Novak and Roger may play tonight, but the real story at this year's US Open is Roberta Vinci and her defeat of Serena Williams. Williams lost in the semi-final to Vinci, known more as an Italian doubles player, and fell short of a calendar grand slam.
Roberta Vinci. Unseeded. Ranked outside the top 40 in the world. Vinci may have lost in the final, but she showed how you beat a champion and a bully. She held her hand up and asked the champion to wait. She turned her back to the vocal shouting. She didn't break down when Serena yelled across the net. The Italian doubles specialist was first to her chair on the changeovers covering her head with her towel. And she hits a slice, one-handed backhand with very little pace and proved that slicing and dicing takes no prisoners.
Rarely in her career have we seen Serena hit a slice backhand, or a forehand for that matter, but this world number one doubles player from Italy forced one of the greatest players of all time to change her game. There wasn't much pace coming from Vinci's side of the court. Brad Gilbert calls her "DaVinci" and she lived up to that name as she sliced, diced, angled and artistically stroked her way to a victory ending a Grand Slam run - a feat only completed by three women previously and just one in the Open Era.
But Vinci changed the mental game as well for the first time ever on this American champion. She won over the New York crowd. Vinci stayed the course. As the match hit two hours, Serena tired but grew vocally louder. Every winner with punctuated with a screaming exclamation point. Vinci took no notice. She's 32 years old - no intimidation here. She's seen it all before. Vinci tossed and served and didn't take note of Serena showing her Nike's dress back straps as she tried to hold up Vinci's march to dominance. Vinci held her hand up when the Champion was ready to serve saying: "Just wait a moment - you make me wait on my serve? I'm gonna make you wait on yours." This Italian was not going to cower. She owned the court. She owned the crowd. And, she won.
The tennis was not stellar. Vinci took Williams out of her comfort zone, with drop shots, sliced backhands and approach shots, volleys and dozens upon dozens of lobs. Serena rarely sees a one-handed backhand - there are only 2 one-handed backhands in the top 100 women in the world. But what we forget is that a one-handed backhand hits the ball much earlier than a two-handed backhand. Serena wasn't prepared for the earlier contact of the ball - the Champion was on her back foot continually even on her masterful forehand. Serena hasn't seen slice like this in years. And she hasn't seen an opponent mentally as strong as Vinci was on this day since Sam Stosur defeated her on the same court in 2011.
Roberta Vinci may have ended a Grand Slam run, but she probably brought tennis back to a reality with a win reminiscent of a McEnroe, Edberg or even a Nastase. Let's see if Roger moves up to the service line on Novak's serve and plays more like a doubles player, reminiscent of a Bob Lutz or a Stan Smith... or even an Italian doubles player named Roberta Vinci.
Wisdom, wit, and tennis whites. How tennis and politics mirror each other and that sport in general are a microcosm of life, USPTA Teaching Professional Ed Shanaphy's "Serving Notice" is a blog aimed at tennis fans and lovers of life. Learn why the professional's forehand is just that little more advanced compared to the rank amateur and the gossip behind the tennis industry.
Showing posts with label Roger Federer. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Roger Federer. Show all posts
Sunday, September 13, 2015
Sunday, September 7, 2014
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.
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.
Monday, September 30, 2013
Part Two: Number Two Greatest Player All Time...
So, as my friend Ron put it in the gym the other day: "How can we rate your third choice Ed without knowing the other two?" He's right! So, I have been hard at work thinking and rethinking my top two slots of Greatest Player Ever...
The Era In Which We Play Clearly Creates A Bias
I am constantly reminded I am still just in my 40s. I feel like youth has followed me since I was a kid: "Ed, you're just a teenager..." has turned into: "Ed, your just in your mid 40s." Perhaps I hang with an older crowd? I know I did as a toddler but infants, disregarding the Etrade advertisements, couldn't hold a conversation with me. So I went for older kids when looking for friends. Maybe that trend has never changed.
Whatever the reason, it came up today once again as I toweled off between games. As I got into the car, I thought about the greatest players of all time and how it is so hard to compare a Rod Laver whom I saw play once to an Andre Agassi, with whom I have hit balls and watched play hundreds of times.
The Open Era changed the game in terms of competition in the 60s. Television coverage and popularity of the sport brought masses to the sport in the 70s. Racquet advancement and technology have changed the game in more recent years. Can you imagine Rod Laver with a Wilson Spin? Interesting to think about.
Needless to say, I finally put all the facets of the game and its players in place. The second slot, all time, greatest... and here comes the double whammy:
Rod Laver and Margaret Court
Rod Laver really was an immense presence in the game. He is even to today. Respected by his peers as well as those great players to follow like Pete Sampras and Roger Federer.
