The Neutral stance on the Forehand.
- Thread starter Djoker91
- Start date
SystemicAnomaly
Bionic Poster
Didn't Murray prove himself in his 5 set AO semi against Djokovic?
SystemicAnomaly
Bionic Poster
Methinks that you live on (in) a river in Egypt, the river Denial. All kidding aside, it is no stretch to come to the conclusion that the so-called modern game puts a lot more stress on the body than the older "classic" styles. We have seen a lot more injuries with both pros and amateurs in the past decade or two then we ever saw in previous decades. Sure the modern game styles are wonderful and have infused the game with more power and speed -- but this has not come without a price.
NY Times article on the demands/injuries of the modern game
As for my own hip flexor injury, that is a fairly recent development (about a year and a half). However, my belief that the prolific use of the open stance could lead to hip flexor problems goes back further than that. About 4 years ago, I started reading about concerns about the modern game and the overuse of the open-stance FH. I did quite a bit further research (other sources) that appeared to confirm my suspicions. The article by Dr Scott Riewald and the other links that I provided in my previous post are just a few of these sources. Sure, the are certainly other factors that can lead to hip issues. But it is difficult to ignore the role of the the added loading stresses of the modern FH.
I started using the open stance, in moderation, in the late 80s. In the past decade, particularly in the past few years, I've increased the frequency of my use of the open stance FH -- despite the research that I had done. I've never used the open stance exclusively, but its use appears to be a major factor in my hip issue.
Some of the links that I had found 4 years ago are no longer accessible (or their URLs have changed). One source that discusses the added stresses to the body from prolific use of the open stance FH is Complete Conditioning for Tennis, by Paul Roetert & T.S. Ellenbecker. The
USTA and other sources also provided articles that spoke of the concerns of the open stance FH. I can't seem to be able to dig up all of these but here is an in-depth discussion from Revolutionary Tennis:
Thru the Looking Glass -- F/H Open Stance = Injury
.
Last edited:
I noticed this as well. I think too another thing to take into consideration is how players hit with all their weight on the back foot, where the front foot is acutally off the ground. I think that is a rally ball type of stroke, and stepping in with a neutral stance is for the winner. I am going to try to hit off the loaded back foot next time im out. Anyone ever done that?
Coming from a huge Djokovic fan, Murray is now a force to be reckoned with. I want Djokovic to pull off the calendar slam, but I think Murray has Wimbledon this year. At least Djokovic has a extremely good chance of winning the French open, especially with the draw looking like it does right now
Hitting while planted on rear foot, front foot off the ground.
Very good Spanish style, with control, consistency, lots of topspin, good recovery, great for sustaining the point. They hit winners once in a while off that stance, but once in a while.
Now try something. Dropfeed yourself this technique. Add an open stance. What do you get?
Rally ball.
Very good Spanish style, with control, consistency, lots of topspin, good recovery, great for sustaining the point. They hit winners once in a while off that stance, but once in a while.
Now try something. Dropfeed yourself this technique. Add an open stance. What do you get?
Rally ball.
Great. I'm gonna employ that during the course of a rally due to the great recovery time and less time to set up for the forehand. And as soon as I've moved my opponent around enough and get a floated I'm gonna step in and go with a neutral stance fore the winner. I've seen many pros do that. I've seen them hit winners off the back foot too but im gonna stay away from that and keep things sound
I agree. If I get a floater that just sits there for me, I'm not going to force myself to be open if I absolutely am positive based on my game that if I go neutral and take a small step towards the ball it will create a much faster shot and a winner. Can't afford to squander it by by forcing myself to be open and thus hitting a ball my opponent can get to and let him back in point and the possibility of losing the point when I had clear control and should have won that point. Doesn't do good for the match on the score board and especially mentally. Hard to get passed points I know I played better in and should have won. I'll spend the entire set saying in my mind "freakin forced the open stance, should have stepped in. It was right there". Had that happen to many times. Ends up being a bad turning point for me. You have that experience?
tennis_balla
Hall of Fame
Djoker, you need to teach yourself or be taught when to hit from an open stance and when to hit from a neutral stance. Both are needed, and open stance does not cause injury. If this were the case then all current pro's would have hip problems.
