A Changing of the Guard at the US Open

Mark it down in your history calendar in our wonderful sport of tennis. Saturday, September 6th, 2014. The day the reign of the Big 4 ended.

The Big 4 alludes to men's tennis and to Novak Djokovic, Rafael Nadal, Andy Murray, and lastly, Roger Federer with his 17 Grand Slam single titles. These four players have won 36 of the 38 most recent Grand Slam titles. On Monday, that stat will be 36 of the last 39. None of the above is in the US Open final.

And yesterday, two of the Big 4 were just plain beaten. Djokovic was simply outplayed on a day where he may have not been at his best wilting in the heat of 90 degrees plus on Arthur Ashe stadium court. Kei Nishikori, the first Japanese player to ever reach a Grand Slam final, with an added day of rest wore Djokovic down over four sets.

Federer couldn't deal with Marin Cilic's serve. In fact, the last game provided the epitaph to the grave: Three aces and a backhand winner down the line. Done.We are left wondering how long Roger will stave off the desire to retire.

So we are left with a final in which CBS Sports loses its coverage of the US Open after 40 plus years and in which, I am sure, ratings will falter without one of the Big 4 playing. But, this is the Open Era, and anything can happen. ESPN takes over coverage of both Wimbledon and the US Open in a tumultuous time in Men's Tennis in which are there are no clear rivalries to market to the public or elder statesmen to revere. It could hinder the growth and popularity of the sport.

That being said, it will be great to see new faces in the final and to see how Nishikori deals with Marin Cilic's serve will be interesting. Nishikori has won his last three matches against top 6 rated players in the world. He is the real deal. Coached by one of the greatest returners of all time, Michael Chang, Nishikori will undoubtedly find a way through the Cilic serve.

Cilic, at 25, is coached by the big server Goran Ivanisevic, himself a Wimbledon champion who also won on a Monday in front of a raucous crowd against a confident Patrick Rafter in the final. Cilic, suspended from the tour last year for a positive test to a banned substance, has returned mentally stronger and playing some of his best tennis.

Back to regularly scheduled programming with Serena Williams today in the women's final. And, Monday night should be a wonderful match between two upstarts who have been waiting a few years on the bench.

Roger Federer - The Best Player Ever?

One of my colleagues, Mary, said that she has to hand it to the ESPN commentators covering the US Open. "What other sport can last up to 4 hours with just 2 people to talk about? How can they fill all that time?" You're right, Mary. And, of course, while we were watching the Roger Federer's US Open at the hands of Tommy Robredo two nights ago, the issue whether Roger was the best player was discussed for at least 3 of the 32 games.

I love making lists, and on my list Roger is third. You may ask why. Here's why.

Number One, All-Time Primary Reason. Each and every great player in a sport has a rival, someone who brings the best out of his or her game. One thinks of Ali and Frazier, Bird and Johnson, Nicklaus and Watson. These are storied rivalries. In tennis we've had Navratilova and Evert, Sampras and Agassi... for Federer, that rival is Rafael Nadal. Between the two gentlemen, they have held the top two rankings in the world for close to 4 years, roughly 2005 through 2009. And in such great rivalries it is usually the case the two have close head to head records: Navratilova led Evert 43-37 for example.

Nadal 21 Wins, Federer 10 Wins

This is remarkable. Nadal really has Federer's number. And before you say anything: on each surface. Nadal has won 13 of the 15 matches they've played on clay, 7 of the 13 matches on hard courts and one of their three encounters on grass - that one win in the perhaps the greatest final at Wimbledon... ever.

One can argue with me that you can be the greatest player of all time based on number of Grand Prix wins, based on a sport's domination for 9 years, based on his or her game. I take all those into consideration and they are important. But I would also argue that if one were to be the greatest player in the world that we've ever seen, one needs to have a closer record against a rival. To have lost more than half the encounters begs the question: How can Federer be the greatest player of all time if he can't even beat the rival of his own era?

With Roger's career coming to a close I am sure in the not-too-distant future, I think this question is at the heart of the debate and a great debate it is. Keep thinking about it and perhaps it might help you to come up with your own list of the greatest of all time. I'll let you know who my number one and two are soon - and maybe there's a new one coming down the pike. Let's hope so. We're gonna miss The Fed more than we know once he hangs up his racquet.