But his peers, especially in his native Australia, were some of the greatest players the sport of tennis has ever seen. These were the golden days of Australian tennis with players like Roy Emerson, John Newcombe, Ken Rosewall, Fred Stolle, Tony Roche, Neale Fraser, and Frank Bromwich among others. Has a country ever dominated a sport as the Australians did through the 50s and 60s? Maybe the All-Blacks in rugby? But then again not too many Word Cups to their country's team. Maybe America with Lance Armstrong and cycling? But we know what happened there. Maybe British rowing with Sir Steve Redgrave? But the Aussies in tennis surely dominated.
With all this said, Rod Laver, with this incredible group of countrymen competing against him at every turn, was able to win two Grand Slams - all four majors in one year. Yep, he did that twice. Never done since. I doubt it will be done again.
Had I been Australian, I think perhaps Rod Laver and Margaret Court would be tied for Number One all time. For as Laver was completing his domination of the sport, Margaret Court took 62 Grand
Slam titles - 24 Singles titles with 19 Ladies Doubles and 19 Mixed Doubles. Yes, 24. We are in awe of Roger's 17. Court has 24! Add the doubles. You can't discount those numbers.
In addition, we often forget about those doubles titles when we talk about the greatest player ever, but the talent required to play both singles and doubles, in my opinion, is a true test of the greatness of any player. I've said it before defending McEnroe and I'll say it again. Talent and mental toughness for two different games.
Margaret stands atop the professional tennis world with the most Grand Slam Championships to her name in the sport. And who said the Greatest Player Of All Time was limited to just the men? I didn't.
So, who is the greatest player of all time? I've taken out of my mix: Federer, Laver and Court. Who's left? Your call! I know my vote.
The Era In Which We Play Clearly Creates A Bias
I am constantly reminded I am still just in my 40s. I feel like youth has followed me since I was a kid: "Ed, you're just a teenager..." has turned into: "Ed, your just in your mid 40s." Perhaps I hang with an older crowd? I know I did as a toddler but infants, disregarding the Etrade advertisements, couldn't hold a conversation with me. So I went for older kids when looking for friends. Maybe that trend has never changed.
Whatever the reason, it came up today once again as I toweled off between games. As I got into the car, I thought about the greatest players of all time and how it is so hard to compare a Rod Laver whom I saw play once to an Andre Agassi, with whom I have hit balls and watched play hundreds of times.
The Open Era changed the game in terms of competition in the 60s. Television coverage and popularity of the sport brought masses to the sport in the 70s. Racquet advancement and technology have changed the game in more recent years. Can you imagine Rod Laver with a Wilson Spin? Interesting to think about.
Needless to say, I finally put all the facets of the game and its players in place. The second slot, all time, greatest... and here comes the double whammy:
Rod Laver and Margaret Court
Rod Laver really was an immense presence in the game. He is even to today. Respected by his peers as well as those great players to follow like Pete Sampras and Roger Federer.
But his peers, especially in his native Australia, were some of the greatest players the sport of tennis has ever seen. These were the golden days of Australian tennis with players like Roy Emerson, John Newcombe, Ken Rosewall, Fred Stolle, Tony Roche, Neale Fraser, and Frank Bromwich among others. Has a country ever dominated a sport as the Australians did through the 50s and 60s? Maybe the All-Blacks in rugby? But then again not too many Word Cups to their country's team. Maybe America with Lance Armstrong and cycling? But we know what happened there. Maybe British rowing with Sir Steve Redgrave? But the Aussies in tennis surely dominated.
With all this said, Rod Laver, with this incredible group of countrymen competing against him at every turn, was able to win two Grand Slams - all four majors in one year. Yep, he did that twice. Never done since. I doubt it will be done again.
Had I been Australian, I think perhaps Rod Laver and Margaret Court would be tied for Number One all time. For as Laver was completing his domination of the sport, Margaret Court took 62 Grand
Slam titles - 24 Singles titles with 19 Ladies Doubles and 19 Mixed Doubles. Yes, 24. We are in awe of Roger's 17. Court has 24! Add the doubles. You can't discount those numbers.
In addition, we often forget about those doubles titles when we talk about the greatest player ever, but the talent required to play both singles and doubles, in my opinion, is a true test of the greatness of any player. I've said it before defending McEnroe and I'll say it again. Talent and mental toughness for two different games.
Margaret stands atop the professional tennis world with the most Grand Slam Championships to her name in the sport. And who said the Greatest Player Of All Time was limited to just the men? I didn't.
