Unpopular opinion - technique is not that important

d-quik

d-quik

Legend
Taken from:
https://www.reddit.com/r/10s/comments/15ef5zo

"I hear a lot of people say tennis is a very technical sport. But how many times do you see players with a ****ty technique that are very good, and players with good strokes that can’t seem to win a match.

there are a million different ways to hit a forehand, it is rare to see 2 players that have identical technique, like fed and dimitrov.

Imo if you have a good contact point out in front your shots can be as ugly as you want as long as they feel comfortable to you.

Take benoit paire that has the ugliest fh of all time. yes it sucks and its his worst shot but it was good enough to be top 20.

or medvedev being #1 with the weirdest shots on the tour."
 
tjanev said:
Technique is what brings you consistency, efficiency, power and control. Everyone has varying degrees of each. It's what makes tennis interesting.
Click to expand...

100% watch a tournament kid with proper training play a tournament kid without it and see the outcome. For us adults that is different as there are so many factors that come into play so that is where adults confuse all this somehow think they are decent players when really they aren't.

Proper strokes, proper footwork, proper understanding of points, proper understanding of what you do between points and manage the battle, those are all techniques and all make the better player and the player that wins vs. one that has a weakness in one or more of these areas that can be exploited.

In Junior tennis I have seen so many "Tennis Dad's" try to teach their kids the game because they know so much more than any tennis coach and watch their kids struggle against those with proper training. Real tennis takes real technique and proper training to play properly.
 
Last edited:
d-quik said:
how many times do you see players with a ****ty technique that are very good, and players with good strokes that can’t seem to win a match.
Click to expand...
I never see players with ****ty technique that are very good - they usually beat only other players with ****ty technique.
I never see players with good strokes that can’t seem to win a match - but I see many low level players who think they have good strokes that can’t seem to win a match. Good strokes means having the proper fundamentals even if there are some quirky styles that make shots visually not pleasing.

3.5/4.0 players look exactly like self-taught players with unconventional technique lacking some of the fundamentals needed to become advanced players even if in their minds they think they look like Federer or Djokovic. Spectators watching them play never think they look like pros.

Some players at lower levels have somewhat decent looking groundstrokes, but invariably they don’t have enough spin, hit too flat with low margin for error and therefore make too many errors to progress much further. Plus they usually have an ineffective serve or poor net game/overheads which is also what blocks their progress.
 
There’s always a technique for doing something. And there are different ways of doing things. If the job is done with the desired outcome, is the technique good?
For example when is the technique of racket take back a problem, when is it not?


 
Curious said:
There’s always a technique for doing something. And there are different ways of doing things. If the job is done with the desired outcome, is the technique good?
For example when is the technique of racket take back a problem, when is it not?


Click to expand...

Dude, we are looking at a 7.95 UTR. Certainly a 7.95 UTR has work to do to be a better player. You mention the take back. I will suggest court positionin and a host of other things needed to work on to be a better player. I hope you are not suggesting a 7.95 is the ultimate level for a lady player and moreover one that plans on playing at a strong college program.
 
LOBALOT said:
Dude, we are looking at a 7.95 UTR. Certainly a 7.95 UTR has work to do to be a better player. You mention the take back. I will suggest court positionin and a host of other things needed to work on to be a better player. I hope you are not suggesting a 7.95 is the ultimate level for a lady player and moreover one that plans on playing at a strong college program.
Click to expand...
Sure. Most people think about stroke technique when technique is mentioned. And you know take back type is one of the top items in our list!:)
 
Curious said:
Sure. Most people think about stroke technique when technique is mentioned. And you know take back type is one of the top items in our list!:)
Click to expand...

So that is a good point. I will make another. Right now my son is a mental midget and it is costing him matches that a year ago he would win easily. His UTR is not what it was a year ago. The mental part of the game is a technique.

All of this stuff is technique and skill developed either on ones own or taught but proper none-the-less. Not done well and the weakness is easily exposed and evident as our family is currently seeing with my son. He will turn it around but that was my point in the earlier post.
 
