Readers Write

TennisOne,

I read the article titled, "Evolution Of The Two Handed Backhand" by David Smith I found the article very entertaining since I'm a tennis fanatic. One thing to point out. When Mr Smith was talking about Bjorn Borg's backhand as being a continental for the dominant hand and continental for the weaker hand (left), he was mistaken. On tennis-warehouse/talk forum they were talking about Borg's backhand. There was an excerpt from a book in which Borg describes himself his backhand as being this. An Eastern backhand grip for his right hand, and a Western forehand grip for his Left hand. Borg describes beautifully his technique from start to finish.

Wil

Wil,

Thank you for writing in and pointing out a mistake in one of my earlier articles! You are absolutely correct! When I first wrote that piece, (probably about 5 years ago or so), I didn't do my homework and study more of Borg's backhand clips. I should have pointed this out and I will need to correct that article. Borg and Courier were both eastern backhand grips on their dominant hand, (though, Borg was not as severe), and he is much further over on his left hand, although, in more recent video clips, it doesn't look like a western grip for this hand; a weak semi-western to my eye.
 
I'm very glad to have one of our readers point this out so we can be as accurate as possible. Thanks again for taking the time to write me! Hope you will continue to read and enjoy our many articles by our terrific group of writers!
 
Best wishes,
Dave Smith, Senior Editor TennisOne

Rolf,

I love this article! I'm a high school physics teacher and tennis coach and I try to relate as much of the material as possible to sports and other things kids see in their everyday lives. That's why I'm always excited to see someone who isn't in the field of physics using physics to explain why things happen the way they do. When kids get to see articles like this, they realize how the principles of physics apply to almost everything they do and see. Your explanation using momentum is spot on!racquet Keep it up!

Christian Langlois

Christian,

Thanks for your energetic and positive words. As an (ex)teacher I appreciate the use of tennis physics in his teaching.

For students who don't play tennis, the same momentum principle of course applies to golf. There, it is generally assumed that to get more distance the golfer needs to increase clubhead velocity. That works but the MASS used in swinging the hitting system also has major impact on flight distance. The golf ball, like the tennis ball) gets it's momentum from the combination of mass AND velocity applied by the hitting system.

If you want a gratis copy of my golf book that explores some of these thoughts (especially the whole timing thing), get send me your address and I'll send one. It might be useful for students who don't play tennis though I expect you've already applied the momentum=mass*velocity theory to other sports (kicking a soccer ball, hitting a baseball, throwing a football,.....)Also, explore why a 11 year old girl can often hit the tennis or golf ball harder than a 200 lb man. (Think pendulums and timing!)

You might then ask your students to explore the the application of momentum to a ball and how that momentum can be distributed between flight and spin. It seems like it would be a good think-piece. Spin is clearly important in today's game as well as dependent on physics.

You might ask whether Nadal's topspin adds or detracts from the momentum of the ball.

Rolf Clark

TennisOne,

You (Rolf Clark) had me almost word for word up until the end - I agree with the whole concept of momentum/velocity/mass. In fact, I often use the term "effective mass" in my tennis lessons. But "throw the racquet head at and through the ball?" I'm not sure I get the idea of what you mean to throw your racquet. It conjures up a loose wrist to me. How loose is the wrist you are talking about when you throw the racquet?  How loose is a pitcher's wrist when he tosses the baseball?  In your opinion, can a loose system retain it's effective mass? I feel sometimes it is best to become more rigid at the last second on a difficult ball instead of throwing my racquet, especially if I'm fully extended.

So, what do you think?

Thanks,
Mike Lammens

Mike,

It does sound strange, doesn't it, to think of throwing the racquet. I certainly do not propose a loose wrist. I ask you to think of throwing a tennis racquet as far as you can (or get an old one and actually throw it.) I think you will find that to get the most distance you will not wrist it, but instead your hand will lead the racquet, wrist laid back, all the way through to the finish. That way you will get more of your available legs/body/arm mass into the throw. If you wrist it you will sacrifice much of the mass available to your hitting system, and get a short throw that uses mostly your forearm and very little body.

Think the dynamics over before you try "throwing the racquet", and try it gently at first so you don't injure any tendons. But explore the concept for yourself, experiment with it, and see if you discover anything.

Of course my approach to tennis (and golf etc.) is that one needs to sense balance and timing (as well as throwing things) because complex dynamics like these cannot be explained to you...you need to explore them for yourself.

I'd like to hear from you again if you make sense of and try the throwing concept.

Rolf C

TennisOne,

Why do so many tennis writers, including Rolf Clark refer to Jimmy Connors as the classic mechanic style. Nobody played liked Jimmy, nobody.

Per Wikipedia

"In an era where serve and volley was the norm, Björn Borg excepted, Connors was one of the few players to hit the ball flat, low, and predominantly from the baseline. Connors hit his forehand with a continental grip and with little net clearance. Some considered his forehand to be his greatest weakness, especially on extreme pressure points, as it lacked the safety margin of hard forehands hit with topspin. His serve, while accurate and capable, was never a great weapon for him as it did not reach the velocity and power of his opponents.

His lack of a dominating serve and net game, combined with his individualist style and maverick tendencies, meant that he was not as successful in doubles as he was in singles, although he did win Grand Slam titles with and Chris Evert and amassed 15 doubles titles during his career."

Jimbo was the first to use a steel racquet, the Wilson 2000. To say Jimmy represents a style of play from the past is like saying Fabrice Santora represents "modern tennis". 

If you want a better comparison, I would suggest Borg or Ivan Lendl. Have there been changes, yes. However the greatest changes may be in equipment and teaching methods. I grew up in the tennis boom of the 70's and we were taught wrong. We were told, you’re not Borg, so you can't play like him. Instead they used the methods Rolf Clark describes. These techniques existed in tennis classes, but not typically in the pro ranks.

Mike

Mike,

Jimmy was used as a classic example because he more or less stayed sideways and drove his racquet through the ball without opening up the way Agassi did. Lendl is also a good an example of a classic if you prefer. But I think you make the who-you-refer-to comment too central. The article was about how things have changed. To conclude that the pros always played the way Agassi, Chang, and Courrier did seems to be an error in observation.

Finally, a majority of the pros learned their tennis basics by taking lessons, so your comment, "These techniques existed in tennis classes, but not typically in the pro ranks" needs some explanation. Did the pros throw out their training? They mostly seemed to stay sideways to the net and followed through the way Lendl, Sampras, Edberg, and Connors did. And those names represent a good portion of the SLAM tournament winners in the era of interest. (McEnroe is a whole different story).

Rolf Clark

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