sometimes when he really tries to lay into one, and I'm quite convinced this accounts for his high unforced errors on the Fh in latter years.
I would also agree that the more you use the crossing action to flatten the trajectory, the more extension that will result; but this is result, not a driving action.
I do realize that much of what we are getting at is very similar and most of the difference is in how we try to get there, especially with highly trained guys like several of you, but IMO the MTM method contains less false data.
When I get some time, maybe I can pull together a thread with 25 different compensations to fix a problem, but where I will make one small post that solves the problem, something very simple like "just find the ball from below and stroke up and across the finish". So Suresh I think had it right when he said, "all he will say is....." and that is the simple beauty of it. I'm sure I didn't express this that well, but tried.
In the end I'd have to honestly say I think Santana's shot is inside-out and the still shows extension to inside-in, so no IMO it is not extension out toward the target best I can tell.
Yes, this extension idea and hitting through the ball doesn’t really have much value as an instruction. I’m guessing one reason this idea persists is the desire for a larger margin for error.
Come on, it's one thing to say MTM is a good way for teaching beginners in a manner where the principles don't have to change as they get better and they have to make fewer compensations for having the wrong fundamentals. It's quite another to say Fed's form goes up and down based on how much he's emphasising "extension" over "up & across".
I think your skepticism is very reasonable about my thoughts on Fed's game, lol, so I can appreciate what you are saying here.
ON the other hand though, I've done quite bit of charting that grew out of the other claim made for awhile- that Fed's Bh broke down on Nadal's high bouncing balls.
The charting in those matches showed the Fh UEs were 2 or 3 : 1 as compared with Bh UEs. This is even a more important stat considering Nadal had him hitting 3 times as many Bhs in these games and the Bh still had far fewer errors.
With the surprise that such a high % of Fhs were going wrong, I looked at what was happening on these misses, mostly attacking UEs. Most of them were from hitting for extreme depth, trying to force the finish of the point. IMO most often hitting long comes from over-extension into the contact vs working up and across the ball. Sort of an attempt by the hitter to juice up his shot.
I would agree here and think it ironic that in the end, it reduces the margin for error on the target end of things, as this seems to be why so many players struggle with what they call over-hitting.
Although 5263 and I probably would disagree on some aspects of the game I feel he's done an admirable job articulating his/MTM's position. I must admit that I have not seen Oscar's latest book and which "might" reflect somewhat modified approaches - I do have at least one of his older publications in my tennis library - early 90's edition.
^^^ ditto. 5263 has done a good job describing the basic principals of
what Wegner espouses.
I think one possible path/version of where tennis may be heading towards
in the future is more along the lines of players like del potro & soderling.
Guys eat up the high ball by hitting flatter, deeper, penetrating shots that
give their opponents less time to get to the ball. Their physical height allows
them to hit flatter shots off higher balls, making their flatter shots a safer
shot than for shorter players.
In some ways, James Blake was one of the first ones that presented this
as a possible strategy when he started beating Rafa. Blake is too short
to consistently employ that strategy and succeed, though.
This trend can only happen if taller AND athletic players start playing tennis.
Most of the taller ATP players just aren't as athletic as the shorter ones.
Besides del Potro & Isner (who's way too slow), there really aren't any
younger and taller pros who are not past their peak that can challenge
Rafa right now using this strategy, so I think Rafa will be dominant for
at least a few years.
I agree in totality with this post. 5263 does seem very reasonable, and makes some very valid points. And while i probably can't get my head around some of what wegner says, I am interested in his "take" on things.
Thanks guys and think it is good we can have this type of good discussion on instruction. I appreciate the reasonable and sincere approach we have used to take this on.
Article worth the read on Discipline by Lansdorp on in the new tennisplayer.net issue. He talks about how repetition is the only way to swing aggressively and know the ball will go in, along with ways he approached this type training. Between some rambling stories and discussions about hitting 2 feet over the net, he makes some good points about training hard and having discipline.
I found article interesting, having posted earlier that RL's use of discipline and repetition was his main contribution to the greats he coached. Sort of interesting that he still harps about aggressive grips and heavy spin, given the widespread adoption by many of the top players, along with Nadal who is maybe the best ever. I know my fav player, Roger does not have too extreme of a grip, but his Fh has suffered big bouts with being erratic as well.
According to John Y, the usta turned him down on his proposal. Probably due to his lack of tact, interpersonally.
I've seen RL coaching and IMO he teaches technique as well. He isn't
just a human ball machine that enforces discipline. (though he certainly
does the latter!)
Which is exactly why I said "Main contribution" instead of what you said, "just a human ....."
