Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by topspin, Jul 11, 2004.
From a technical point of view, what do you think of their technical skills.
keep the votes coming...
The best thing about their technique is preparation. They get their racquet back so early and are pretty balanced while moving with the racquet back. For me, that is always a challenge, so I really try to watch for how they do that so well, when I see them on tv.
I think Venus is better balanced than Serena. Venus makes more unforced errors, but her form is actually much better than Serena's, especially on the serve and forehand.
I'll say Serena, her 2nd serve was always better than her sister's and now Venus has a bit slower 1st serve than she used to because she can't rely on her head-pulling-off-to-the-side-and-down 2nd serve, which is just awful technique. Also, it is known that Venus' forehand breaks down much more than her sister's. About the only poor technique Serena often does is to hit off her back foot at the baseline. Venus is the better player at the net.
Technical Smechnical, who can really say what is correct and who really cares. Tennis is not about form, it is about results. That is one of the beatiful things about the game. Bring whatever kind of game you got to the court and compete. IMO, the winner has the best form.
You get exactly no points, no games, no sets for form or technique.
There is a guy who gives lessons at the courts where I play sometimes, and he "plays" Open events. He has beautiful looking strokes, and to him, that is the most important part of the game. I took great pleasure in thrashing him 0 and 2 last week.
After the match, he offered to help me improve my strokes.....for a fee. Those same strokes that ran him corner to corner, and the same serve and volley game that wrong footed him left and right.
Venus' strokes are technically perfect.........for her, as are Serena's ffor her, as are Justine's for her, as are Davenport's for her, as are Kim's for her, etc, etc, etc, etc.
What they do well, THEY DO WELL.
- Brute Force Serve/Baseline Game.
Some Skinny girl that can hit almost as hard as they do, and chase everything down, just might beat them some day.
Time to mix it up girls !!!
Those that don't evolve, become extrinct.
. . . Bud
I think that what bigserving is saying is true at the recreational level. I play against this guy that is nicknamed the "pooper scooper" because of his weird style. He's the 1st to admit his style is incorrect, but he is a very effective player and it suits him well. But if he meets a solid 5.0 player with good sound tennis form, he will lose easily. At the pro level, it's a whole other story and a good tennis technique is critical. The W sisters got away with less than perfect technique but they should count their blessings because, for now at least, the gig is up.
Serena is definitely more consistent than Venus, but her form is not better. Serena's a late hitter on her forehands and although Serena's serve is more consistent, Venus has better form on the serve.
Serena's serve is better than Venus. Even Hingis said Venus serve is easy to hit back even though its faster. Serena has better placement, disguise, and spin.
Bigserving is completely right. Technique?? Who's to say what's correct, or "the best". The Williams have thrashed the best players in the game over the past several years, and I don't see any trophies given out to Henin or Clisters for "better technique". THEY LOST! The bottom line is winning (not whining!). I'm no big fan of theirs or anyone else....I just like to watch a good match. This whole technique thing is pathetic.
I agree, results are what are important in tennis. The Willaims sisters have very good technique.
Indeed. Hitting 100% first serves in a set, while serving over 100mph, and hitting every corner in th boxes is neither coincidence or luck. ( Serena v. Hingis 2001 USO)
What is technique? Lindsay Davenport has very beautiful stroke to watch, yet she has a losing record against both sisters, suffering her worst career defeat at the hands of Serena.
On a good day she hits as many winners. On a bad day she makes as many errors. Prettier errors, to some, but still errors. On top of that she has been out injured as much as, if not more often than the sisters. How then can anyone make the argument that it is better to play like Lindsay over Venus or Serena?
And for what? So some canadian can nod approvingly at your form and become your # 1 fan?
You guys are just pissed cuz u don't like the poll results. Well too bad because this poll was instigated by another thread where you clowns were trying to say that I was the only one who said they have a poor technique. So now you are trying to change the topic in this thread as well and shifting to focus to results rather than technique. This thread served it's purpose: it shut you guys up from trying to say they actually had good form.
Topspin-Your poll has not proved that the Williams Sisters have "poor technique." The poll says nothing about "poor technique"-it says "not very natural or smooth." No one was denying that the William sisters aren’t the smoothest ball strikers on the WTA tour. Perhaps you should start a new poll and use the words "poor technique" and see if it still wins. But more importantly, as everyone who has posted in your Williams bashing posts EXCEPT you has said, the Williams sisters are extremely good tennis players. Furthermore, a loss to Sharapova did not prove some absurd theory that the Williams Sisters are bad tennis players. They have already have had GREAT careers and will continue to win grand slams. I'm curious to how you think the Williams sisters careers will unfold. Do you think either will win another grand slam? Or maybe even 2 or 3? Or do you think their "poor technique" is going to prevent them from ever winning another grand slam?
