Readers Write

TennisOne,

I wanted some insight on some personal opinions from both watching the demolition of Federer at the Roland Garros and the spectacular match at Wimbledon.

I both teach and coach juniors and adults and have been playing tennis since I was 10 years old. I was born in California and spent 8 years living in Ojai, California, so I have witnessed some of the greatest college tennis talent in the world. I feel my observations are valid, however, I wanted to pose a thought I had throughout the 2 matches with another tennis intelligence and fanatic.

As I watched both matches, it became painfully obvious that after the 4th ball of the rally, Nadal will force Federer into a forehand to backhand exchange. Federer continues to either flatten the ball out or hit topspin with Nadal until Fed gets pushed out of the rally or makes an error.

Granted, Federer is still, in my mind, the best player in the world and probably the best thinker in the game, I keep wondering why he isn't learning how to slice those high balls low and force the error out of Nadal's forehand. Here are some reasons I believe this would work:

1. At least for me, slicing the ball back when someone is topping the ball that high to a one-handed backhand takes less effort. Federer would not be expending as much energy during those rally's and could move Nadal forward and deep with a low ball.

2. Nadal's knees are (obviously) feeling the wear on them now. He wears the straps to keep a snug feeling around those joints. And, since Fed is meeting up with Nadal in the finals of these 2 tournaments, Nadal has had 2 weeks of bending on those things. As young as he is, he is still going to feel it in the 3rd, 4th, and 5th set of a match if Fed keeps making him bend down.

3. Anyone that likes to hit that high topspin (yours truly) knows that its more comfortable and easier to roll the ball when it is waist height or higher. I know Nadal is a strong young man, but trying to roll that stuff as high as he does takes a lot more energy when he has to get down to the ball and then raise those arms and shoulders up.

4. If Fed sliced the ball in those rallies, he can create a sharper angle than with the topspin. Then, he can come in to the net.

Things are always different on paper than they are on the court. The competitive juices are flowing, egos play a roll, and emotion and nerves are present. However, I just think this is something that maybe the great Fed is missing when he battles with Nadal.

What do you think?

Thanks,
RC
Chandler, AZ

RC,
 
I believe you have some very valid points regarding how Roger Federer could play Nadal differently. While I agree that employing the slice more often on certain shots can prove to elicit responses that could improve Fed's chance at winning any given point, there are some elements that I think he--as well as anyone who plays the game--must consider.
 
First, the slice has limitations in terms of how hard it can be hit. Unlike topspin, the slice simply can't be the exploded shot that the topspin can be due to the physics of spin. Second, a ball hit with slice, after the bounce will have less topspin coming to the player than a similar ball hit with topspin. (Remember, after the bounce nearly every single ball will have topspin, even if it were a backspin slice hit before the bounce.) This reduced topspin makes it much easier to magnify the topspin applied to this ball than a ball that was hit with topspin coming into the bounce. (A ball with say 3000 rpm's of topspin will have about 5000 rpm's of topspin after the bounce, based on how much velocity, arc, speed of the court, and other factors. However a ball with say 2000 rmp's of back spin coming to the bounce will have only 1500 -2000 rpm's of topspin coming off the bounce, again a lot will be based and the arc, the speed of the shot, the court and other factors.)
 
This allows a topspin player such as Nadal to magnify his topspin component, creating an even heavier topspin shot going back.
 
The slice, while it can be hit with angle, can't again be hit hard with angle. The topspin can have tremendous angle due to the topspin element causing it to dip faster than a hard hit slice; the topspin can 'jump' at the angle too, pulling the player just that much more off the court.
 
The slice is indeed easier to hit, especially off the topspin bounce. (This helps explain why so many "hackers" use slice. The "Spin Advantage" of the slice makes it feel easier as well as the mechanics and the issue of the downward stroke adds to this ease.) However, I believe that there are situations that should employ the slice and the pros can--and many are--using it. (At least more players are being seen hitting more slices than in a few years back.)
 
