Creating a System – Physical Model

This post aims to give a simple overview of the considerations in a tennis related physical model.  This is not S&C or “fitness” based but links in with the previous parts of the tennis system.  S&C is a field in its own right that is out of the scope of this series but works on the premise that whatever is achieved in the gym MUST translate to the court otherwise it is all in vain.

so with that said lets consider our previous models of Tactics and Technique.  these areas are linked, of course, and one cannot happen effectively without the other.  Where I come in, is a step further, to ask the question of the functionality of the body in chasing success in the Tech/Tact model.

The logic, thus far, states that the Tactical outcome and it’s effectiveness relies on technical competency but what does technique rely on?  Good racket skills?  Footwork?  ball tracking, decision making, anticipation?  yes all of these but also we are asking the body, the complete musculo-skeletal system, to perform the action that is required.

Many coaches consider the term “bio-mechanics” and also consider developing strokes from the ground up but how many consider the actual “bio-mechanics” in terms of how forces are transmitted through the body and how the joints interact?  It is this that is missing from many sporting arenas and make life difficult for both player, coach and support staff (S&C).

The first question really is to consider whose responsibility it is for working with this area and in my opinion it is the responsibility of the coach to understand the bodies functionality, how it likes to work (optimally) and what is being asked of the body in the differing tech/tact relationship.

Now, in order to define the model one must consider each of the major joints in the body and how they interact through stroke production whilst being aware of what situation (tactically) you are dealing with.  A defensive forehand has a different bio-mechanical requirement than the “controlling” forehand and is further differing depending on the opponent  and ball characteristics.   This could get very detailed (unnecessarily) and un-practical.

Therefore, in considering the bodies functionality it makes sense to understand the general capabilities of the key joints (feet, hips/pelvis, spine) and how they link into your key tactical/technical situations.

I will be posting some analysis articles considering the complete system in the next few days (maybe today for the first one) so be sure to check those out if this has sparked interest.  Previous posts in this series can be accessed from the links below.

Please contact me with any questions and I am in the process of creating workshops for any level of coach who is interested in the bio-mechanics of tennis.   Continue to develop yours and your players tennis story!

Regards,

The Tennis Engineer,

 

Previous parts of the “Creating a System” series

Creating a System 1 – Tactical Intentions.

Creating a System 2 – Technical Model.

Creating a System 3 – Training Load.

Creating a System 3 – Training Load

This post is the third in the series following on from;

Creating a System 1 – Tactical Intentions.

Creating a System 1 – Technical Model.

Having decided the tactical intention and the techniques required in order to achieve the tactic it is time to train, practice, drill whatever you call it.  There are plenty of ways to train for example, match play, conditioned match play, cooperative control drills, fed drills, hand fed drills and there are probably more.   All of these have their merits and reasons and the list is progressive if you move from hand drills through to open match play.

However, the thesis of this post is more to do with how many balls a player hits in practice and there are few issues to deal with before any numbers are put on it.

Firstly, how many balls should a player hit per day, session, drill?  this has been debated before but some figures that I can remember are 150 per session (LTA), 3000+ to acquire skills?  I’ll leave this open but one thing is for sure LOTS of balls need to be hit!

Secondly, the quality practice thing is always bought up, quality of quantity etc.  Well, my view is that there will be a balance within a session/training block. Can we expect a player to be 100% all the time?  I don’t think so, I think we can expect maximum effort but there will be good times and bad times.  So, in order to compensate (a word used in Europe a lot), one must provide LOTS of balls to practice.

Thirdly, consider a 100 ball practice that is hand fed.  Should we expect the player to be able to compete effectively now?  Better probably, but not as if they had hit those 100 balls in match play situation?   Therefore, if the goal is to simply acquire a fine skill then hand feeding could be appropriate, but if the skill needs to transfer into match play (because they are competing at the weekend) live control drills maybe better.  I try and go with an approach of “I am adaptable” since the player may seem to have succeeded in hand fed but struggle in control and as the coach I notice something else that might help and subsequently return to hand fed drills and then go control again.