Of course that said, his ideas on stroke technique and grips IMO are clearly way outdated and Nadal's dominance on tour have made this obvious to anyone willing to notice. IMO it would be a mistake to leverage RL's excellence in some areas and project that into areas that he has missed on with his predictions.
Even his claim to fame,
Pete groundstroke wise, was known for his running Fh buggy whip. This like the his serve and rev Fh were things that RL was smart enough not to mess with, but did not teach him other than to drill them to near perfection.
Pete was even quoted saying he knew he was going to have a good day on the court when he was able to get his Fh topspin biting well and that he adjusted for more topspin and net clearance margin once leaving RL for the tour.
Also the idea came from Pete's interview, that what he valued most from his work with RL was the reps and discipline, and he even stated outright that RL taught him nothing special technique wise. He Paid Robert great tribute, but clearly focused on the reps and work ethic aspect. No disrespect in that.
I basically agree with the premise that his main contribution is that of a coach and not a technician.
As a "coach" I admire him greatly. He simply refuses to "play the game", in an industry that is filled with sellouts, and con men. Pros that simply take the money and run, without regard for what they are, or are not, teaching the kids. Both in terms of technique and acceptable behavior. There are too many glorified babysitters!
In this regard, Lansdorp, exhibits the highest of ethics. Irrespective of the financial outcome, he refuses to waste his time, or the resources of the parents, if a kid fails to develop a certain work ethic or desire for excellence. I think this is admirable, and an increasingly lost art with coaches. Rest assured, if a kid plays for him, they will develop both on and off the court (life lessons). This is the very definition of a "great coach" in my book.
But yeah, his insistance on flatter drives, and inline principles (linear weight shifts and emphasis on down the line movements) to an offline game, is not something I can totally subscribe to.
I think this is largely true...especially if the previous links were trained correctly.
This made me laugh, alot. Do you also think Nick is out there everyday with the kids. He has people much better informed on mechanics and sport science than you actually give him credit for.
Not to mention the fact that the place produces reseach and has slow capture facilities that rival some natinal sport institutes...
The players achieve because they get the facilities, training, teachers (that teach new techniques) and benefit from the applied science and research that is done at the academy.
Do you really think if you go to the Nick Bolletteri school your going to get an old man feeding you 1000 balls a day? Seriously
HEY OP, DOES ALL THIS ANSWER YOUR QUESTION????......EH ,NEVER MIND...THESE GUYS COMPLETELY SWALLOWED YOUR THREAD. YOU MIGHT HAVE TO START ANOTHER ONE BUT BE CAREFUL NEXT TIME WHOSE NAME YOU'LL USE :twisted:
If you want to take a lesson from Landsdorp, by all means do. I think taking 1 lesson from one of the most famous and colorful coaches in recent history would be a blast.
The guys above cannot decide if you extend on your groundstrokes or only pull across. They have been debating it in every thread. I'll end the debate - IF YOU DON'T HAVE AN STRONG ELEMENT OF EXTENSION THRU CONTACT THE BALL WILL NOT GO FORWARD - SIMPLE PHYSICS.
Here's a funny Vitas Geuralatis story about Landsdorp. Vitas was coming back from a period where his fitness and ranking had dropped drasitcally - too much partying. Landsdorp traveled with Vitas to a tournament in Europe. It was a low level tournament as Vitas' ranking was down. Vitas showed up to play and they told him his first opponent was that "kid" over there who looked as young as a ball kid. Vitas' was losing and cramped up and was carried off the court on a strecher. As they carried Vitas past Landsdorp, Vitas looked up at Robert and said "you better leave fast I'm ruining your reputation". Vitas was cool and Landsdorp has a lot of history with the game.
Unfortunately, some have bought into the fiction that only upwards and across tangential contact is needed. As Peter Burwash pointed out in a recent article, pros swing so fast that the forward component is missed by many. They notice the racket before impact and then across the shoulder, but miss the fact that the racket has gone out in front before crossing over and also in parallel with it. The ball does not know what you did before and after impact. If there is no extension, it will feel no forward component of the force.
I'm glad you make this post to show where yours and others in your camp mis-
understand "up and across". Apparently you see across as merely tangential as
you state above. You are correct that is fiction, but it is you that bring it in. You
will never see it described as "tangential" by someone who understands Modern
strokes. There are many ways to hit across the "target Line" of traditional tennis
and tangential is one of the worst you could pick. Odd that one would ever see it that
way IMO and actually nearly impossible to execute.
Maybe this is slightly beyond your "simple physics", but when the hand/racket is
moving in one direction, handle towards the ball, then the hand starts to move up
and across, the racket head/face will swing out on an arc thru the ball/impact.
Gag. Here we go again.