So, who is the greatest player of all time? I've taken out of my mix: Federer, Laver and Court. Who's left? Your call! I know my vote.
Tuesday, September 3, 2013
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.
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.
Sunday, June 2, 2013
C'est Si Bon - The French Open in Springtime
Les Courts Rouge. La Rive Gauche. Porte d'Auteuil. Roland Garros. C'est Paris en les printemps.
I have been to the French Open on two occasions. One was way back in my post student years when I was working with the ATP Tour. The more recent opportunity to visit was a few years ago. One of my best friends, who is French, was having a tough time and his father, who had never called me and doesn't speak any English, called me to see if I could go and visit and spend some time with him - we met in Paris and hung out and the French Open seemed like a great day out. It was. C'est si bon...
Yves Montand - C'est Si Bon
Paris in the Spring, as Cole Porter wrote, is truly special. There are other cities I guess that have some great qualities in the Spring - Washington DC's cherry blossoms are amazing - but Paris has that "je ne sais quoi" and The French Open at Roland Garros is a part of the Spring Saison. In 1865, Jules Jaluzot founded the famous department store Printemps - which surely meant that Springtime in Paris is surely special.
Named after one of the aviators at an exclusive Parisian Club, Roland Garros is perhaps the most intimate of all the tennis majors. The show courts are comfortable, unlike Wimbledon. They are cozy, unlike the US Open and Australia. The site was given to the French Tennis Federation back in 1928 by Stade Francais to host the 4 Musketeers who had just beaten the Americans on US soil in 1928
Jacques "Toto" Brugnon, Jean Borotra, Henri Cochet and René Lacoste in fact took French tennis global, winning five Davis Cups and winning the long awaited rematch at the new French tennis home in 1928 at Roland Garros. These Frenchmen went on to win an unprecedented five Davis Cups in a row.
The surface has never changed, and the maxim that the red clay is a leveler is surely appropriate. What's most interesting in looking at the list of Champions and even runner-ups is who is not there. Pete Sampras never won here, which in my book denies him from being the best player ever. The fact that Roger Federer has won this Championship only once speaks volumes. One of the best finesse players ever to take the court, Roger finally won here in 2009. Guess who only won once as well? Rod Laver who many say is the greatest player of all time won it just once - the year he won all the majors fortunately for him. And Ilie Nastase, who arguably was the greatest finesse player, won it just once.
On the women's side, people rarely note that among all her majors, Martina Navratilova just won it twice whereas the clay favored diminutive Justine Henin who took home the trophy on four separate occasions.
The list of Champions is surely a quirky statistic that we can reflect on every year as the red clay in Paris covers socks, ankles, racquets and balls. But there is an art to tennis when the tour makes its ultimate annual stop in what was once fields just to the South of the beautiful Bois du Boulogne. Even the cameramen for France 2 find artistic angles and views which I believe bring the viewer in closer to the action and help the television viewing world to feel just that little bit Francais.
Thus far this year's French Internationale, as it was called when they opened the tournament to non French Club players back in the early 20th Century, has not waivered too much away from the seeds. Upsets are coming I am sure and the quirky list that mark the Championship's winners I am sure will have another surprise in store for us this year.
I have been to the French Open on two occasions. One was way back in my post student years when I was working with the ATP Tour. The more recent opportunity to visit was a few years ago. One of my best friends, who is French, was having a tough time and his father, who had never called me and doesn't speak any English, called me to see if I could go and visit and spend some time with him - we met in Paris and hung out and the French Open seemed like a great day out. It was. C'est si bon...
Yves Montand - C'est Si Bon
Paris in the Spring, as Cole Porter wrote, is truly special. There are other cities I guess that have some great qualities in the Spring - Washington DC's cherry blossoms are amazing - but Paris has that "je ne sais quoi" and The French Open at Roland Garros is a part of the Spring Saison. In 1865, Jules Jaluzot founded the famous department store Printemps - which surely meant that Springtime in Paris is surely special.
Named after one of the aviators at an exclusive Parisian Club, Roland Garros is perhaps the most intimate of all the tennis majors. The show courts are comfortable, unlike Wimbledon. They are cozy, unlike the US Open and Australia. The site was given to the French Tennis Federation back in 1928 by Stade Francais to host the 4 Musketeers who had just beaten the Americans on US soil in 1928
Jacques "Toto" Brugnon, Jean Borotra, Henri Cochet and René Lacoste in fact took French tennis global, winning five Davis Cups and winning the long awaited rematch at the new French tennis home in 1928 at Roland Garros. These Frenchmen went on to win an unprecedented five Davis Cups in a row.