Curious said:
Do we have to remember MEP on every second page on this forum?
Click to expand...
I’ve never seen him play in real life and never seen anyone who plays like him who is a 4.5. Just watching on video, it may be hard to pick up the subtle things he does to bother his opponents. In any case, he is famous because he is such a rarity. Most 4.5s have conventional looking technique and learned tennis as kids under coaching.
 
socallefty said:
I’ve never seen him play in real life and never seen anyone who plays like him who is a 4.5. Just watching on video, it may be hard to pick up the subtle things he does to bother his opponents. In any case, he is famous because he is such a rarity. Most 4.5s have conventional looking technique and learned tennis as kids under coaching.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I haven’t seen many like him either. Special indeed.
 
Sorry about commenting on the kid by the way. I wouldn't really post about a kid who is hoping to play college tennis on this forum. I am sure she has aspirations and all and will do great so I hope she keeps at it.
 
Curious said:
But that’s the core of the matter. There’s more than one way to do it well. Some may be very unorthodox, weird, ugly.
Click to expand...
Not really. For the most part there are some things that are basic to the game that many don't do properly and if you don't you cannot do your own thing and think you will progress.
 
I mean, you can have just enough technique to win matches.
Adrian Mannarino 19lbs strung.
Think about all the energy he's saving.

But not a single match won against big 4.
Beat Wawrinka tho.
Think about all that technique and training in order to beat this type of player lol. MEP/Counter puncher+++++UTR16

Not for mortal souls imo.
Oh yea, and it's ALL about the legs.
 
Last edited:
LOBALOT said:
Not really. For the most part there are some things that are basic to the game that many don't do properly and if you don't you cannot do your own thing and think you will progress.
Click to expand...
Great point. Obsessing about other things while the basics are not there is a big and common problem.
 
d-quik said:
Taken from:
https://www.reddit.com/r/10s/comments/15ef5zo

"I hear a lot of people say tennis is a very technical sport. But how many times do you see players with a ****ty technique that are very good, and players with good strokes that can’t seem to win a match.

there are a million different ways to hit a forehand, it is rare to see 2 players that have identical technique, like fed and dimitrov.

Imo if you have a good contact point out in front your shots can be as ugly as you want as long as they feel comfortable to you.

Take benoit paire that has the ugliest fh of all time. yes it sucks and its his worst shot but it was good enough to be top 20.

or medvedev being #1 with the weirdest shots on the tour."
Click to expand...
I think they're confusing aesthetics with technique. Ugly strokes can be technically solid.
 
travlerajm said:
The art is to do it without your opponent realizing you’re doing it.
Click to expand...
Yes this is the real dark art to it, though there is also the argument to made for sending them a message by not bothering to try hiding it. Depends on how much and in what way they angered you for you to even go down that road in the first place.
 
Tennis matchplay can be won (or lost) in many ways, mental, emotional, retrieval ability, consistancy, pace, tactics, strategy etc. Thus the OP's premise is correct, correct stroke mechanics is not required to win and having it is not a guarantee of success at matchplay. HOWEVER, that isn't important, what is important is that all things being equal, having correct stroke mechanics is better than incorrect stroke mechanics.

It's sort of like saying great footspeed isn't required to win, but having slow footspeed is never an advantage.
 
I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again, if you start looking at it as fundamentals and style instead of lumping it together as technique you’ll get a better understanding of what’s going on. Fundamentals are balance, contact point, prep (core), reading the ball and movement to the ball, footwork. All great players posses those traits. Style is their own personal touch on the shot. Not everyone is Federer, and not everyone is Santoro. I used those 2 extreme examples on purpose. There lots of in between and someone like Medvedev has his own style but his fundamentals are all there like the other top players. Tennis coaches need to get away from using the term technique too much, along with using the term talent but that’s a whole other discussion.
 
socallefty said:
I never see players with ****ty technique that are very good - they usually beat only other players with ****ty technique.
I never see players with good strokes that can’t seem to win a match - but I see many low level players who think they have good strokes that can’t seem to win a match. Good strokes means having the proper fundamentals even if there are some quirky styles that make shots visually not pleasing.