Hewitt and Longevity and What Could Have Been...

As Lleyton Hewitt wore down Argentine Juan Martin Del Potro who finally double faulted the match away in a fifth set, I heard a statistic that made me think. The statistic was that it was 12 years ago that Hewitt won the US Open! 12 years ago. For 12 years, Hewitt has been running around, grinding, hitting and playing at the top level. And, he did it again last night.

He moved Del Potro from side to side. He took advantage of his speed and showed Del Potro low ball after low ball for which the tall Argentine had to bend and bend again. Once Del Potro's legs got tired, he started bending from the waist in the fifth set and that was that. 

We forget the longevity of this Australian. 12 years ago. Nadal was 15. Federer hadn't even won his first Grand Slam, and following the horrible events of 9/11, President Bush created the Office of Homeland Security.

Part of this is that Hewitt holds the distinction of being the youngest Grand Slam Champion of all time in the Open era as well as being the youngest player to ever be ranked No. 1 in the world. Few players can last 12 years in a sport which perhaps has the longest professional season and grueling schedule. Hats off to this Australian who has maintained, through injuries, a game that is one of the best in an era.

What is scary to think is how many titles Hewitt would have won over this long career had a certain Roger Federer not showed up and won Wimbledon in 2003. Maybe as many as someone who has been around even longer and has more singles, doubles and mixed titles since her 1999 win at US Open 14 years ago: Serena Williams.

A Fitting Finale in London: Djokovic versus Federer

It's a bit like how the season has gone for these two - close and closer and closest. It may not be a year for either Djokovic or Federer to remember and put at the top of their resumes, but the two giants of the ATP Tour really treated us to a finale yesterday in London's O2 Center which was tennis at its best. Each had won a Grand Slam this year, Djokovic winning in Australia and Federer taking another title at Wimbledon. So this match was going to settle the score at the end of the season.

Think about this: Federer didn't lose a point to the Number One player in the world until the third game. And that said, Federer was already 25% of the way to the final destination, a win, within 9 minutes and up 3-0. But like a horserace, there is no clock and Djokovic started to chip away and get the older Federer into longer and longer rallies, which favored the 25 year-old Djokovic. Before you could blink, Djokovic was winning the first set in a tiebreak and went on to win the match in two straight sets.

This was the second time in two days that Djokovic had come back from what looked like a losing proposition. The previous day, Juan Martin Del Potro had Djokovic on the ropes yet again. Djokovic, losing the tempo on his serve, was watching the 6 foot 6 inch Del Potro move well within the baseline and take the second serve waist high. Djokovic lost the first set without much of a whimper. It looked again like Djokovic was going to be beaten badly... and yet, he came through the 3-set match a winner.

It really showed here at the end of the season what we knew at the beginning of the season when Djokovic beat Nadal in that 5 hour 53 minute epic in The Australian Open final: No one can actually outhit Djokovic over an entire match. There might be spells and games where one can push him back, but over the course of three or five sets, Djokovic's groundstrokes will outlast his opponents if his mental state remains sober and focussed.

Federer, Djokovic and Nadal - They All Tap The Dog

Good Doggie!

So, what is it that all three of the top players in the world have in common on their forehand? They all "tap the dog."

In learning from one of the leading teachers and academy owners, Rick Macci, here in Florida, he took me through how similar the stroke of Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal and Novak Djokovic are. He calls it "tapping the dog" and I will explain what he means by that.

If you look at the forehand video of Roger Federer in the previous post below, the "tap the dog" position comes at 11 seconds into the video - racquet strings closed to the ground and his elbow creating space between his elbow and rib cage. Imagine if he dropped his racquet, opened his palm, and tapped a dog on the forehead - that's the position.

This position is quite interesting in fact. The elbow is away from the body. Many students of mine ask if the elbow should be in tight or away from the body as the racquet comes down out of the higher part of the loop. Away from the body is the answer for these three players - Nadal possessing the most compact swing his elbow does not leave much space until he starts his forward progression.

Big Players Don't Push... They Pull!

But what is even more interesting to note is that each player literally pulls his racquet hand forward - think of a pulling action forward across the middle of the body. This action pushes the racquet "inward" from the "outward" position where it lies when they "tap the dog". So these three players are not laying the racquet back inside and back to where it points to the back screen - the racquet is pushed there by the force from the "pull" forward of the racquet hand toward the ball. Their motion forward is a lot earlier than us mere mortals and because of that the racquet moves backward and inward even as their hitting hand is moving forward toward the ball.