Because you were taken for a spin in a different thread, you started this dumbass poll (a/i'm right b/i'm somehow right c/people who disagree with me are wrong). That's whack man.
What about 'I don't like the Williams style of play for personal reasons you don't want to know about but they have good technique'?
Isn't that your main point (technique is directly related to results)? That the Williams domination will end/ poorer results will come because players with better technique are getting used to their power, and will subsequently expose their bad form.
I 0didn't vote because I think the pollster is a ninny.
Choppers, the only idiots who can't accept that the W sisters have poor technique are u and your 2 pals phil and pusher, quite a trio i might add. I did get some backup too btw in that other thread, but it seems you conveniently overlooked that fact.
You still don't get it. When I say they have a poor technique, it's always relative to the pro level. I never suggest that they have a poor technique that would not allow them to compete at the pro level. Just like if I tell you that Minardi has a slow car. It doesn't mean I can pass it with a Honda, it's just slow relative to the competition on the f1 circuit. And btw, saying that a technique is "not natural or smooth" is just more detailed than writing "poor technique".
To answer your question about the W sisters future, I think that Serena will win a few more slams for sure, and Venus I'm not sure of at this point, it all depends on her motivation.
My original prediction on the old board never said that they would stop winning titles. I said that they would not dominate because other players would find ways to attack the W sisters' weaknesses and be able to compete without intimidation. I also said that the W sisters would likely suffer injury due to the nature of their physical training required to sustain the power game that has brought them so much success. It's all common sense I know, but at the time when I said that, all you heard on this board is how great and invincible they were.
David sorry but you are lost man. I wasn't taken for a spin anywhere btw, just some Williams-are- the-best preachers jumped on my Maria Sharapova thread and hijacked it into a desperate attempt to save face from the recent lack of success for the W sisters. The poll was the easiest way to prove my point. So what's so "whack" about that? This is a message board and I don't need your approval for posting. If you don't like it, move on, plenty of other "whack" thread out there for you to poop on.
Bertchel, you can't vote anyway, you have to be at least 2 years old to register to vote.
Topspin - I still don't know what you're trying to "prove" here. You're getting really boring now. Before just immature and stupid, now boring which, on a chat board, is an even greater offense. Why don't you just can it? You proved a point (to yourself at least), and you posted a fine, completely scientific and valid "poll", so why not move on, moron?
"saying that a technique is "not natural or smooth" is just more detailed than writing "poor technique". That statement is clearly untrue. But regardless, I think you should just give up arguing with people, you reply to almost every post disagreeing with you with an insult-and its not as if anyway is really agreeing with you. Just let it go man.
bigserving and others: technique (i feel) is very important though if you wish to be able to play injury free tennis for a long period of time or a lifetme. kudos on thrashing the guy w. better strokes than you, but in the long term folks w. the better technique can play a long time uninjured..folks w. poor technique can not... evidence the wiliamses (who seem to be oft injured), seles, and the list goes on. no small coincidence that at the rec level the players w. the tennis elbow braces are most uually the ones w. the lousy stroke production. dont even get me started on the gear my .02. ed
NoBadMojo-Be careful to attribute all injuries to "poor technique" Justin Henin, Lindsey Davenport, Martina Hingis and Kim Clijsters suffer more injuries than the Williams sisters, all of whom are considered to have "good" technique. No one argues that Gugah and Safin have "poor technique" because they get hurt more often. There's a difference between having poor technique and playing a style of tennis that is more demanding on the body. Pro tennis is demanding, and injuries always occur whether you're Andre Agassi or Serena Williams.
Not to argue be stupid and argumentative, but I just had a client postpone so I have a minute to reply and perhaps expand and clarify.
With regards to technique. How does one judge the effectiveness of technique? Would that be results? Absolutely! Anyone who wants picture perfect smooth strokes, I think is missing the point.
Stefi Graf's groundies. If any of you saw her hit as a ten year old before her first competition, you would think she would never make as a junior let alone a pro, unless she improved her "technique".............wrong.
Jimmy Connors swung the racquet as if it weighed ten pounds and with his strokes, no one thought he was the heir apparent to any all time victory throne.