The Four Musketeers who won The Davis Cup in 1928 at the new Roland Garros. Rene Lacoste already has the alligator. All they're missing are the ties! |
The surface has never changed, and the maxim that the red clay is a leveler is surely appropriate. What's most interesting in looking at the list of Champions and even runner-ups is who is not there. Pete Sampras never won here, which in my book denies him from being the best player ever. The fact that Roger Federer has won this Championship only once speaks volumes. One of the best finesse players ever to take the court, Roger finally won here in 2009. Guess who only won once as well? Rod Laver who many say is the greatest player of all time won it just once - the year he won all the majors fortunately for him. And Ilie Nastase, who arguably was the greatest finesse player, won it just once.
On the women's side, people rarely note that among all her majors, Martina Navratilova just won it twice whereas the clay favored diminutive Justine Henin who took home the trophy on four separate occasions.
The list of Champions is surely a quirky statistic that we can reflect on every year as the red clay in Paris covers socks, ankles, racquets and balls. But there is an art to tennis when the tour makes its ultimate annual stop in what was once fields just to the South of the beautiful Bois du Boulogne. Even the cameramen for France 2 find artistic angles and views which I believe bring the viewer in closer to the action and help the television viewing world to feel just that little bit Francais.
Thus far this year's French Internationale, as it was called when they opened the tournament to non French Club players back in the early 20th Century, has not waivered too much away from the seeds. Upsets are coming I am sure and the quirky list that mark the Championship's winners I am sure will have another surprise in store for us this year.
Wednesday, November 14, 2012
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.
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.
Friday, September 28, 2012
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.
Sunday, September 23, 2012
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.
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.
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.
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.
Sunday, September 9, 2012
Americans At The Top of Tennis! Oh, That's Just Doubles
Why Doesn't Doubles Get The Coverage It Deserves?
We are in the middle of an era where the media is harping on about the lack of American tennis players. Hold on folks.The Bryan Brothers are the best in the world in tennis and have been for the past few years. Oh yeah, that's just doubles.I was so happy to see a photo of the Bryan Brothers winning the US Open on the cover of yesterday's Wall Street Journal. It was a testament, finally, to the dominance of this duo in their respective sport: Men's Doubles Tennis. And, given, that the majority of the viewing public (those with the finances that US Open sponsors American Express, JP Morgan and Chase are all vying for) plays doubles, I am surprised that doubles does not get nearly the television or media coverage that singles receives.
When I go and teach a clinic and discuss how the Bryan Brothers play often I-formation or Australian, most of my students look at me with a dazed look and say: "We've never seen them play." We should feature these brothers - they are simply the best the world has to offer.
Just How Good Are The Bryan Brothers At Doubles?
They are the best ever. Full stop. As Roger Federer can be said to be the best ever with the most Grand Slam singles titles, The Bryan Brothers are the best in doubles, matching that feat. Not only did Bob and Mike Bryan win the US Open this year, they are Olympic Gold Medallists as well. It's fortunate for them their sport offers so many opportunities for glory, but for a super duo like this, with 12 major titles under their belts, they have taken many of the opportunities and have owned the doubles landscape internationally over the past 5 or 6 years.Rachel Cohen, of the Associated Press, writes that the Bryan Brothers were inspired by the "Woodies" - Mark Woodforde and Todd Woodbridge of Australia, who in their time at the top won 11 coveted Grand Slam titles in the Open Era, which began in 1968. This week, the Bryan Brothers broke that record - one which I personally thought would never be broken as the Woodies simply dominated the doubles court at most major events. You can read Rachel's excellent article here: Rachel Cohen on The Bryan Brothers
The Bryan Brothers are now tied with Bob Lutz and Stan Smith with four US Open titles.
If you don't remember Lutz and Smith - they won over 40 doubles titles between them and in fact Lutz was number 7 in the world in singles and Smith topped the charts at number 1. They were a dynasty. Now they've been surpassed and yet so few tennis fans even realize.
The Bryan brothers have now won a Grand Slam title each year since 2004. The scary thing? They play doubles so their professional shelf life is longer. The expiration date for doubles players - well don't we all still play it on the weekends? These guys are going to be around for The Olympic Games in Brazil in 2016! I wouldn't put it past them if we see them in 2020 either. What's another 8 years?
Thursday, September 6, 2012
The Spheres Of The Tennis Swing
In order to simplify a backhand or a forehand groundstroke, I often teach what I term "The Spheres of The Swing" which is another way of saying keep the racquet on one side of the body.