I believe Roger plays the shots and the strategies that he feels most comfortable with. His fluid game has allowed him to be relatively injury free, especially compared to his peers. However, I believe that Nadal has such a heavy topspin that his overall game is not only evolving to be better suited on faster courts, but his out right power is neutralizing such power that Fed has brought to the game.
 
Time will tell...and failure is the mother of invention. If Fed can't beat Nadal on his best surface, than he will really need to evaluate how he is going to compete with Nadal in future events. Age can be a factor too, and we may be seeing a true changing of the guard in men's tennis. We shall see!
 
Thank you for sharing your thoughts and comments with us at TennisOne!
 
Dave Smith, Senior Editor TennisOne

Doug King commenting on Nadal-Federer Wimbledon Match

From the very first point it was clear that this Wimbledon final was going to be no repeat of the French massacre. Both players came with their games, their bodies, and their spirits intact. Federer seemed himself again back on the grass. He was at home and back on track, with only his own compass to guide him. Nadal was fit and brimming with confidence from his heroic string of victories, like an unstoppable tsunami force. Federer's game is based upon tranquility, emptiness, and a letting go of anything mortal. He goes into a space channeling the spirits of the greats; Laver, Borg, and Sampras - even donning the threads of a bygone era. He removes himself from his play to let an inner rhythm and energy flow like a dance. His strength is his elusiveness, his rejection of anything mortal. Nadal's game is built on his unwavering faith in himself. He wears this belief for all to see by revealing not only his inner strength but making a clear statement to all that he is his own man, beholden to no one and cut from his own cloth. From his iconoclastic attire to his imposing physique Nadal makes this statement with truly convincing confidence, quietly, humbly and without boastfulness, and this makes his statement only more resounding. "I am a warrior to be taken seriously." Federer's reply, like an Aikido master, is neither to fear him nor fight him but to dance with him. Both players are bound together with a common love and dedication for what they do and a mutual respect for how they do it.

The match was umpired more by nature than by a chair. The players played the game as it was meant to be played and the appointed judges seemed to get in the way more than they assisted in the rhythm of the match. Mother nature intervened on behalf of the spectators to occasionally give them time to catch a much needed breath and finally in the fifth set it stopped the play as if to decree that the match would be halted at that point because everything had been said. But begrudgingly yet determinedly things marched on. After a nearly five hour battle of chasing Borg's ghost, Federer finally had run out of lives. His rhythm wavered and he slipped. Nadal somehow hung on and in the end was left clutching the victory.

Afterwards there was a sense not of a win or a loss but of a passage - a passage of a mantle from one great champion to another. It was not handed over without struggle and not without pathos, but through the ferocious battle Nadal proved that he was a deserving champion, ready and worthy of the crown and all that it stands for.

Doug King, Senior Writer, TennisOne

Jim McLennan commenting on Nadal-Federer Wimbledon Match

Over the years I have been riveted by the final matches between McEnroe-Borg, McEnroe-Connors, Connors-Lendl, and more. In each case as the matches drew longer, and closer, the outcome would rest on just the slightest shot barely in or barely out. But the investment on my part, when pulling for one or the other player often left me drained. There is nothing else that compares to the engagement that a thrilling tennis match creates in me, and hopefully in you. To that end, this match achieved yet a higher level of brilliance, from the two closely fought opening sets where Federer was unable to convert on nearly one dozen break point opportunities, to the two electric tiebreakers where Federer pulled even, setting the stage for a glorious fifth set. Nadal, threading the needle with unbelievable passing shots was countered by Federer's pinpoint inside out forehand winners.

Both men served well, but Roger's nine aces in the fifth set helped him to cruise through some service games, and escape some tricky situations late in the set. At the end of the day, Nadal's consistent play overcame Roger's brilliance. Roger misfired on a forehand approach to drop serve at 7all, and lost the match and the championship on yet another forehand error.