John Mac with his herkey jerkey everything. Part of his attitude came from dealing with coaches who tried to change his strokes as a junior. He just kept winning and lost respect for all of them (and most authority figures for that matter).
Monica Seles hits with two hands on the racquet of both sides.
Jim Courier hit off his back foot and used his wrists and forearms to generate enourmous power.
Martina N. never known for her groundstrokes.
Jan-Mike, as big and strong as he is using two hands off both sides, what the $%^# is that?
Pete Sampras won't be writing a book anytime soon title "how to hit a backhand like me" and expect it to sell.
Stefan Edberg cupped the ball on his forehand for his entire pro career.
Aside from Jan-Mike, these are some of the best players in the history of our game. Yet, they all have different strokes, different games. Some hit the ball with two hands on the racquet sometimes and one hand at others if you can believe that.
If you really believe in this correct technique theory. How can all of this be? If there IS a universal technically correct tennis stroke technique, how can the best players in the history of the game all be so different and yet so successful at different times and in different way? Is it really your opinion that you would recommend to each of the players above (and others) to change their strokes to something that is more aesthetically pleasing to you?
Simply, your theory is flawed, it is wrong, there is no basis for it.
Most players seek stroke improvement when a particular part of their game lacks effectiveness, not simply to look better. That is fine, that is what coaches are for.
IMO, anyone who hits a stroke with two hands on the racquet is technically flawed. I can't do it. That being said, if someone can get results using two hands, more power to them.
For those who say that technique alone causes injuries, Tracy Austin, Andrea Jaeger, Jimmy Arias. Come on. Top players, beautiful strokes, injury plagued careers. If only Venus and Serena had been around earlier, maybe Tracy and Andrea could have emulated their strokes and been less injury plagued!
Another ace up the T for bigserving
some of those people you mention had great technique ala sampras and edberg, and some other mention ala jaeger and arias had poor stroke production. i could care less what people do in the prep sequence of ball striking..its what they do at impact and beyond that are telling as far as good stroke production goes...do you think if samps and agassi and others had bad technique they could have played as long as they did? and played 'relatively' injury free for as long as they did? i think poor technique is often the result of simply trying to hit the ball a hard a you physically can..that sort of violent move creates poor technique and will create physical probs often at early ages..i've taught ranked juniors who have had more injuries than i have becase of this and equipment and i am 3x their age..all these 13 year old babalot alu big swingers w. nothing more than an open stance western forehands are gonna pay the price physically..i am seeing it already. i am not here to win an argument, but there is no denying that good stroke production results in fewer injuries.,,how can that disputable? i feel i know a bit about stroke production having been a teaching pro for a number of years...but this is an open frum and everyone is sure entitled to their opinions.ed
as an adjunct, i believe the tennis career of a pro t player will be about as long as a running back in the nfl. when you have to go all out on almost every ball to keep up w. the competiton, and play the schedule, and the hard courts it makes for a shorter career. i dont think there is gonna be another sampras or agassi longevity wise..well maybe fed. think roddick will be of the shortlived career ilk the way he thrashes at the ball w. his forehand and spins out of the shot and moves his head all over the place. think fed is an exception and that dude can play top level as long as he chooses to..why? he's got great stroke production and doesnt go after most every ball 100%. my .02. feel free to disagree but personal assaults are really unecessary and only a reflection on the person giving the insults.
phil it looks like u r the one that really needs to move on, you got proven wrong and u just can't handle, well my message to u is DEAL WITH IT PAL! so your precious W sisters are not nearly as perfect as you think they were, booohooooo, if you don't like my posts then move on right along, plenty of other posts for you to lace with your b.s.
chopper, yeah ok, first of all "not smooth" DOES imply poor technique, how you say otherwise is beyond logic. And abou the insults, why don't you go take a look at your original post to me in the other thread. Now get this straight, I don't start the insults and in fact, don't look at what I tell as insults, cuz I really don't want to insult any1. But if you decide to try to insult me, I will fight back, you can count on that.
btw the other posts following yours, the ones actually with some content (except of course for pusher, no surprise there), actually prove my point. I never said other players have perfect techniques, except maybe Federer. My point is just that W sisters are way over-rated and get beaten now pretty regularly by their weaknesses getting exploited.
i wish people could play nice but i think what is relevant here is that serena got beaten at her own game at the Big W. shows you what happens when you dont have really good stroke production and you get rushed and beaten at your own game. I mean..Serena was breaking strings by hitting frame balls! But..you gotta say her prepwork is really good..i mean 'racquet ready', footwork and all that stuff. I think we're all smart enough to know that esthetics are different than effectiveness and esthetic are pretty subjective, but there are certain things you just must do strokewise to even be effective let alone to not hurt yourself. i dont think the original post was that great, but he did make a choice of 'not pretty but effective' or something like that...why dont you folks all just cool your jets here and quit the personal attacks? ed
"chopper, yeah ok, first of all "not smooth" DOES imply poor technique, how you say otherwise is beyond logic."