3.5/4.0 players look exactly like self-taught players with unconventional technique lacking some of the fundamentals needed to become advanced players even if in their minds they think they look like Federer or Djokovic. Spectators watching them play never think they look like pros.

Some players at lower levels have somewhat decent looking groundstrokes, but invariably they don’t have enough spin, hit too flat with low margin for error and therefore make too many errors to progress much further. Plus they usually have an ineffective serve or poor net game/overheads which is also what blocks their progress.
Click to expand...
This is why I think it is important for adult recreational players to film themselves on a ball machine and during matches. What you think you are doing hitting ground strokes vs. what you are actually doing is usually way off. First step of improvement is self awareness.
 
socallefty said:
I’ve never seen him play in real life and never seen anyone who plays like him who is a 4.5. Just watching on video, it may be hard to pick up the subtle things he does to bother his opponents. In any case, he is famous because he is such a rarity. Most 4.5s have conventional looking technique and learned tennis as kids under coaching.
Click to expand...
I used to have a young guy (just out of college, played a lower position on a better than average D3 team) on my 4.5 team with the ugliest strokes, but he could get to a lot of balls, and was scrappier than all get out. If guys could hit regular winners and played well he was definitely beatable. But he also could really frustrate players with his grit and determination. He won more often than not at 4.5, playing a similar style to MEP (though not as much slice). I would talk to guys after playing him and they almost couldn't believe they lost to him. I think most people would label him as a 4.5 pusher...he was just really good at it.
 
Technique doesn't matter because it's easy in tennis to find competitive matches at any level. So you can lose and win matches with any technique as long as you are slotted right. But it is impossible to become a great tennis player with bad form, especially with certain fundamentals.

It's different in a sport like golf where the course is a static enemy and the hole is always 4 1/4". There, everything is about technique to get to the lowest score. In tennis, 2.5 ladies can have perfectly competitive match with each other despite abysmal technique and athleticism. A 35 HDCP golfer will spend his round hunting for balls, missing 3 footers and never scoring anywhere near even bogey golf.
 
It's a good discussion, but I would not consider anyone in the top 1000 or so ( a point of argument is what number, but who cares, I basically mean a professional) having poor technique. If they do, then the word technique becomes too broad to even discuss the idea as the concept might apply to rec players and not pros., but would then apply to anyone who isn't using the prefect form, whatever that is.

Basically, the original thought I can't get on board with, professionals have great technique with individual style that varies.
 
d-quik said:
Taken from:
https://www.reddit.com/r/10s/comments/15ef5zo

"I hear a lot of people say tennis is a very technical sport. But how many times do you see players with a ****ty technique that are very good, and players with good strokes that can’t seem to win a match.

there are a million different ways to hit a forehand, it is rare to see 2 players that have identical technique, like fed and dimitrov.

Imo if you have a good contact point out in front your shots can be as ugly as you want as long as they feel comfortable to you.

Take benoit paire that has the ugliest fh of all time. yes it sucks and its his worst shot but it was good enough to be top 20.

or medvedev being #1 with the weirdest shots on the tour."
Click to expand...


All this talks about form, not technique. The techniques and tick points of the strokes are represented for all the above examples and more, including the take back, load, drop, swingpath, contact point, follow through... Technique IS the process and form is the varying execution of it. There are some varying points of technique, but it is all essentially the same.
 
I think technique matters but the most important thing is what happens at contact. Personally over the last year my observable forehand technique has not improved much (although I did change my grip) in live ball situations but my contact is much better, so I’m hitting a better ball and coaches concur, but the technique’s not good enough to dictate or execute how I want. To get to the next level I’ll need to apply better technique in live ball situations, under pressure. Not there yet.