So, to summarize this section, the number of balls need is LOTS and there needs to be various degrees of progressions and regressions in order to move the player to the ultimate playground of the competition court playing fantastic tennis!

It wouldn’t be me if I didn’t bring Spain into the equation and so here is a picture of the training load for the well know drill “X factor” or as they call it Deep = Short X.   Ok notice, the 60 repetitions  and the frequency of this drill being  DAILY! 

     Sanchez Casal X drill

When I trained there during the week and the on my previous visit I found the loads tough, however, on the course the coach said that the loads are adapted to the individual along with the “area of control” to individualize the training.   In addition to this they also stated that with a weeks training at this load and intensity the adaptions are great within the anaerobic/aerobic systems.

There are some “pre competition” warm up drills with also reach 60 balls by 3 x 20 and a the final drill in the system “defense/attack balance” which is a 6 ball sequence repeated twice for symmetry (12 balls) that is totally repeated for as long as needed.  I managed 3 sets of the 12 balls (36) which was tough but again after a week of it I am sure I would be clearer to focus on outputs.  Not surprising the Spanish players are battlers!

To conclude this post, the volume needs to be pretty high in order to maximize the skill acquisition, muscle memory and required conditioning.  It HAS to be tailored to your players and can be varied by # of balls, rhythm of delivery (pace, height, flight etc) and the area of control.

Now, with the 3 posts so far we lead on to the “NEW” area of the system that is of great interest to me and that is the movement of the body (some term it bio mechanics) but I still want to call it movement just considering the joint actions and the linkage as a fluid system.  This is IMPORTANT because with training becoming more focused and more intense the chance to get hurt increases and the body takes more of a battering not to mention the stresses and strains of the today’s modern game!

With this it is imperative to consider the movement fluidity for these reasons

1. Movement efficiency will reduce injury risk
2. Movement efficiency will create greater output of the strokes (and hence tactical opportunity)
3. Movement efficiency will allow increased ability to manage space and time

Thanks again for reading and check back soon for Creating a System 4 – Physical Model

The Tennis Engineer.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Creating a System 2 – Technical Model

This post is a continuation of Creating a System 1 – Tactical Intentions.

Having considered the tactical intentions or areas of play or both we must now consider what technical model to use.  The technical model describes the “how” in the “what/why” that is the tactical intention.  It is not enough just to consider the general factors in stroke production as this carries no purpose.  So for every tactical situation there is a technical model to consider.

For example, in considering a defensive situation on the forehand side, with the player positioned mid way over and a few meters behind the baseline what are the requirements of the player?  Are these requirements the same in an offensive situation? I believe that answer is no, and if you agree then there are technical differences.

A friend of mine bought up the scenario of a coach observing a player in a game and making the statement “the player needs more topspin on his forehand”.  Another coach also watching the same game commented “which forehand?”

If we consider this there are times when a player will require and want more topspin and in other situations less topspin and therefore the mechanics of the stroke production differs.  Admittedly, one can argue that there are commonalities in shots but there are also a lot of differences.

Referring back to the defensive situation above the technical model required could be one that involves loading onto the rear leg (80:20 %) and a greater low to high swing path.  Other factors to consider are contact position, rotation of upper body, transfer of weight etc.

Even at this point there are things missing!!!

Possibly most importantly how does a player receive the ball?  what movement and footwork is required?  what is the ball doing (speed, spin, flight), what should the sent ball look like and what effect should it have on the opponent?

From my recent education in Spain, the training is setup to improve the ideal and the technical model is also centered around what would be ideal.    It consists of side steps in a diagonal path to get behind the ball and a recovery into a optimal position expecting the next ball to be an offensive opportunity along with stroke production teaching points.  Personally I like this mentality as why train for anything less than great?

Considering the technical model as a direct result of the tactical intention and taking into account opponent, ball characteristics (received and sent), the complete movement cycle as well as the racket paths and body functions you are now in a position to create drills and exercises to effectively train technique in a tactical context.

