TennisSpeed's Top 5 Pro First Serves (1985-2009)

Remember how I said I would be posting more frequently and trying to promote more feedback and discussion?

Well, here's words put into action...

I've noticed that people like to respond to "best of/worst of" lists.

So in the hope of getting folks who read this blog into "response mode" around here, I present the first of my lists: the Top 5 first serves of the last 25 years.

I'll do a few lists over the coming weeks and months for all of the strokes of general interest (serve, forehand, backhand, etc.), for completeness.

One thing I wanted to know is: should I separate these list by gender (i.e. men and women) or just make a master list?

Maybe I won't separate them the first time around...

But, if you think I should provide a second series of Top 5 lists focusing only on the women, you need to let me know (hint, hint...)!

So, without much further ado...

Top 5 First Serves (1985-2009)

--in alphabetical order---

Boris Becker
Goran Ivanisevic
Andy Roddick
Pete Sampras
Michael Stich

All 5 serves blended unbelievable power, accuracy, spin, variety and disguise under pressure.

Honorable mention:

Roger Federer
Ivo Karlovic
Richard Krajicek
Greg Rusedski

These 4 guys are close, but fall short in one of the five categories above...

So, what do you think?

TTFN!

P.S. Let me know which online tennis instructional websites you would like to see reviewed here. Just leave a comment or email me!

The Power Revolution in Tennis - Part 3 (Behind the scenes of the Federer Forehand)

The last post in this series – The Power Revolution in Tennis – Part 2 (Defining the New Topspin) – I focused on the two main fundamentals of the “New Topspin” that’s employed by the stars of the sport today on the signature shot of power tennis – the power forehand. The first of these “modern fundamentals” is the closure of the racket face during all the phases of the stroke, and the second is the shallower overall swing path that enables today’s players to create a flatter, more penetrating shot trajectory without affecting their ability to generate sufficient topspin to maximize control over their shots.

No one player has leveraged these two crucial elements of the modern topspin forehand more than the 12-time Grand Slam singles champion who goes by the name of Roger Federer.

In this post, let’s take what’s perhaps a bit of a sideways journey into learning more about the story behind the development of what’s essentially the state of the art in tennis forehands these days, the Federer forehand.

The “greatness” of the Roger Federer forehand is nothing particularly novel from a technical standpoint. IMHO, the Federer forehand is not a “novel synthesis” of “classical and modern technical elements” as some want to interpret it (see Tennis Magazine – US, May 2008).

Arguably, every player’s stroke technique is essentially a synthesis of certain specific ideas, philosophies and movements. Did Roger come up with his personal synthesis on his own?

Not really. You’ve got to give credit where credit is due. Roger had help. (To find out who helped him develop his signature forehand, read on!)

Federer’s forehand represents a integration of technical elements from 3 particular former Grand Slam champions (who themselves won a total of 27 Grand Slam singles championships) to create the forehand he’s employed only since mid-2001, around the time he bounced one of his tennis idols, Pete Sampras from Wimbledon in a compelling 5-set clash at Wimbledon.

Before I reveal the “ancestral lineage” of the Federer forehand, it is interesting to note that it took Roger almost 3 years (maybe longer) to develop and employ the forehand the fans have come to revere and his peers have come to fear, envy and revile. If you have ever seen footage of Federer before 2001, you would have seen a very different forehand entirely. Roger’s forehand when he broke through at the Grand Slam level in the juniors (1998) and in his first 3 years as a pro (1998-2000) resembled the old Sampras forehand more than the one that’s driven him to 12 Grand Slam titles in a little over 5 calendar years.

Search for a YouTube video of a 1998 indoor match between Federer and Andre Agassi played in Roger’s hometown Basel Indoors, and you’d see a fast, but much flatter, and unpredictable forehand that Federer would execute by fanning the racket face open in the backswing and then closed as he accelerated to contact (a la Sampras in his early days on tour). When he “timed” the closure of the racket face correctly, the result was devastating. However, the reality was that for every sweet stroke that blasted past Andre, Roger would mistime the closing of the racket face 3 or 4 times and create shanks that handed Andre a ton of free points over the course of a two set defeat.

Basically, credit is due to Peter Lundgren, Roger’s original “sherpa” on the pro tour for helping him learn the skills to transition his classic, “Samprasian” flat forehand into the “SlamMaker” version of the past 5 years. What Lundgren was able to accomplish between 1996 and 2003 was to add the necessary modern refinements to Federer’s original Sampras-Becker-style forehand technique to increase the overall safety and consistency of his stroke.

Once Federer mastered the fundamentals of the modern Swedish topspin forehand, the rest, as they say, is history.

For you technical afficiandos, if you look carefully, and have a very good visual memory – Roger’s forehand today bears more than a close resemblance to the forehand stroke used by Mats Wilander during his salad days where he won 7 Grand Slam singles in a 6.5 year period between 1982 and 1988. Federer makes bigger movements than Wilander did – i.e. Roger makes a much larger rotation of his upper body and has much greater extension of his racket arm through the contact zone than Mats, but the general swing shape and underlying “philosophy” (maximum topspin to maximize safety and consistency) is essentially the same.