On backhand and serve both my contact (in part due to internalizing grip changes) AND technique have improved in live ball situations so they have more directly influenced my results.
 
John Yandell’s tennis site has a breakdown on different forms of high level pros for the major strokes.

While the forms might even look radically different he breaks it down to show how all of the high level strokes share certain basic commonalities.
 
Dartagnan64 said:
Technique doesn't matter because it's easy in tennis to find competitive matches at any level. So you can lose and win matches with any technique as long as you are slotted right. But it is impossible to become a great tennis player with bad form, especially with certain fundamentals.

It's different in a sport like golf where the course is a static enemy and the hole is always 4 1/4". There, everything is about technique to get to the lowest score. In tennis, 2.5 ladies can have perfectly competitive match with each other despite abysmal technique and athleticism. A 35 HDCP golfer will spend his round hunting for balls, missing 3 footers and never scoring anywhere near even bogey golf.
Click to expand...
Aren’t there golf players who happily golf a few times a month shooting 120 and drinking beer/smoking cigars while playing with their buddies? They are not worrying about shooting par. Isn’t it the same as low level tennis players enjoying a match with their friends? If you want to be good at golf to shoot near par consistently, you need good technique. If you want to be good at tennis and win matches against advanced/Open competition, you need good technique. In both sports, people with bad technique can still have a good time if they are not trying to get a low score in golf or win matches against better players in tennis.
 
Curious said:
There’s always a technique for doing something. And there are different ways of doing things. If the job is done with the desired outcome, is the technique good?
For example when is the technique of racket take back a problem, when is it not?


Click to expand...

So are you considering using a WTA fh now?
 
As long as tennis court has a fixed dimension and net size of certain height, technique to get the ball and technique to hit it to the other side of the net within the bounds is the most important factor.
A good looking technique is a bonus and is likely to attract spectators.
 
socallefty said:
Aren’t there golf players who happily golf a few times a month shooting 120 and drinking beer/smoking cigars while playing with their buddies? They are not worrying about shooting par. Isn’t it the same as low level tennis players enjoying a match with their friends? If you want to be good at golf to shoot near par consistently, you need good technique. If you want to be good at tennis and win matches against advanced/Open competition, you need good technique. In both sports, people with bad technique can still have a good time if they are not trying to get a low score in golf or win matches against better players in tennis.
Click to expand...
This is correct. And often in those cases they will indulge in certain things - mulligans, foot wedges, preferred lies - that purists would find abhorrent.
 
Curious said:
Yeah much better after 3 weeks of rest but won’t rally or play points until fully recovered. Gentle stationary hitting only. I missed it so badly!
Click to expand...

How long do you think you will need to go on further with no tennis for?
 
zill said:
How long do you think you will need to go on further with no tennis for?
Click to expand...
Curious said:
Yeah much better after 3 weeks of rest but won’t rally or play points until fully recovered. Gentle stationary hitting only. I missed it so badly!
Click to expand...
When you're not playing, can you still learn and modify your strokes or any techniques?

I'm back to trying Djokerish long backswing :) This time I know a bit better and it feels very playable.

Tinkering is hella fun. Never give that up, C and Z
 
user92626 said:
When you're not playing, can you still learn and modify your strokes or any techniques?

I'm back to trying Djokerish long backswing :) This time I know a bit better and it feels very playable.

Tinkering is hella fun. Never give that up, C and Z
Click to expand...
From my experience need both thinking and experimenting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

C
Is Technique important?
2
Replies
54
Views
4K
kevhen
K
Z
Interesting article on correct technique
Replies
41
Views
4K
GuyClinch
G
FiReFTW
Decent technique vs horrible technique dinker video play
Replies
10
Views
986
heninfan99
heninfan99
R
Is perfect technique = power/racquet head speed?
Replies
16
Views
2K
wannabe good
W
K
  • Poll Poll
Which is more important: Technique or footwork?
2
Replies
92
Views
6K
Swissv2
Swissv2
Back
Top