"I feel the sun goes around the sky." "No no no, the sun goes across the sky." "Um, no way man! The sun moves tangential to the sky!" "Really? The sun actually moves through the sky."
The semantic arguments get so ridiculous. I mean it's akin to a bunch of lawyers arguing over the definition and context of a single word.
Forget the semantics. Why not just take a player as a model, show a video to a student, and say, "See how he does that? Do that."
Not a bad suggestion, but remember, Nobody is saying not to hit thru the ball...
but some are saying not across..which is wrong.
the debate is about hitting thru 3 balls that are aligned down the traditional target line
from contact to where the ball will land. A better understanding shows that as you
swing thru the contact, the racket is also moving across that target line to some
degree and NOT down that line.
That is what you will see with a good player model if you have a good camera angle.
Being a product of the classical method and hitting through the ball, I can tell you what we had to do to gain depth control over our shots. (Because otherwise you're using mainly gravity.) Again, this was not taught by local pros; it was knowledge gained through experience. We hit the outside of the ball. The spin imparted created (still does) a hooking topspin.
The point being, the Old Classical method required modifications. I'm not sure what the Neo-Classical method entails. I'm sure it's better now. However, it sounds like MTM starts out with a method that provides a faster transition to spin.
The name of the player is misspelled
The name of the player is misspelled
the name of the coach as well
Maybe a simple concept is too hard for your overly complex analysis. KISS
You see the hand moving up, thru, and across if you study slow-mo video of pros. I will concede on some shots there is very little extension but on others the hand extension forward toward the net is several inches before it goes directly across or backward.
No problem...sounds excellent. I don't know of anyone saying anything that disagrees
with your point that there are varying degrees of hitting thru the ball. It's just
not down the target line.
We can go simpler than that - absolutely forget about hitting thru the ball. Never was and never is good a good tip. Put in the same myth category as "watching the ball on to the racket"
OK, we can get along on this one. My only point is that many present it like the hand does not go forward even 1 inch beyond contact and I cannot buy into that. By forward, I am not even saying forward up the target line. I am simply saying that there is some degree of forward hand and racket head motion mixed in with the upward and across motions. But, I do agree that the hand and racket hand should not go 100% down the target line. It is a glancing blow with some extension, across and upward elements depending on the type of shot being hit.
Good, glad we can agree.
I think we should throw out the obvious wrong answers like perpendicular to the path,
and any idea of not going forward. Clearly forward is part of the swing, and it
is an across forward...not a straight down the target line forward as traditional
instruction has taught.
I guess I just never conceived that anyone would mistake across for meaning straight sideways??
I've often thought about how RL contributed so much to so many players and
wondered what the key is.
I had guessed it was reps and some things in the US Open really drove it home
There is probably no substitute for hitting a lots of balls from the expected spots
on the court. Over time, you will figure out how to make those shots, even if the
form is avg or worse. The biggest key in tennis is to execute shots from certain
areas of the court, to certain areas of the court, along with having that confidence
that you CAN do it. Only with lots of reps will you have that confidence and
consistency of execution.
Excellent form is very helpful, but earned confidence that you can execute as required
is priceless. I think RL excelled in this aspect.
Forgive me if someone has posted this, I didn't want to wade through the entire thread to find out.
http://paulball.com/Robert Lansdorp .html
from the ref above-
Looks like this agrees with my earlier post-
""In a world of "do it ... but quickly," he emphasizes repetition to the point of frustration.""
and I think if you are honest I think you have to admit his misses the mark
""In a tennis world that emphasizes top spin, he emphasizes flat, driving groundstrokes.""
Quoted for truth
Wow, speak this highly of a guy and some think you have an agenda.
Very positive post!
Maybe like the one they have against Oscar?? Is that why they are quick to
imagine or project the thing they do to others....their agendas??
Well guess it true to an extent. My agenda is that we learn the right lessons
from the right coaches. I made the mistake early on with my teaching that I'd
like to help others not repeat. I though RL must be great with strokes since
many of his students had done well in past eras. Now I realize that he is not
a leader in stroke production, and if anything trying to catch up, BUT
I realize he must have done a LOT correct to have the success he enjoyed.
I guess frisbee thinks we should all be PC incorrect like him too call students b-t-hes,
because that makes as much sense as using his stroke style today.
No, I'm saying let's look at where he excelled and learn from that!
Somehow that is disrespectful??
and here is where that was answered well.
Fed gave us another example of his tendency to over extend and hit too near the lines
& the effects against Byrdich except in 3rd set. In the 3rd set Fed hit with more spin
and avoided the lines much better.
Berdych avoided fancy topspin and hit flat and hard to win the match, same as Luke against Nadal. The main reason for Fed's loss was his inability to cope with the big guy's power. Other reasons are minor excuses trying to prove something
There are always opinions of course, but Fed had no problem with him in the 3rd
set when he backed of the lines and pace.