Until Federer mastered the principles of the Swedish-flavored, modern heavy topspin forehand: closed face at all points of the swing, combined with the powerful forearm rotation through the contact zone (the so-called “wiper”), his forehand was more of a liability than the “SlamMaker” we know today. Roger has always had the racket speed that few players in any generation possess, what he lacked until say, the end of 2001 to early 2002 was the ability to harness and control his natural racket explosiveness using the only practical means to harness and control that kind of power: the application of massive amounts of topspin… As well as express his natural “creativity” for varying his strokes by being able to more reliably control his ability to generate (top-)spin for every stroke.

From a technical standpoint, the “SlamMaker” has evolved from the techniques he originally adopted from his early tennis idols, Boris Becker (6 Slams) and Pete Sampras (14 Slams), combined with the Swedish refinements (based on the Wilander forehand which helped him win 7 Slams) set into place by Peter Lundgren. Do I have any knowledge of exactly when Lundgren began the work that eventually led to the emergence of the SlamMaker? No, I really don’t…

All I really know is that without the topspin maximization techniques brought by Lundgren, it’s pretty clear that the history and landscape of pro tennis over the past 5 years would be starkly different. Without the emergence of the SlamMaker, Lleyton Hewitt probably would have won close to 10 Slams himself by now and we’d be talking about the Hewitt-Nadal rivalry or era.

The only technical element that might represent a true “innovation” by Roger is his tendency to “break” the so-called “double-bend” or “double-confusion” (as my friend coined it) structure that the US teaching pro establishment has come to espouse as a so-called “modern stroke fundamental”.

The true function of this movement - breaking the “double bend” structure of his upper arm and forearm through the contact zone -is to enable Roger to fully release the stored energy – in the form of higher racket speed – he originally created by arranging his arms the way he does in his backswing.

If Federer were to retain the “double bend” structure through the contact zone, and then execute the “wiper” finish, he wouldn’t be able to use the natural acceleration and energy that results from allowing the forearm to accelerate and extend forward.

Effectively, the Federer forehand is a modified sidearm throwing movement that resembles that movement that’s used by a major league infielder when attempting to throw out a speedy runner on a ground ball. In order to get any kind of velocity on that sidearm throw across the diamond, the infielder must “break” the arm angles he created initially after picking up the grounder, and create the same arm “extension” as he releases the ball from his hand.

That “extension” of the arm at the release point of a throw or through the contact zone of a tennis forehand is critical for maximizing velocity (and spin, if you have the “closed face at all points of the stroke” part already down cold). Did Roger consciously "invent" this movement? I personally kinda doubt that. As far as I can tell, Roger's not the first to employ this type of movement as a part of his forehand. If you look closely at tennis techniques in the history of the sport, there have been other top players who used the same move (i.e. remember Jimmy Arias?).

So, what does that tell you about all those tennis players who are/were trained to maintain or “hold on” to the double-bend structure? What it tells me is that there are a lot of players out there who have the potential to really improve their forehands. What does that say about the coaches and pros who “trained” these players in the revered “double bend” technique?

Hey, draw your own conclusion about that…

TTFN!

Court Movement 103

In this post, we’ll continue our series on increasing the speed (and efficiency) of your court movement by having a brief discussion of how to hit efficiently while on the run.

First, let 's define what I mean by "hitting on the run"…

What I am talking about is situations during play where you have to move—sprint, that is—more than three or four steps before you can form a hitting stance to strike your shot. In general, we are talking about playing situations where you may be:

• Reacting to a shot where your opponent changes the direction of your return (e.g. your opponent hits your crosscourt return down the line or vice-versa)

• Retrieving shots that your opponent aggressively drives into the deep corners in response to your own soft or short returns

• Retrieving drop shots, drop volleys, or, if you are playing Federer, low, short slice shots that land in the service boxes when you are positioned well behind (> 5 feet) the baseline.

In these situations, you maybe forced to cover a very large distance (perhaps as much as the entire half of the court to return a drop shot, or the entire distance along the baseline from one doubles alley to the other to retrieve a well-struck forehand) in very short time in order to make any contact, much less effective contact, with the ball.

And, many times the total reaction time you have to make contact in those “emergency” situations won’t allow you to set up completely to make your shot… You might only have enough time to set one, rather than both feet in an improvised hitting stance from which to accelerate to ball contact.

Of course, the ideal way to “hit on the move” is to move fast enough to “win that race” with your opponent’s return and set up completely—i.e. set both feet firmly on the court—for a clean, controlled strike.

But, what if you can only move fast enough to achieve a “tie” in that race to the ball, where you will arrive only at the last possible moment to make an effective stroke? What then?

In that case, there are three critical moves you must make to hit effectively while on the dead run:

1) Make your initial steps to the ball as explosive as possible.

· First, lower your center of gravity using your split-step.

· Second, turn your hips and shoulders in the direction of the ball, and start moving toward the ball using the leg that’s closest to the ball (if you need to move to your right, “step out” with your right leg and vice-versa), and pump your arms powerfully in your initial move to the ball.