As always, the match statistics tell the story. In the fifth and final set Roger had 23 winners and 16 unforced errors, a swing of 7 to the good, whileRafa stroked 19 winners compared with 7 unforced errors, a swing of 12 to the good. Federer simply had to beat Nadal, and his bold serving and aggressive forehands attempted to do just that. But in the end the amazing defensive foundation of the Nadal game, error free, breathtaking court coverage, and fierce concentration ruled the day. Nadal, ever modest and self effacing, was not willing to accept the mantle in the post match interview, but he is truly the new Number One.

Jim McLennan, TennisOne Editor

Dave Smith commenting on Nadal-Federer Wimbledon Match

It was a match that not only featured the two current best players in the game, but a defining moment in sport--when the fans can sense a passing of the guard, so to speak. For me, it was one match that I was not rooting for one specific winner; and, perhaps, neither were most of the audience members as they witnessed brilliant tennis in a remarkable arena. While there was a sense of history on Federer’s racquet, the gavel of change was being swung by Nadal, in an attempt to prevent such history from occurring. The pressure could be felt by the audience as well as the players, I believe, in each player’s chance to break the serve of the other. Roger had his opportunities, but Rafa also succumbed to the pressures in the tie-breaker of the fourth set as well as other times that he had Roger on his serve.

When a player has reached the pinnacle of his sport, I believe it is not just harder to maintain the desire, drive and focus to remain number one, but also the need to fight off the up-and-coming players who want to be the first to knock off the champion. It was a pleasure to see the respect and gentlemanly decorum that both players exhibited during and after the match. While it was clearly Roger’s disappointment, I believe he also felt some of Nadal’s enthusiasm and joy as I’m sure he felt himself in his early championships at the All-England Club; a bittersweet feeling of knowing he is the best, now being challenged—and defeated—by a worthy opponent. I’m sure Roger has known that this day would come, but, like any hero, to feel the pain of being vanquished, on his home turf, is something foreign and uncomfortable.

The question is raised, of course: Will Rafael Nadal continue to dominate? Certainly the close final at Wimbledon does not convey a sense of dominance on the faster courts of Wimbledon or the up-coming U.S. Open that Nadal exhibited on his home surface of clay. However, one can’t dismiss the continued rise by Nadal on such surfaces, the improvements made in his serve, and his dominance over the other players too. I question his ability to stay healthy. Where Federer’s game is full of fluid grace punctuated by fluid power, Nadal seems to expend far more energy and place far more stress on his body by his sheer will to pummel balls with enormous power. This, I believe, will determine his true stature in the halls of tennis history.

Dave Smith, TennisOne Senior Editor

TennisOne,

Has anyone considered the physicality of Nadal’s game and how much of a toll it takes on his body?  To play every match in predominately one corner of the court and almost running around his backhand for every point, I believe, will make his dominance of the game short lived.  He is already suffering from some physical problems and even if he takes over the #1 spot, I don’t believe that it will be a long-lasting dynasty.  That is why I am so impressed with Federer, even though he may not win another major.  His accomplishments over the number of years he has been #1 will be hard to overcome.  I truly do not think Nadal will be the one to do it.  Let me know what you think

Brenda H. Neurell

Brenda,
 
Your comments and thoughts resonate with me and many others. One of the keys to Fed's success is his longevity, a result of balance, rhythm, and relatively relaxed swing mechanics...all contributing to few injuries as well as high percentage of wins.
 
I believe that today's power game, the sheer exertion of strength, and the repetition of such movements over time is the main contributor to current injuries incurred by both ATP and WTA players. Obviously, when a player overplays one shot, as in your correct observation of Nadal's use of his forehand, they increase the prospect of hurting a particular body part. Hips are the new injury in today's game, but, I suspect knees, ankles, and other joints are going to pay the price for the style of today's game too. 
 
Whether or not Nadal succumbs to such injuries, or if he will have a lasting presence in the top of today's game, only time will tell. But, chances are your comments and subsequent assertion, may prove to be correct.
 
Thanks for sharing your thoughts!
 
Dave Smith, Senior Editor TennisOne

TennisOne,

Doug King, in his article entitled The Secret To Controlled Power, suggests the whip concept is not a good concept in describing an action in tennis. He says "the energy never leaves the big parts" while demonstrating a shadow serve. I would like to comment.

