February 2004 -- Question: My question is about movement. It seems that the modern game, with the increased power and spin of shots, makes it hard to move forward all the time. Yet, I hear people continue to teach about the importance of forward movement. Is it possible to “overteach” forward movement and emphasize it too much?
Answer: I believe your concern is valid and that we should clarify some issues. This became very clear to me at a recent USA Tennis High Performance Coaches Workshop, where I was invited to present the topic of biomechanics. There were about 25 coaches in attendance who had qualified for the program. One of the other presenters was Kelly Jones, a former world No. 1 doubles player and someone with whom I had worked early in his career. Kelly was in the classroom listening to my presentation and, in response to something I said, raised a very pointed question.
I was discussing the fundamentals of footwork as they relate to the volley and was talking about the concept of “moving to the ball.” I was discussing the basics of how a player’s feet might form the base of a triangle and how he should, as he is about to volley, think of stepping toward the top of a triangle and try to “move to the ball.” Kelly, who works with several world-class players, disagreed, saying that he believed we shouldn’t teach that concept all the time. And it hit me! He was right! It wasn’t that I was wrong, but I needed to teach flexibility in learning to hit effective volleys. So, let’s break down this discussion to clarify how both of us could be right.
My viewpoint is that, for most players, we have to deal with fundamentals and I believe that movement is the name of the game. Kelly’s viewpoint is that there are times when you can’t be concerned about specific movement and, even when you should, it shouldn’t necessarily be emphasized. Whereas I used a drill that teaches a player to move as she volleys, Kelly prefers a drill where he has the player wait until the last instant and then move to strike the volley. Often, the volley in the latter case is a matter of forward action by the body and hands to contact the ball in front of the body. Now, how could we both be right?
Remember that teaching tennis is a matter of laws, principles and preferences. Laws, like gravity, cannot be violated. Principles, on the other hand, can help or hurt the player. An example of this is a figure skater spinning on the ice. If the skater wishes to rotate faster, the arms are pulled in, making the radius of rotation shorter. And, when the skater wants to slow down, the arms are extended, making the radius longer. In tennis, you could teach a two-handed backhand by beginning with the elbows in, enabling the athlete to rotate the trunk faster. Or, you could teach the very same stroke by starting with the arms a bit more extended, somewhat like Jimmy Connors began his stroke. Neither method is incorrect, only using principles differently. Problems can occur if the player extends too soon, causing the motion to decelerate, or doesn’t extend enough, causing poor leverage into the shot. The third aspect is your preference for teaching. In my case, I preferred to always go back to basics and make sure we used the basics. In Kelly’s case, he wants his players to practice like they would volley in a match and be prepared for anything. I actually like Kelly’s thoughts along with the drills he used, and believe that players can develop tremendous volleying skills using that type of practice setting.
I don’t believe that either of us would say that you should sacrifice fundamentals and, at the same time, both of us would say that tennis is a game of emergencies and that you have to teach players how to respond to those situations appropriately. A key point to all of this is to (1) remain open-minded when discussing how you teach certain movements and strokes and (2) listen carefully when someone disagrees with you about how you stated something. It’s just possible you both could be right!
Send questions to jgroppel@LGEPerformance.com.