Power Player
Bionic Poster
No i dont because i grew up learning neutral stance, so the open stance to me was a way to hit more offensively from wider angles of the court. You will get it though..may need a coaching session for your footowrk.
5263 there is a recent thread in here on using the wrist and the becker vid is in there.
Yea my strokes are pretty good. All and all I'm happy with them. Just when its hit the winner time I had that little hiccup between stances. Definitely need to tighten up the footwork. Thanks for the input man. Let's go for the djoker slam all 4 this year baby
SystemicAnomaly
Bionic Poster
You seem to have missed the message. Players who use an open stance FH most of the time run the risk of a hip flexor injury. As the Revolutionary Tennis article suggests, the likelihood is also probably dependent on your implementation of the open stance FH. The implementation that Roger often employs appears to be less stressful than the implementation employed by some other players (such as Guga & Lleyton).
As you mention, both stances should be used. All the current pros do not have hip problems, in part, cuz they all do not use the open stance FH exclusively. Variety is the key to minimizing hip issues and other injuries. Also, the specific implementation is another factor as I mentioned above. While some pros already suffer from hip problems in their 20s, some will not experience hip problems til their 30s or later in life. Mark my words.
.
Last edited:
In any event, causing injury or not, I believe a variety of stances is needed. Every top player has this. Federer and Djokovic especially. More weapons and less body stress.
5263
G.O.A.T.
You could see it either way, but for me, just proved more what he lacks.
I do see improvement in his Fh and mental game; it just not in place yet.
I think he did well to push him to 5 and didn't watch all or close enough
for specifics, But I don't see him as good enough to take it. IMO he needs
some breaks. Of course he is right there and can get one with the right
breaks.
With Joker it was different. I had commented many times his strokes were best
on tour, so he just need throttle back on taking too much risk too early in the
point. To beat him at this point when he is playing well, will take better use of
an all court game IMO. More like Fed used to play in 04.
Last edited:
5263
G.O.A.T.
Maybe the modern "game", but not the modern "stokes" themselves. The modern game is quite fast, demanding, and full of long tough rallys, along with a long tough schedule. That will surely wear on players in many ways, not just hips (concurs with the source you provided).
On the other hand, top pros have always use mostly modern strokes and Oscar developed his Modern strokes from studying the best players of the 60s and 70s,
the ones you say didn't have all these probs.
Even one of your listed references stated there are NO studies linking open stance to hip injuries. That is from your provided source.
Most importantly, No one is saying hit Open stance all the time. Nobody.
What is stated is to learn to hit open because it promotes balance and natural body movements, then play with no stance limitations. When you have learned in the open stance, then you step to neutral or closed, you will naturally more likely stay on balance and keep your strokes under control better. Your body will be better prepared to deal with the limitations of the lesser stances you may find yourself in during a point.
Maybe we will find the pros of today have hip problems from learning classic initially then evolving to modern over the years. Many of the hybrid techniques produce lots of stress till the player comes around to more full modern technique. Could be the evolution that is tough on the hips. Not saying this is the case, but we just don't know. I think it wrong to state these hunches about open stance as facts.
Last edited:
gregor.b
Professional
The idea is to have the body weight transfer towards/through the ball.That way you get more power and don't have to hit so high to get depth. The ball only needs to go a couple feet over the net to land past the baseline. This allows you to take time away from the opponent. The more grooved you get with the stroke,the harder you can hit it.
5263
G.O.A.T.
Timbo slice say you guys are much more modern in technique in Oz; are guys still talking about wt shift into the ball?
Thought you guys had moved past that classic approach.