Now the foundations of understanding allow for a few other things to happen;

1. Movement efficiency in terms of bio mechanics, body functions  and the linkage
2. Acquiring/Mastering the skills in context requires a  training load (number of balls, rhythm)
3. Progressive development of exercises in challenging are of control (tennis) + load, and range of motion (body function)

The next post will consider some of the Spanish drills in terms of tactical intentions, technical model and training loads + “break out” exercises (progressions/regressions).

thanks for reading,

The Tennis Engineer

Creating a System 1 – Tactical Intentions

Hi, in this blog post I am talking about the necessity of having a system and some ideas on where to start.

The first thing is to consider what a system is and it is defined here;

Noun A set of connected things or parts forming a complex whole, in particular. A set of things working together as parts of a mechanism or an interconnecting network.

Synonyms method – order – scheme – process

The end goal in tennis is winning and we must consider how to go about winning.

UK – London – Wimbledon: Wimbledon Lawn Tennis Museum – Championship Trophies (Photo credit: wallyg)

This is where tactics originated and they arise in a variety of game situations.  The LTA, for example consider 6 tactical intentions, namely, in no particular order;

1. Finishing
2. Building
3. Trading
4. Staying
5. Neutralizing
6. Turning around

In addition, these tactical intentions are wrapped up in the game situations  of; both back, serving, returning, opponent approaching or at net, player approaching or at net.

By contrast, Spain, or more specifically Academia Sanchez-Casal consider 3 areas of play;

1. Finishing (predominantly at the net)
2. Controlling (attacking the ball to be offensive)
3. Defending (aggressive or dominant defensive with the intention of creating attacking opportunity)

with the ideal of players being “all court players”.

At the start of my process I claimed 4 areas of play which were the Spanish 3 plus trading (or out rallying).   More recently I have ditched the trading as I consider it a “nothing” term and there is no intention to win and suggests the player has no real purpose in attempting to trade.

The Spanish train with an “ideal” in mind.  This says that we should always train for the ideal and therefore if we can hit the best shot possible we should.  This aids in the acquisition of skills and develops a players “area of control”.  The area of control is defined as the boundaries in which a player can move into defensive and to attack and be still executing the ideal.  Over time and with daily training the area of control expands in which the player can now cover a lot of court and be on balance and executing very effectively.  Consider a player who can defend effectively at high tempo and still feel balanced and in control, the opportunities are great.

Bringing the LTA back for a second, they advocate strategies such as playing with consistency, controlling space and time and considering strengths and weakness.  Spain also have this idea but simply suggest that by always hitting into the space with your fantastic shots, your opponent will run and you will not, good times!  Your area of control determines your ability to manage your own space and time and against players of higher level or increased rhythm.

I have heard that coaches think that Spain is all drills and thousands of balls, and they wouldn’t be wrong.  HOWEVER, each of the 11 drills is tactically devised or has a “transfer objective” to aid tactically and forms the basis of the training system.  In addition to this there is a high emphasis on live drills where player work on the “controls” cooperatively together (at high rhythm) and also the part where they compete in variety of conditioned matches.  Here it is evident that the players learn to adapt and understand the geometry of the court.

So, for me, the important part of all this is not that Spain is better than the LTA or vice versa, but more so that there is a clear system with clearly defined ways of training the players within the system that encourages the play that the system wants.  Everyone involved understands and commits.  Simple.

I have not been into creating weird and wonderful drills but to use simple patterns that I can adpat and mould to whatever I need.  The 11 drills of the Spanish system work brilliantly and have infinite breakouts or alterations so are perfect for me. Regardless of what tactical system you adopt or create the point is that there is a system and that your players have something to relate to, believe in and train in.

Just to clarify, the start of the system is one that aids in the winning of tennis matches and that is built on tactical intentions and situations.  There are other components of the system that I will be addressing in future posts such as;

• Technical Model (This refers to each stroke in a given tactical situation)
• Physical Model (This refers the joint actions and kinetic chain involved in the movement cycle)
• Training Loads (number of repetitions, hours on court)

NB: The physical model is not one of building strength but of movement fluidity within the technical model.

I hope you enjoyed this post and that it may help in the devising of your own system or further understanding of the system in your club, country.

Regards,

The Tennis Engineer.