Often, a student will come to me and say he or she is late on most hits. Usually, what I see is that the student has taken the racquet back beyond the perpendicular (pointing at the back fence) and around behind their derrieres or rear end. If, as a professional teacher, you can see your student's racquet behind their butt, the racquet has gone back too far.
Rick Macci, one of the leading teacher's in the country, describes "tapping the dog" on the forehand as one way to stop the student from taking the racquet back too far. I use it as a tool to keep the racquet on the forehand side of the body throughout the stroke. If you look at the link below, Roger Federer hits the "tap the dog" position, which is palm facing down around hip height, at 0.48 seconds in the video. From there, he almost pulls his hand forward while extending his arm, which puts the racquet into the perpendicular to the net and back screen position just before the racquet head begins to move forward.
Remember this: If a student goes back too far on the backswing and behind their back into the other sphere, chances are they are going to be late making contact. Also, if the swing forward starts behind their back, their swing tends to be more circular, with a centrifugal force and focus, around their hips and bodies, rather than with a linear focus toward their objective and through the ball's path. Keep it simple and keep the racquet on the forehand side of the body while hitting a forehand and vice versa for the backhand.
Often, a student will come to me and say he or she is late on most hits. Usually, what I see is that the student has taken the racquet back beyond the perpendicular (pointing at the back fence) and around behind their derrieres or rear end. If, as a professional teacher, you can see your student's racquet behind their butt, the racquet has gone back too far.
Rick Macci, one of the leading teacher's in the country, describes "tapping the dog" on the forehand as one way to stop the student from taking the racquet back too far. I use it as a tool to keep the racquet on the forehand side of the body throughout the stroke. If you look at the link below, Roger Federer hits the "tap the dog" position, which is palm facing down around hip height, at 0.48 seconds in the video. From there, he almost pulls his hand forward while extending his arm, which puts the racquet into the perpendicular to the net and back screen position just before the racquet head begins to move forward.
Remember this: If a student goes back too far on the backswing and behind their back into the other sphere, chances are they are going to be late making contact. Also, if the swing forward starts behind their back, their swing tends to be more circular, with a centrifugal force and focus, around their hips and bodies, rather than with a linear focus toward their objective and through the ball's path. Keep it simple and keep the racquet on the forehand side of the body while hitting a forehand and vice versa for the backhand.
Sunday, September 2, 2012
The US Open Serving It Up Nicely
Perhaps I am more in touch with the matches this year as I grow another year older, but it seems to me that the level of tennis being played at The US Open is stellar earlier in the tournament. Yesterday's match with Andy Murray and Feliciano Lopez was truly an amazing shot-making display and I am enjoying watching Leyton Hewitt right now against David Ferrer
Maybe it's the stories behind the tennis that is adding to this year's tournament and I am seeing the play through rose-coloured glasses. Kim Clijsters finishing her career on court in the mixed doubles tournament... Andy Roddick announcing that his next loss will finish his career...Sloane Stephens making a mark on the women's side from the USA.
I followed Sloane last year as she powered up her tennis game. With a team of fitness and strength coaches behind her, she appears to have the discipline and the self-confidence to be a major part of the WTA Tour over the next year. She certainly shows great speed, agility and form while playing.
Perhaps it is that this year appears to be the year of the older male player - Ferrer... Federer... Hewitt... and Fish. Mardy is pushing his way through the draw and now meets Roger Federer, 4 months his senior - both men being born in 1981. Ah... 1981. John McEnroe was champ on the men's side and Tracy Austin beat Martina Navratilova in the final - 3rd set tiebreaker. I remember the match and I wonder if I will remember this year's final as well 21 years from now. I hope so.
Maybe it's the stories behind the tennis that is adding to this year's tournament and I am seeing the play through rose-coloured glasses. Kim Clijsters finishing her career on court in the mixed doubles tournament... Andy Roddick announcing that his next loss will finish his career...Sloane Stephens making a mark on the women's side from the USA.
I followed Sloane last year as she powered up her tennis game. With a team of fitness and strength coaches behind her, she appears to have the discipline and the self-confidence to be a major part of the WTA Tour over the next year. She certainly shows great speed, agility and form while playing.
Perhaps it is that this year appears to be the year of the older male player - Ferrer... Federer... Hewitt... and Fish. Mardy is pushing his way through the draw and now meets Roger Federer, 4 months his senior - both men being born in 1981. Ah... 1981. John McEnroe was champ on the men's side and Tracy Austin beat Martina Navratilova in the final - 3rd set tiebreaker. I remember the match and I wonder if I will remember this year's final as well 21 years from now. I hope so.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)