SystemicAnomaly
Bionic Poster
The source that you are referring to is from a USTA Q&A health-fitness page. Unfortunately, the questions & answers are not dated. So we really don't know how long ago that particular statement was made. However, the following excerpt is from a later question:
"... I think it is definitely possible that the pain you are experiencing in your hip is the result of overuse. You say you are hitting 500 open stance forehands every day. That means you are loading that hip and putting essentially the same stresses on it each time you hit the ball. That is a lot of repetitive stress, and you can probably see how that could damage the structures in your hip. Overuse injuries occur over time...
Every time a stress is applied to a tendon, or ligament, or another structure in the body a small amount of damage occurs. This is not enough to cause an injury, but over time, these small micro-tears build up and lead to pain and inflammation.
One suggestion would be to mix things up a bit – play with a partner or have the ball machine alternately feed to your forehand and backhand. At least then you will be moving and hitting different shots – some likely will still be open stance forehands but you also will likely hit some with semi-open or square stances."
You don't really have to accept these concerns as irrefutable facts. However, these concerns should not be ignored -- they should serve as a caveat that players should probably heed. Quite a few credible sources have indicated that there appears to be a strong correlation between hip problems and the prolific use of the open stance FH. My own experience with other players and my own hip indicates to me that the concern is probably not unwarranted. As both you and I have stated, a variety of stances are used by most elite players. I believe that this variety should tend to minimize overuse injuries to hips, shoulders and other parts of the body.
.
Last edited:
5263
G.O.A.T.
Sounds reasonable enough and we are both biased by our own experience.
I'm 51 and have started using as much open as I can over the last 5 years,
and even I my age, I feel it has greatly reduced the stresses for me compared
to when I used more neutral stances. Open to me should be so smooth and flowing
that it is hard for me to relate it to causing problems. I think it allows players to
work harder, which may lead to the problems. I can see why you would be swayed
in much the same way by your experience.
I'm also not convinced that the players continuing to use the classic elements to
their game is not causing the problems. I doubt we will know for sure, as it is
tough to break things down. Maybe there are better ways to use open than other
ways to use open. Guga and some others have some odd aspects to their open
it seems to me.
Good points you make.
Based on my experience of play, I need to at least open the game neutral. Makes sure my strokes hit through the ball. After 5 min or warming up like that, I can use open, because im warmed up and used to the weight shift. Maybe I'm just different. I play at the rec level, and sit and wait for a forehand while open stanced, realizing I have more than enough time to neutral up and groove it. Even the pros on the backhand side, always closing up. So its possible. Forehand side can carry that same principal I believe. It would actually be nice to have a match with you since our styles are different. I played 2 matches and my forehand is back to money. No more sailing. Take a look at this gentlemen, stance and all. I hit extremely similar. Same grip and same result of forehand. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPCY1PNAYqE
5263
G.O.A.T.
Good your stroke is back. Wil is a good example of no stance dependence. He hits from balance and even when closed or neutral, does not do a wt shift out to ball on target line, but instead rotates more side to side as evidenced by his left foot compensating out to the left and his finish back towards the center of the court on most of the neutral stance shots. I don't expect you hit that much like him or you wouldn't be on here asking what you did : )
KenC
Hall of Fame
Another way to think of "which stance should I use?" is to base that decision on what ball you are facing, where you are, how your feet are going to get you there, and what shot do you need to reply with. In this bigger picture scenario sometimes an open stance just doesn't make sense, in others a neutral stance just doesn't and often times a semi-open stance/semi neutral stance is just what you need.
Deep, hard hit balls out wide definitely favor an open stance as your feet probably don't have the time to get there, plant the back foot and drive forward with a neutral stance. An easy ball that bounces on the service line right in the middle isn't going to favor an open stance.
I tend to focus a lot on footwork as it is usually what either wins me a point or makes me lose a point. Usually the swing is pretty much the same movement, so the real wildcard is footwork that enables you the best opportunity to return the ball. In this regard, it is worthwhile to learn how to hit open, semi-open and neutral and not focus on just one or even give preference to one. Let your feet decide which one to employ based on how they can best set up for the shot.
Deep, hard hit balls out wide definitely favor an open stance as your feet probably don't have the time to get there, plant the back foot and drive forward with a neutral stance. An easy ball that bounces on the service line right in the middle isn't going to favor an open stance.