The match was mostly a gift to Byrd really.
I do agree Fed had trouble going at the lines with flat shots against Byrd's pace,
but he would have had little trouble if he'd used the style he did in the 3rd and
against Del Potro last yr after learning from the loss to him in the final.
In that match he took Delpo out decisively by hitting shorter angles and avoiding
I'm not a Federer groupie, but let's give him a little credit here. I think Federer understands his own strategy and approach better than anyone here. He has a pretty good tennis IQ. Nobody is going to point to a single amazing strategy that he overlooked. I mean this is Roger Federer, c'mon.
Fed loses when his opponents play extremely well and the conditions don't favor his style. PERIOD. He cannot win these matches. But there's two things going for Roger: 1) It is very difficult for Roger's opponents to play extremely well against him given his style, and 2) The conditions aren't usually that much of a factor.
All that being said. The wind has always bothered Roger's game. Roger plays a line-painting style that is highly susceptible to wind. Secondly, when Roger plays an extremely hard-hitter in the wind, it makes it all the more difficult for him to keep these balls in.
Roger does not just "put balls into play" (to quote his own words). He isn't a clay-courter. The man is in his 30s now. He cannot have long, "get it back" rallies against the likes of Del Potro or Berdych. For the last few years, Roger needs to end points quickly. That means high pace painting of lines.
Berdych was playing very well. The elements were not in Federer's favor. And Federer has never had a plan B in that situation. In that situation, ******** shows up. Always has, always will. Go watch Federer's press conference at the Aussie Open when he got beat by Nadal last year. It is very enlightening. He clearly knows what he does well and he knows when it won't work.
Plain and simple, Berdych played awesome. The elements were a factor. ******** showed up. We've seen it before more than a few times.
Well ...your strategy is not how he played in his best years or in some of his better matches of late.
Funny how you guys think just because a player, or a businessman for that matter, knows so much because they are
successful. Many top performers are sharp enough to tell you the were often
successful in spite or or even because how little they knew. THey didn't know enough to see
their problems and just bulled thru on will, effort and talent. Only later did they
become aware of the many blatant mistakes they had made while building their
game or business.
In my work, I've met and heard quite a few speak on this.
Either they were right that the were wrong early on,
OR they wrong later on in
saying they were wrong early on. Either way, they were quite mistaken at times,
in spite of top notch results, a fact you don't seem to recognize.
I think this is a good summary of the Berdych match. There is no plan-B because the "play safer and grind it out" strategy isn't feasible for him at this age.
Maybe, but that is not relevant to the Berdych match. Berdych is 6'5" and served amazingly well and just hit very hard. Fed may have tried some adjustments but it was beyond him, just like Rosol vs Nadal.
At 31, Fed would not still be playing if his style was safe spin clearing high over the net. Nadal has ruined his knees with that style of play. On the other hand, Nadal has 11 Slams and is also very successful. So it all depends on many factors.
Sure it is, because we are talking about how to win that match...not extend a
Fed would surely do any style of play just to make a US Open Final, and even
more so to get one more final slam win. No way is going to "go for the lines" and
lose in a Major to extend his career. Maybe he would in other tournaments.
No, he has either bought into the poor suggestions that you and Mighty make
here or he let his opponent make him feel he had to do more...that little extra
that good players trick you into thinking you need.
And the reason you guys don't understand the strategy is how you go from
one extreme to the other. Just a flawed mental approach to the situation.
You say he must "go for the lines" or the other option
is "safe spin and high over the net grinding."
What you guys need to realize is there is a ton of options between those 2 extremes
and somewhere in there, shaded to the aggressive side, is where
he needed to be.
Extending a career is out the window in the late rounds of a Major, : )
Fine theory, except the plan B I recommend was what he used against del Potro
at OZ in 2012 Major, where he won fairly easily in straight sets and del Potro,
who by the way, was hitting bigger than Berdych.
There isn't a "ton of options". That is purely speculative. At the highest of levels of tennis, the margins between victory and defeat are razor thin. This isn't recreational tennis.
All I am saying is that you are second guessing a man who has really no right to be second guessed at this point. He isn't some career Tour hack enjoying the life. This is ROGER FEDERER. And he has one of the greatest coaches ever in Paul Annacone . FAR GREATER THAN YOU, I'M SURE. You questioning Federer and Annacone is ridiculous.
Which is more likely? That you, 5263, has found an amazing insight that Federer and Annacone haven't thought of or explored? Or that you, 5263, don't have near enough data points and are being overly simplistic?
When I apply Occam's razor, I know which option I'm choosing.
Separate names with a comma.