1. Roger Federer Slow Motion entitled video available on Youtube clearly shows the current top player executing forehands with an entirely motionless upper body from impact to almost full follow through on forehands 1, 4, 5, and 6. Other shots show a rotation of the upper body during and after the impact.

2. As a player myself I experienced an explosive forehand on two occasions that deserve being written about because, if anything, they occurred under quite unusual circumstances. A. Perhaps the best match I ever played was when I almost defaulted due to severe stomach pain shortly before the match. I ended up playing and, having to isolate my abdominals form heavy usage, I stroked the ball cleanly, powerfully and precisely. B. After a hernia operation I was in no condition to exert abdominal strength so again, isolating this muscle group from heavy exertion I enjoyed nearly unparalleled success in ball control on the forehand side.

Furthermore, on no occasion when I flex my abdominals do I achieve a productive forehand. Any intense, sustained muscular tension in the trunk (Upper, lower, oblique abs, back, pectorals, shoulder,...) during the execution of 'my' forehand hinders the acceleration and path of the racket. Indeed, once after experiencing yet another frustrating forehand I thought to myself: 'It feels like I just shoved a fridge.' Finally, I like the word 'quiet' in describing my trunk muscles during a well executed shot in tennis including my serve.

Thanks for the energy given in providing this provocative site for tennis people,

Bill Jenkins

Hi Bill;

I think your reply is quite interesting from a couple of fronts. First of all, I don’t think that what you have described in your experience is necessarily in conflict with what I am trying to state. You say two very revealing comments about your play, in my opinion; one is that you avoided “muscular exertion” and two you said you like the word “quiet” in describing the feeling in the body. When we get the body into the shot properly it is done in a very “fluid” way, without obvious exertion. It is done through proper shape, timing, and rhythm and it is controlled more out of the feet and it should not be a “muscular exertion” as you describe it. This is one reason I prefer the Wave Model because of the direct association of the fluid nature of the movement – nothing stiff or “solid”.

Secondly, you say that the slo-motion video of Federer shows no upper body motion from impact to total follow through. I do not have the specific video to refer to but my guess is that you would see Federer’s shoulder making a definite rotation through the hit and the follow through. This is part of the “big muscle” group. A true whip would send the energy into the final segment of the chain – which would be the wrist and this is also not happening in the video that you are citing (I have never seen anything close to that with Federer – unless it is a total off center hit that causes the wrist to break).

Another thing to look at on the videos is the way that the shirt flies around the body. This is a very good indicator of how the body is shifting to create movement of the attachments (see below where I talk about the hula hoop).

I think that we are always stumbling over “words” and our definitions of terms and this is no exception. These terms become familiar in a general sense and sometimes they lose more literal translation - and other times we develop our own personal interpretations and angles on them. I don’t object to the Kinetic Chain model depending upon one’s interpretation of the model but more because I feel it too often conjures up a “whip” image, and the whip is not a good reference. I prefer the Kinetic Wave idea because I feel it more closely represents the way that the body and the arms and hands work together – in a very fluid, dynamic, and integrated way. I don’t think that either of these models is perfect but I have rather strongly stated my preference because I feel we are so “firmly entrenched” in the Kinetic Chain ideology.

I hope that you will read my upcoming pieces that breakdown the Wave Model in more specifics. I think you will find that there is quite a bit of commonality with what you describe – especially my description of how the body and arms work like a “hula hoop”. (The arms form the hoop and the body rotates to move the arms). This body rotation is very fluid and rhythmic and is not “continuous” in the sense that it is constantly the “dominant” movement - the body shifts and then stops and then shifts again in a rhythmic progression with a hula hoop.)

Thanks for taking the time to write. I think that as we share our experiences and feedback we arrive at much better understanding of what we are experiencing and of what we have in common.