I tend to focus a lot on footwork as it is usually what either wins me a point or makes me lose a point. Usually the swing is pretty much the same movement, so the real wildcard is footwork that enables you the best opportunity to return the ball. In this regard, it is worthwhile to learn how to hit open, semi-open and neutral and not focus on just one or even give preference to one. Let your feet decide which one to employ based on how they can best set up for the shot.
5263
G.O.A.T.
Maybe, but
there are some great coaches that would say thinking about stance while going to your shot as you describe, would not be recommended at all.
here is a kid with a nice attack from a slightly open stance, even though he has to move forward quick to get there. Kid is reported to be a national level player, although he does not appear very refined as yet, so I thought his example excellent on this-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JGOpBOInb38&feature=related
I don't agree with all the commentator say on there, but think he is spot on talking about how attacking the short ball well is key.
KenC
Hall of Fame
That kid's neutral stance is a very good example of how to execute it. Pushed off the back foot and weight on the front foot and still moving forward into the ball, so that right after contact the back foot has to come forward to keep balance. This isn't the classical neutral stance that we learned in the 70's but is today's much more aggressive neutral stance.
While it is great for attacking a short ball and hitting an approach as one goes to the net, there are times when that neutral stance will not be advantageous. I think a deep, high ball really needs an open stance. I also think an open stance factors in better when dealing with hard hit corner shots as there is less preparation needed to set up and there is less recovery needed afterward. Both short balls and wide balls obviously also depend on very good footwork or execution of the swing could be erratic. Other than short balls and very wide balls, I would probably suggest a semi open stance to take advantage of both forward weight transfer combined with good trunk rotation.
If I was a coach I would probably teach the semi-open first and then later let it be adapted to the neutral and full open as needed. Although, if I was a coach I would teach tennis based on sound footwork from the beginning and let that always factor into shot selection.
5263
G.O.A.T.
Well really that kid's "neutral stance" is an "Open stance", so interesting spin you put on it. Currently we only have closed, neutral, and open stance, so once he opens it, it is an open stance. If you want to further describe it as some do with "semi open" that is fine of course, as long as you understand that semi-open is an aspect of open stance, (just like it's closed or not-no semi-closed). Neutral is a very small window to describe a stance that was between open and closed. No need to expand the neutral and is no "semi-neutral" at this point. Trying to hedge it over to neutral is just holding on to old ideas and misleading. Better to accept open as open for the reasons it is used and why it works better.
Last edited:
KenC
Hall of Fame
^^ My bad for terminology. I thought closed stance was older terminology replaced by neutral stance. I refer to neutral as feet lined up perpendicular to the net and open as parallel. Semi-open as in between.
If there is a difference between closed and neutral I would like to know what it is, especially in terms of feet positioning.
If there is a difference between closed and neutral I would like to know what it is, especially in terms of feet positioning.
5263
G.O.A.T.
I believe neutral stance is having the feet in alignment with the shot line, and nothing to do with the net IMO and.
Closed stance is where the front foot steps across that shot line, closing it off and opposite from stepping to open the stance, often seen on Bhs. Many people include Neutral stance as a subset of the Closed stance, but not the open stance.
Open stance will be any noticeable front foot placement off of the line of shot line, opening up to the shot line and opposite of closed foot placement.
As you can see here, neutral is a small segment and sort of new for more wide usage. It is often referred to as closed and could be a subset of closed, but not IMO as part of open. I don't have a problem with semi-open, but it is a subset of Open and not of neutral, which has no subset. Neutral is a very narrow area that could be seen as closed but makes the line before open.
But even with how you felt it was used, should have been clear this kid was not neutral or closed and instead was using a lightly opened stance.
Last edited:
SystemicAnomaly
Bionic Poster
This is from an old Mountain Ghost post:
Some people still refer to a neutral (square or even) stance as closed. However, many of us prefer to make a distinction between a neutral stance and a stance that is significantly closed. Any stance that is close to even, one that is slightly open or one that is slightly closed, would still qualify as a neutral stance.