Topspin-I still disagree with you. For example, a western forehand is NOT a very "smooth" stroke. Watch clay court tennis and tell me if you think Gaudio, Ferrero or Kuerten are smooth ball strikers. But to get to your original point, I think that Serena's loss at Wimbledon has to be do with Sharapova's outstanding play as well as Serena's own lack of preparation and NOT any huge technical holes in her game. I am very glad that Sharapova won Wimbledon and look forward to more good matches between the Williams sisters and Sharapova. You say that the Williams sisters will not dominate women's tennis anymore, but I'm curious about who is going to be able to compete with them on a regular basis when they are healthy, outside of Sharapova. Clijsters and Henin Ardene-both players with more textbook strokes than the Williams sisters have not performed well against the Williams sisters in the past except on clay. And I certainly don't think the Williams sisters are "overrated" with all the grand slam they've won by such early stages in their careers.
I think it will be interesting to judge the WS playing ability more so now that the rest of the field is catching up physically. It's easy to play with a fairly good form when the opponent is not pushing and hitting big serves.
I prefer the styles of the players with more all court games who mix things up.....like Henin-Hardine, Kutznetsova and Sprem.
I do think those players you mention have beautiful techniques. I've seen Kurten and Ferrero play up close and I haven't noticed any obvious awkward movements in their styles.
I just don't see Venus winning a slam right now, her motivation is down and remember that there were rumors of her retiring a few years ago already. Serena should win her share of slams since she looks quite motivated to work on her game and impose her style like she managed to do in the past. I think they will have plenty of competition from the Belgians and the Russians (Sharapova, Myskina, and Kirilenko soon), and I also think that Capriati is getting back to a level to beat the W sisters as well, as is Mauresmo and maybe even Davenport on hard courts. Whatever the case, the women's game is now a lot more interesting than it has been in recent times. The W sisters are overrated by the media and many posters on this board. By saying that, I don't mean to negate their wins. But even if you win everything, like Schumacher in F1, there is still a point where writers and media can go over a line and make them seem like even more than they are. Other players are overrated as well of course, they weren't the first and they won't be the last. Under rating players is a problem too.
I agree that increased competition is good for the women's game. But I fail to see how you can say how Capriati or Davenport could compete with the Williams sisters. Davenport has said that this will most likely be her last year on the tour, and has been riddled with injuries while Capriati is suffering through a horrible year-remember that Serena absolutely destroyed Capriati at Wimbledon. And as for the Belgians, Justin Henin Ardenne has never beat either of the Williams sisters off clay, and has a 5-14 record against them while Clijsters is 3-12. Neither stat is impressive. Still, I do agree that the Williams sisters will not dominate the sport as they once did-but it is not because of any considerable holes in their technique. It is important to remember that their own technique-be “jerky and not smooth” or whatever you’d like to call it, is what enables them to hit hard and is an instrumental part in their success in tennis.
I said that Davenport might do something on the hard courts. I base this on her good play so far this year. Capriati did lose badly but at least she is progressing back to where she was a few years ago. As for Henin, I don't know exactly what the records are on surfaces since I prefer to play tennis instead of following all these details, but I dothink she will be competitive against Serena on any surface once she gets healthy.
The W sisters had success with their less-than-perfect style, but you must agree that they would have even more success, especially recently, if they had more solid all-around styles where they can mix it up a little bit more. That would be what I would be working on if I was them.
i agree w. topspin..when serena got behind against shar. in the wimby finals and had to change her game, the only thing she could do was try and hit even harder, which resulted in her hitting frame balls. richard williams did teach them good footwork and racquet prep work though, but that s pretty basic stuff. ed
Perhaps now would be a good time to start paying attention those pesky details, topspin. Something tells me not only your tennis game, but your argumentative skills as well, would see an immediate benefit.
Serena's record against the WTA elite speaks for itself.
Pusher why don't you marry Serena's record since you seem to be so in love with it, sheeesh dude, get a grip already. And it's really funny to see YOU try to talk to ME about argumentative skills, HA! Now that speaks for itself.
Separate names with a comma.