This pulling action is quite evident between seconds 4 and 5 (0.04 to 0.05) on the Djokovic forehand video and at 0.10 on the Nadal video. In fact Nadal's racquet is already quite close to perpendicular to the back screen and it moves way inside behind him prior to moving forward toward the ball, even though he has pulled his hand quite forward already.

But in my book, Roger Federer has the most classic forehand in this regard. His "tapping the dog" position is nicely away from his body and the strings are almost fully closed. As he comes through the swing, he pulls his hand through around 0.14 to 0.15 and you can see how the racquet head reacts and comes back inside toward the back screen and bit toward his back hip prior to moving forward. Look at how early his hand is in comparison to his racquet. His hips are already rotating at 0.15 and not until 0.19 does he make contact.

I know it's slow motion, but he's so early and the racquet speed at contact is so fast, the racquet comes and catches the hand to be parallel with his hitting hand at contact. The hand had been leading the swing the entire time! But the racquet's speed at the end of the swing is too fast and catches up with the hand and then bypasses the hand into the follow through.Guess that's one of the reason he's won more Grand Slams than anyone else alive.

The Roger Federer Forehand... is also the Novak Djokovic forehand...

It's also the Rafael Nadal forehand... It's the loop topspin forehand.

Time and time again, my students on the tennis court ask me why I teach the loop forehand method. I point them to the best in the game. It's not always right to assume that a student of mine, or any amatuer, for that matter, should mimic a professional the likes of Federer or Djokovic, but, in this case, it works. Let's look at the reasons for bringing the racquet back high and in a loop on a forehand.

The Top Five - All Time - Reasons For A Loop Backswing On The Forehand

Firstly, what is the loop method? It is the bringing of the racquet back higher (racquet head comes back at eye level) and creating a loop, or drawing a 'C',with your racquet through the preparation and into the contact point or hitting area.

1. The loop creates racquet speed without having to swing harder. The power of gravity helps to generate racquet head speed from the top of the loop downward and then forward through the contact point. Racquet acceleration through the swing is imperative.

2. The loop helps turn the shoulders and hips. Your swing starts in the heels and the kinetic energy follows up through the hips and shoulders. Holding the non-dominant hand at the gooseneck of the racquet and bringing the racquet head back eye-level will force a turn of shoulders and core, essential for a good, powerful forehand.

3. The loop allows the backswing to follow the ball. If the ball is played lower than waist height, the loop allows the racquet head to drop easily below the ball to enhance topspin. If the ball is played higher - shoulder height - you can stop the loop just below the ball's level and still maintain a strong, topsping enhancing swing.

4. If the strings remain "closed" or facing on an angle toward the ground through the preparation and first half of the loop, the wrist is allowed to remain stationary through the backswing and stay firm through the the preparation phase of the swing and into the contact point, which allows the shoulders to guide the racquet rather than the forearm or wrist.

5. The loop allows the racquet preparation to occur even while moving laterally to the ball. If one were to drop the racquet head on the way back, it would impede movement to a wide forehand.

The Big Three Forehands - Federer, Djokovic, Nadal

I have loaded below slow-motion videos of all three professional players. What one should look at is the backswing. All quite similar with the racquet head coming back eye-level. We pick up the Federer and Djokovic forehands as the racquet head has just passed the head on its way back.

Notice the wrist keeps the racquet strings closed - Nadal's tends to be the most upright with his racquet on edge, but again he closes the strings toward the ground just as the racquet gets above the bottom point of the loop behind him.

 


The next blog will discuss how at one point in these three swings, exactly the same racquet position and racquet movement are within a few degrees of each other. Amazing. 3 swings. Almost identical. Can you figure out where the swings are identical?

Here's a hint: Tap The Dog.

Davis Cup: Why America Struggles

Spain Runs Away With Singles Matches

The first two singles matches in this Davis Cup semi-final saw the U.S. drop both of its matches to go down 2-0 in the best of five match. John Isner and Sam Querry both lost here in Gijon, Spain to give the Spaniards the decided advantage. David Ferrer, still tired from a semi-final match in New York on Sunday at The US Open, outlasted Querry in 4 sets and 3 hours. It took 5 sets and and over 4 hours for Spain's Nicolas Almagro to gain the 2-0 match advantage.