With open and neutral stances, the hips are free to rotate. However, if the stance is significantly closed, the hips are locked. This is the primary reason the distinction is made between closed and neutral stances. With a stance that is sufficiently closed, the back leg must swing around in order to utilize a body rotation.
Hitting with a closed stance is ok in some situations. However, if you run out wide for a FH (or 2-handed BH), the closed stance can cost you valuable recovery time. You might be required to run a least 2 extra steps after contact to recover for the next shot = very inefficient. On the FH side, I believe that Nadal does this quite a bit more more than Federer (who, I believe, rarely does it at all). One would be better off employing a neutral, open to semi-open stance to avoid this recovery time issue. A mogul move can be used in some situations to hasten recovery time when retrieving a ball out wide.
You will often see Federer and other 1-handers employing a closed stance on the BH side. This is fine because this shot requires very little, if any, hip rotation. Not much of a recovery time issue in this case.
Some people still refer to a neutral (square or even) stance as closed. However, many of us prefer to make a distinction between a neutral stance and a stance that is significantly closed. Any stance that is close to even, one that is slightly open or one that is slightly closed, would still qualify as a neutral stance.
With open and neutral stances, the hips are free to rotate. However, if the stance is significantly closed, the hips are locked. This is the primary reason the distinction is made between closed and neutral stances. With a stance that is sufficiently closed, the back leg must swing around in order to utilize a body rotation.
Hitting with a closed stance is ok in some situations. However, if you run out wide for a FH (or 2-handed BH), the closed stance can cost you valuable recovery time. You might be required to run a least 2 extra steps after contact to recover for the next shot = very inefficient. On the FH side, I believe that Nadal does this quite a bit more more than Federer (who, I believe, rarely does it at all). One would be better off employing a neutral, open to semi-open stance to avoid this recovery time issue. A mogul move can be used in some situations to hasten recovery time when retrieving a ball out wide.
You will often see Federer and other 1-handers employing a closed stance on the BH side. This is fine because this shot requires very little, if any, hip rotation. Not much of a recovery time issue in this case.
SystemicAnomaly
Bionic Poster
Neutral vs Closed stance
Another distinction can often be made between a neutral and closed stance. With the former, the player is often stepping towards the net (or shifting their weight or momentum in that direction). With a closed stance, the player is often stepping toward the side fence - the weight/momentum is moving out to the side (rather than into the court).
We can see this by noting the orientation of the front foot for neutral and closed stances in the Mountain Ghost diagram in my previous post.
Another distinction can often be made between a neutral and closed stance. With the former, the player is often stepping towards the net (or shifting their weight or momentum in that direction). With a closed stance, the player is often stepping toward the side fence - the weight/momentum is moving out to the side (rather than into the court).
We can see this by noting the orientation of the front foot for neutral and closed stances in the Mountain Ghost diagram in my previous post.
5263
G.O.A.T.
How do you feel about making these based on relationship to the net?
If you run around the Bh to hit a Fh back to the ad court where it came from, then step into the shot on the shot line inbound and out bound, then that would be closed due to use the net as the reference. Does that seem right to you?
Just interested in your opinion on this.
SystemicAnomaly
Bionic Poster
Excellent point. For most shots, the net could serve as an adequate stance reference. However, as you have suggested, it is not really the best reference for all shots. As you stated in a previous post, the neutral stance (and other stances) should or could be reference to the "shot line".
However, when you set up for a shot and assume a particular stance, the direction of the shot should not yet be established. In most cases, you should assume a stance and body orientation that should allow you to hit X-court, DTL or any other direction. With this in mind, how do we reference the stance?
5263
G.O.A.T.
Part of why I like open stance so, but your points are good of course.
I expect you take a stance, then the shot line determines what the stance was. This is how I view it.
You agree?
If you start with lightly open, the inside out would end up very open, with the inside in being more like neutral; each quite easy to execute from there.
Another reason not to be stance dependent with your shots, as it leaves those options open regardless of feet position.
Similar threads