2) After you’re about halfway there, stop pumping your arms and immediately finish your backswing such that the only move you’ll make with your hands and upper body is to accelerate the racket forward to contact.

3) Swing forward very aggressively to contact a split second after you make your last step with your back foot.

You need to be very aggressive with your forward swing because you are fighting somewhat all of the momentum you’ve generated by moving explosively toward the ball. Effectively, your feet are propelling you in one direction, and you are trying to swing with your hands and arms against the direction of the momentum of your lower body by swinging to make (solid) contact with the ball. So you need to aggressively accelerate towards contact.

These are the three core moves you must make to hit effectively while on the run.

Now, you might ask the question: what do I do after finishing my stroke?

On what foot should I land after making contact? What’s the quickest way to begin my recovery for my opponent’s next return?

The answer to the former question is, quite frankly, “it depends”. There isn’t a single, optimal foot to finish on. The foot which you land on depends mainly on the type of shot you chose to execute on the run (i.e. a deep, hard drive, or a high and heavy looping return, or a sharp crosscourt angle return). You could land on either foot really… It's really a matter of personal "style".

Although I will point out to you that players who can consistently generate a sharp (fast) crosscourt angle return on the run tend to land on their front foot (see Federer, Roger and Sampras, Pete), while players who are adept at hitting high, heavy and deep topspin returns while on the run often land on their back foot first, with their front leg held in the air (see Nadal, Rafael).

Likewise, if you want to produce a return with a lower, “driving” trajectory (rather than a higher, more looping trajectory), landing on your front foot after contact has been the preferred method of accomplished tennis millionaires throughout the history of the sport.

(Hmmm… “Accomplished Tennis Millionaires” or “ATMs”… That acronym is a keeper. See the connection? “ATMs”, as in, receive tons of cash money in return by playing tennis in a certain way. :) )

The answer to the latter question is simply, “sit down” or “step out” on your back leg, and immediate push back toward the center of the court with the same leg. So, if you landed on your front foot, immediately after the front foot makes contact with the ground, use your back leg to stop and push hard back toward the center of the court. Likewise, if you landed on your back leg, immediately begin moving toward the center of the court using the same leg.

Notice that I am not trying to explain in any fine-grain detail about how to perform the exact movements required to make the initial moves toward the ball or how to recover. Other than telling you which leg (right or left) to use to initiate an efficient movement sequence, the fine details of how to execute an effective running shot (total number of steps, how big are the steps, how fast to pump the arms, the final speed needed to reach the ball to make contact, etc.), and how well you can execute your running shots may vary infinitely from situation to situation and from player to player because all of this is solely dependent on your own innate athletic ability.

AND, as athletic ability ranges so widely even among elite tennis players (i.e. the difference between Federer’s apparent ability to “glide” from shot to shot versus Roddick’s sometimes heavy-footed, “stomping” action), it’s virtually impossible to give a very detailed description, much less an “exact” description of the movement themselves beyond describing the optimal way to initiate the movement itself.

All that’s really possible is to describe the principles involved, and leave it to each player to execute the necessary movements in their own unique way. There is indeed a “science” to all athletic skills, but in the end, the execution of those skills ultimately represents the “artistry” of the player him/herself.

And that “artistry” is yet another element that explains why so many of us are so fascinated by this great sport.

So, to review the key principles of hitting effectively on the (full) run:

1) Make your initial steps to the ball as explosive as possible.

2) After you’re about halfway there, stop pumping your arms and immediately finish your backswing such that the only move you’ll make with your hands and upper body is to accelerate the racket forward to contact.

and,

3) Swing forward to contact a split second after you make your last step with your back foot.

TTFN!

P.S. For those of you that still have trouble grasping this idea of how speed is the defining element of tennis success, just look at the singles players who made the Final 4 at Flushing Meadow.

Final 4 Men: Federer, Djokovic, Davydenko, and Ferrer

Final 4 Women: Henin, Kuznetsova, Williams, and Chakvetadze

All 8 players possess the necessary foot and racket speed to either out-run their opponents or out-hit them.

What’s interesting among the group is that both the Men’s (Federer and Djokovic) and Women’s finalists (Henin and Kuznetsova) hit with the most spin from among the original group of 8…

What does this mean? The take-home message is that the 4 finalists not only generated the fastest strokes (from serves to groundstrokes), but they also maximized their control over their strokes through their higher spin production.

These 4 players achieved both maximum power (ball speed) and control of their strokes.

In other words, they get to "have their cake and eat it too"... Which , BTW, for those who may be keeping track , the "cake" that Roger gets to enjoy is worth, in real terms:

• 500 ATP ranking points (the maximum possible for winning a single tournament--compare that massive points windfall to the winner of an entry level pro singles tournament, who is typicially overjoyed to earn an astronomical 12 ranking points ), and

• $1.4 MILLION in prize money as the US Open singles champion (compare this amount to the $1,200 earned by the singles winner of a $10,000--that means 10K in total prize money, people--Futures tournament.)

As you can see, there's a lot of valuable "cake" out there for players to enjoy...