Over the last few weeks, I’ve had the chance to play more tennis. More than usual anyway. And it’s been really great (although I’m not in as good of shape as I thought I was!). The truth is, I’ll be 35 this year, which means I could, in theory, play senior ITF events. Maybe I will, who knows.
In any case, if you’re like me - getting back into more tennis - you probably have some good days on the court and some not so good days. It doesn’t matter what level you’re at, we all have days where the ball feels like it’s coming off the racquet well...and days where we can’t seem to find the court.
Most of the time though, we’re somewhere in between, in that middle ground. That’s where I was at last week. It was perhaps my 5th or 6th time on court and I decided to play a set (first one of the year). Physically, I felt great. I was moving well and had plenty of jump in my step. But while my footwork felt on point, I often found myself late on the ball. How could this be?
Given that I like to dive deeper into these sorts of things, I began digging into the footage. And that’s how I found my mistake.
This was me - late - far too often.
But First, A Word on Coaching
What I’d like to do in this post, is offer another perspective on how we can analyze ‘mistakes’ in tennis. And while it’s not the point of this article to go in-depth on coaching - I’d like to set the stage by outlining two, seemingly contrasting, approaches.
Technique Based Approach
If you’ve ever taken a tennis lesson - or given one - then you’re probably familiar with this type of coaching strategy. As the name implies, technique-based is a form of coaching that analyzes an individual’s strokes, and offers technical advise/cues to try to correct those strokes. Usually it’s driven by a particular ‘error’ in a stroke - for instance, “we’re going to work on your forehand today”.
As Crespo, Reid and Miley (2004) state:
“The coach runs a session that includes a warm-up, a hitting phase to identify a fault, a correction phase, and a related game.”
There’s no question, if your forehand (or any other stroke) improves technically, the quality of your shots (in theory) will also ameliorate.
The problem with this approach is this - it doesn’t matter how perfect your elbow separation is on your forehand prep or your wrist angle on a low volley, if you aren’t able to do a host of other things on the tennis court.
Like perceiving the ball, timing that perfect technique of yours with an appropriate impact point, reading the tactical scenario and perhaps the most important factor, being able to hit the ball between the lines...and even more specifically, with the correct shape, speed and precision (given the situation).
Game-Based Approach
Over the last couple decades, another coaching approach has emerged. While experienced coaches have used it for years, others haven’t quite caught on - or haven’t even been exposed to it. It’s called the game-based approach.
Crespo et al (2004) suggests that the GBA:
“Introduces players to game situations (tactics/strategy) early in the teaching/learning process”.
The premise behind the GBA is that the situation a player finds themselves in on the tennis court matters. So much so that it’ll determine how a player prepares for a shot, where they intend to hit that shot, with what type of shape, spin and so forth.
Which means that technique will follow suit, instead of the other way around.
Is the Game Based Approach Better?
Consider this scenario for a moment - you’re playing someone who stands deep behind the baseline, making it difficult for you to hit the ball by them. In this case, what do you do?
This form of questioning, in and of itself, is a central tenant of the game-based approach. The coach presents a tactical scenario, tries to facilitate self-discovery and then proceeds to create a game that will help improve the skills needed to tackle the scenario at hand.
In this case, if our opponent is positioned well behind the baseline, perhaps we can make life difficult for them by hitting a drop shot? So we set up a drill to make that happen.
As you can see, the game based approach is a lot more specific - it fosters learning through real tennis scenarios, ones that players will likely encounter during matchplay.
So does that mean we should completely throw the technique-based approach out the window and focus our attention exclusively on the game-based approach? Or if we set up the right ‘game-based’ drill, our work is done?
Not so fast. You see, what if we put players into the correct situation, they make the correct decision - and even execute the situation well - but the quality of their ball isn’t having the appropriate effect? What then?
In the case of the drop shot, maybe the player isn’t able to create backspin. Or they hit the shot with too much height, giving their opponent time to move forward.
This is where some form of ‘technique-based’ coaching can come in handy - and the best coaches do this inherently. Some of them might even argue that improving technique is still a part of the game-based approach - and that basket feeding is a tool to be used in order to provide more reps - honing the requisite skill through added practice.
As you can see, an approach should never be just one way or the other.
But Why Was I Late?
Sorry, that was a lengthier detour than I wanted to take. Let’s get back to why I was late.