Granted that the Americans are missing Mardy Fish who pulled out of the US Open with heart issues and the USA is playing in Spain, but to go down 2-0 so quickly is again another tough day in the history of the Cup for the Americans. In the past 25 years the USA has won the Cup just 5 times. In the last 15 years, the USA has won it just once. Spain has won it 5 times in the past 25 years. Serbia, a country with a population of just 7 million, has won it twice in the last 5 years! And here are the Americans struggling yet again.

This morning the Bryan brothers, who are 20-2 in Davis Cup play, will try to keep the American hopes alive in this semi-final and I am left pondering why as a country the United States has such difficulty in winning this competition. I believe there are several reasons, but two come to mind at the top.

#1 The Play In Spain Stays Mainly On The Clay

The Spaniards excel on red clay, which is the surface of choice for the nation with a population around 50 million. Rafa Nadal has dominated on the red clay of Roland Garros and Rome. The Spanish are dominating here in Parque Hermanos Castro in Gijon on the Northern coast of Spain overlooking the gorgeous Bay of Biscay. It has been a reign close to that of Sweden's when Sweden won 6 Cups in fourteen years. In fact, Sweden is the team with the most Davis Cup match wins since the Cup expanded to The World Group in 1981. The years of Mats Wilander, Stefan Edberg and Mikael Pernfors were a vintage era for Sweden. Borg had put Sweden on the Davis Cup map with an astounding 33 win match streak in Davis Cup play, a record that might never be broken.

Could it be that those countries with juniors that grow up playing the majority of their tennis on red clay have an advantage? It seems so in the past 25 or so years, especially in regard to the Davis Cup. Even those years where the Americans had Pete Sampras and Andre Agassi, the Americans have had a relatively poor showing at the Davis Cup.

In the USA, hard courts are the mainstay of the junior tournaments. Ame rising hopes are hitting balls on the cement or the decoturf in hopes of winning their home title: The US Open. Just as I would argue that the British juniors play much more frequently on grass with aspirations looking at Wimbledon, the Spaniards, and even the Swedes, look at the French Open and red clay is the surface of choice.

Does red clay allow for more stroke production than the hard courts of America or even the green, green grass of Britain? One would have to argue of course it does. As the slowest of the surfaces, juniors are allowed the time to learn proper swing technique with proper form, backswing, and follow through. Just looking at the history of the Davis Cup and the wins, those countries playing on red clay as juniors completely dominate the event. Let's look at it this way: the red clay courts at The French Open's Roland Garros require the ultimate in stroke production from the baseline and a repertoire of shot-making. The last American to win in France? Andre Agassi in 1999. Since the French Open "opened" its doors in 1968, only 3 Americans have won the French title. Michael Chang in 1988, Jim Courier in 1991 and 1992 and Agassi in 1999.

Perhaps with Andy Murray's win on a hard court, the British will realize that looking at the grass is just a small part of preparing a junior for the tour, the Grand Slam, and the Davis Cup. Americans should take note as well and look past just training and playing on hard courts.

In looking at the first two matches of this semi-final in Spain, Isner's 95 unforced errors really was too big a mountain to climb, even with his 24 aces in the match. His opponent, 12th ranked Nicolas Almagro, had just 52 unforced errors in the 5 set marathon. Unforced errors really point at the confidence of a player and his stroke production. Clearly Almagro had the hefty edge in this statistic. Stroke production rears its ugly head yet again. A big serve can get one out of trouble, but it can't win big matches all the time. One needs all the shots on the red clay - the slice, the volley, the swing volley. Sadly, Americans growing up on the hard courts, don't have the opportunity to work on their repertoire as much as nations with juniors growing up on red clay. The pace of the court is just too fast.

Reason number two that America struggles in the Davis Cup will appear in tomorrow's blog, but let's hope that, at least for today, the Bryan brothers keep the American hopes alive and their win avoids a white-washing at the Davis Cup, a world-wide tennis event that Americans should hold dear in their heart. Perhaps the next 20 years will mute my point and see the USA take home Cup after Cup... not likely but we can always hope.