Regards,
Doug

TennisOne,

My son just turned 8 and has had a strong one-hand backhand (top and underspin), big forehand, good footwork, good form on serve for a year or so. Loves to approach and volley. He just seems to mimic Federer's form.
Despite this he still loses to some grinders and chippers and obviously older kids who are just really good. He'd obviously do better in 10's tournaments if he'd been working on a two-hand backhand (high balls are hard for 8 year old one-handers) and staying back for the last two years, but that's maybe not best for the long term.

What would you recommend for tournament play for the next few years in an attempt to balance learning competitive skills with not getting discouraged or abandoning the more "mature" game. I think that he could have a pretty good ranking in his age group, for what it's worth, with the game he has, but I don't want him to feel tempted to do the things that might make him only one of the best 10's/12's players. His coach is totally committed to developing a top teen/adult player, but it's not clear what to do now with competitive play.

As much as we can rationalize a loss to a grinder because we know that guy probably won't be around in five years, it's hard for an 8-10 year old to understand that.

By the way, we are starting a Progressive Tennis program in our town. I think that is a partial solution to the competition problem, if the USTA embraces it, because an 8 or 9 year old with better fundamentals might have the advantage on a 3/4 court--like the 13 year old with good fundamentals on a full court. Then it would be more like youth baseball where the kids with the best fundamentals always rise to the top.

Gerry Gollin
Redlands, CA

Gerry,
 
I can understand you and your son's frustration in his loses to those grinders who simply stay in the point. It is only normal. However, he is only going to get better in both his only effectiveness as well as becoming more consistent in his more prolific play. This is the hardest part for any youngster--and their parents--to not succumb to the short-term success of playing a more simplistic baseline game or more conservative and generally passive game, one lacking in the dynamics your son is just beginning to explore, employ and master.
 
My only advice is to tell your son that he will have the "last laugh" and ultimately dominate players...provided he continues to work hard, study, practice and pursue tennis in the right objective and mind set!
 
Of course, focusing some of his practice in learning to be patient, setting up points with the right sequence of shots, learning to combine prolific shots with shots that are indeed more defensive to stay in a point until he can create an offensive sequence is also part of the "big picture" too!
 
One area to focus on is outright hustle and movement drills...training him to fight for the ball in every rally, get the ball back one more time, and then always try to finish a hard fought rally with him closing in or finishing with a strong put-away... creating the mind set that such put-aways are oftentimes the result of a patient, difficult or challenging responses.
 
There are no promises for any of us. But, there is a logical and sequential formula that produces high level players. Such a pattern (which you seem to be following well!), gives every student the opportunity to reach their potential...and discover just what that potential is. Playing defensive, rudimentary tennis just to win matches at 8 or 9 years of age is sort of like keeping the training wheels on a bike even as you know how to ride without them!
 
Tell your son for me that I believe in him and what he is doing. And I look forward to hearing about his future and his ultimate satisfaction of knowing he is on the right track!
 
Best of luck!
 
Dave Smith, Senior Editor TennisOne

TennisOne,

I thought that your article regarding the Australian Open was great. One thing I think (and perhaps you'll agree) is that the Williams' don't really have the heart anymore because perhaps they think that they've done all that they wanted to do. They've broken records, won all slam, won the olympics. won playing doubles and mixed doubles, represented the US in Fed cup. Maybe they feel that they don't have anything else to prove. they are already in the record books.

I was very disappointed at their performance and the "assumption" that they can just kick it in gear at the drop of a dime and win. Serena's match with Jankovic was horrid. she looked like she just wanted to get off the court and be some place else. Maybe, we've taken for granted that the put it together at the last minute works. i don't know. it was such a disappointing tournament for US players in general..but definitely with the Williams sisters. I was really looking forward to a rematch with serena and sharapova.