Look at the kinogram below - I’m comparing myself (bottom) to Stan Wawrinka (top). This type of breakdown, by the way, is called inter-player analysis - i.e. you compare yourself (or your player) to another player. Intra-player analysis would be comparing oneself now, versus some other point in time (a good strategy to use when tracking change over weeks, months and even years).
In any case, the ball that Wawrinka and I are receiving is pretty similar - both are deep balls which are hit with good pace. But neither of us are in any threat and we’re also not in a position to attack. I’d call this a rally/neutral situation (maybe one that we could turn into what I call a ‘building’ ball...but more on that topic to come).
Either way, we’re both positioned fairly well behind the baseline (not too far back, and not too close), an ideal spot to receive this type of shot. Whereas many players stand too close to the baseline, more advanced players use the back of the court to give themselves a bit more time to prepare.
If I were to show you the video of Stan, the first thing you’d notice is that he hit a more effective shot compared to me. But based solely on the sequences of both him and I above, you could have probably guessed that.
In particular, the last 2 frames are quite revealing - I’m hitting off my back foot, compensating my swing in the process (i.e. hitting a ‘reverse forehand’). Stan, on the other hand, is more balanced and has a much better impact point, allowing him to finish his follow-through in a more ideal position. In general, this usually leads to better quality shots.
To make matters more confusing, however, our set-up positions are pretty similar. The way we take our racquets back aren’t far off (he has better elbow separation than me...but he’s also just a lot better than me).
Beyond tactics and technique, what we have to do is look at the ball and it’s positioning. Notice that I’m in my full racquet-back position in frame 2, just as the ball is bouncing off the ground. Stan, on the other hand, was in this position in frame 1, well before the bounce of the ball (in frame 2, on his bounce, he’s already begun to swing the racquet).
And because I’m late with my preparation, my timing - and consequently, my impact point - are late too. The only way I’ll have a chance at getting the ball into the court is by compensating and lifting up.
Let’s Look a Little Deeper
Below is a video of the sequence. It was the first shot after a return of serve. Take a look at the video a couple times - overall, I did a decent job with most items. I recovered back and behind the baseline fairly quickly (remember, it’s a first serve return, so getting back and giving myself some space is key), my split-step was quite early (perhaps too early?) and I was set with my rear foot prior to the bounce of the ball on my side of the court.
These are all good things. We generally look at them because they can have an impact on the remainder of the swing - and can influence our decision-making. And oftentimes, players are late because they missed one of these items - they didn’t recover quick enough, they didn’t split-step on time or they weren’t set before the bounce.
But those weren’t my issues, I was early with my footwork. The mistake I made was that I was late with my racquet work (that’s a term I’ve borrowed/stolen from experienced Canadian coach, Wayne Elderton).
You see, Wawrinka - and many pro players - prep their racquet very early. Sometimes, they do it well before they begin moving. While other times, they time it in a way where they begin prepping their racquet, and moving, simultaneously.
This skill is easier to explain than it is to master. Especially as the ball being hit has increasingly more pace to it. But in my opinion, it’s a separator between good players and great ones.
My Final Thoughts on This
Like I mentioned above, I’m playing a lot more than I used to. But I’m still only playing 3-4 hours a week. That’s as much as some juniors practice in 1 day! So does it make sense for me to try to tweak my technique incessantly?
In my opinion, no. That’s not to say I’m not working on a few things (perhaps one reason I was ‘late’ on the ball…overthinking).
But now, I know that I can (and should), focus on my racquet work. And more precisely, the ability to time my prep, based on the speed of the oncoming ball, the situation at play and the pressure of the moment. In Beyond the Swing, I offer a simple drill that targets this ability.
The thing is, I need to bring attention to it during a live ball setting. Because at my level, if I were to get someone to feed me a ball from a basket, I’d be able to execute this skill immediately. It’s just not realistic and challenging enough.
Instead, I need to ask myself- can I do this in a rally setting? What about during targeted baseline or tiebreak points? And how bout a practice match? If so - that’s when I’ll feel confident that I can bring this into the real arena - the tournament court.
In my opinion, this is a minor tweak - one I can work on (and aim to master) over time. And one that probably is best served with a holistic approach. One that considers the situation, the ball, the footwork, the racquet work, and so on.
All in all, if you’re going to take anything away from my ‘mistake’, it’s this - look at the whole picture prior to intervening. Because tennis is complex and technique, well, it’s only one piece of the puzzle.