Side note: why was everyone so surprised that Sharapova beat the pants off of Davenport. Davenport had no winning record against sharapova, she hasn't been playing that much especially in a tournament of this grand stage. i knew she wasn't going to beat Sharapova. Way too much hype over that match. Hats off to sharapova, she really set out to prove herself this year.

interested in knowing your thoughts.
Cheers,
Valerie

Valerie,

Your comments are great. It's always funny to me about this notion of a player proving him or herself. What exactly does that mean? Some might think that one proves oneself effectively merely by walking the earth. I think, though, that Serena and Venus rode the wave of desire very strong through '03 -- and then saw that, invariably, there's a lot of competition out there, that they themselves had raised the bar. But I also think that neither likes tennis too much, that at heart they were forced to play by their father. So be it. They're superb champions, and maybe, for all the talk about what they could have been, they are who they are.

Thanks again for your wise thoughts.

Joel Drucker

TennisOne,

Great article by Joel regarding the lack of interest in Davis Cup! We recently have had our best Americans playing (Roddick, Blake, Ginepri, Fish, the Bryans), an issue we complained about several years ago. I don't think it is star power necessarily but at the heart of the issue is an overall lack of coverage of all Davis Cup activity that exist.

For instance, if you are in the USA, you do not see the spectacle that is Davis Cup unless the U.S. is playing. There is so much wonderful tennis with incredible drama being played but we only are interested in our country's efforts. Even tape-delayed, showing some of these other matches would help create excitement and show others in the U.S. how big a deal Davis Cup is around the world.

We are also limited in the tennis that we see during that weekend. You may only see televised, if you get to see it at all, selectively picked matches with the more popular Andy Roddick and not the entire first or third day matches. That makes the Davis Cup appear to have the same one-on-one nature of normal matches and does not create the proper perspective for the team competition. Although you hear U.S.A, you only SEE Roddick win, Roddick lose.

I understand that there have been a lot of big deals with the Tennis Channel to cover Davis Cup and the ladies' Fed Cup. What people need to understand is that the Tennis Channel is not offered in all areas and many avid tennis fans do not and can not get it in their homes. The more universal ESPN that is received by many more people no longer offers Davis Cup coverage. The more we have attempted to make tennis more mainstream, the more these efforts have pushed it away from viewers. There is a better chance I could watch on the Golf Channel a live golf tournament in Indonesia than I can turn on the television and watch Davis Cup. That is pretty sad. We ask why we are losing our best athletes to other sports - a lack of seeing tennis consistently is part and parcel to the problem. People just don't see enough of high quality tennis and until the Tennis Channel is carried on television much like the Golf Channel, improvement in this area will be very slow.

The solution - keep tennis in front of the public before, during and after Davis Cup and make it easy for the everyday person to find. Don't make our sport only about the majors and some selective Masters events. Design Davis Cup weekend television "events" where U.S. matches are broadcast more globally on normal cable channels and matches for other countries can be viewed on more limited stations such as the Tennis Channel.

Thanks for the opportunity to comment!
Joseph Allen
Athens, GA

Joseph,

Great comments. Very thoughtful and much-appreciated.

Best,
Joel Drucker

Joel,

The reason is simple; tennis is not a team sport! You either get it done on your own or you don't. Davis Cup Tennis is Team Rambo.

There is no Davis Cup "team", there is an assembly of individual willing? stars who participate when their schedules permit. Tennis is about the capital i. This is the same reason why doubles is dying.

I write this from the perspective of a professional conditioning coach with clients that compete is several team sports and individual sports including tennis. I have one tennis athlete that historically was extremely successful with doubles and the minute the athlete's singles got strong, doubles became a rare chore.

This has been the attitude of every tennis player I have worked with for the past 18 years. I have never read a young tennis player's written goals and found Davis Cup or the Olympics mentioned. It is always the Singles Grand Slams and personal singles rankings. If they are a hot junior they don't even fantasize wanting to play for a top "college team". A college team is their fall back if they are not good enough.

Davis cup competition is a moderately entertaining sideshow.

G

G,

Those are all great points. From knowing Australians, I've seen others who value tennis as a team sport, but you're so right in seeing how much of a disconnect the team process is with tennis in our individual-based nation. I wish it were different, but that would take a lot of work and collaboration.

Thanks for your keen thoughts.

Joel Drucker