Analysis: Maria Kirilenko – Defensive Backhand

CLICK HERE TO VIEW ANALYSIS -> Maria Kirilenko Movement Analysis

With Maria Kirilenko doing so well at the French Open this year it seemed fitting to share this analysis of her in a defensive situation on the backhand.

Maria Kirilenko (Photo credit: Carine06)

As with many tennis players Maria has had a fair share of injuries and even in this image sequence she wears a knee bandage/support.  The question for me is why has her body got to this point?  Of course there will be injuries but optimizing the body to perform the actions that are required can drastically reduce the injury potential whilst maximizing the output.

Only a few minutes ago Maria called the trainer for a lower back issue in the first set of her match with Azarenka.  Commentators also mentioned that yesterday she had a shoulder issue.  Coupling this with a possible knee problem in this analysis the question inflates to whether these are isolated injuries are they in fact interlinked and the injury is just moving around the body as one is addressed?

I believe it is that later and that to truly solve Maria’s issues the body function must be considered as a global entity and that areas of limited movement and/or dysfunctional posture will impact the possibilities at other joints in the system.

This could mean, for example, that poor hip function could lead to a rotator cuff injury as the shoulder works harder to achieve the output than it needs to.

As I have eluded to in past posts all performance process (tech,tact, phys,ment) are linked and influence each other.  Therefore all must be considered in analysis although assumptions maybe made it is closer to the truth if all are considered.

CLICK HERE TO VIEW ANALYSIS -> Maria Kirilenko Movement Analysis

In the analysis I include some training exercises related to the areas that have been considered aimed at developing the patterns and enhancing performance.  It must be said that the exercises alone will serve this purpose although it is important to understand , as in the case of Maria Kirilenko, that the function of the body and the adopted postures must not carry limitations and the transmissions of forces are efficient and seamless.  I suggest and recommend that this is addressed prior to implementing any training program.

CLICK HERE TO VIEW ANALYSIS -> Maria Kirilenko Movement Analysis

 

I hope you enjoy the analysis and please contact me if you are interested further or have any questions.

Regards,

the Tennis Engineeer

CLICK HERE TO VIEW ANALYSIS -> Maria Kirilenko Movement Analysis

Thought of the Day : balance, the greatest requirement.

effective tactics lies in effective technique which is arguably only effective if appropriate movment has taken place and the player is balanced.

regardless of everything else does the key lie in balance both for performance and development?

the tennis engineer.

Thought of the Day

Today’s thought is one of what the Tennis Engineer specialises in (along with the team of movement therapists/specialists) and that is diagnosing force leaks and re distributing tensions within the body during the execution of tennis tactics.

If there are imbalances within the body there will be compensations.  This puts the body into a state of coping rather than free flowing.  The results are that the body may become over stressed and injuries caused or that in the linkage of joint actions within the complete movement cycle,  (in a given tactic including movement to the ball, the hit and the recover) forces are leaked and the output sub optimum.

Should we allow this?

Applying Pressure Vs. Defend/Rally/Attack

Hi All,  Firstly to those who read Tactical Movement thank you and thank you for the great feedback also.  I have written this as post publishing Tactical Movement as some interesting thoughts came up and I wanted to share this mind field with you all.  Enjoy!

Applying Pressure Vs. Defend/Rally/Attack

I am sure that many coaches have done some variation of the “defend, attack and rally” drill and the purpose of this is not to dispel its use but to offer some thoughts as to ways to make the best out of it.

I have used this exercise from a player perspective, i.e. the player who is choosing to rally, attack or defend and also where from the opponent perspective where the player considers what his/her opponent is doing.

With young players the wording and their connotations have caused me a few issues along the way.  The word attack is the primary offender as to very young players they associate this with ball speed.  Attacking tennis must be played hitting the ball faster, and in many cases causing errors and quite drastic ones at that after all the work they have put in to create this “attacking” opportunity.  Similarly defending is considered to be slower than rally and that rally is medium, again all related to ball speed.

Rally by definition is a ball that keeps the opponent in a neutral position, ideally preventing “attacking” options and also not requiring any defensive mechanisms.  This suggests that two players can rally from neutral positions and that the ability to rally from many positions on the court, providing they maintain the opponent neutral is also rally.  As the competency of rally grows we end up with professional players rallying at extremely high levels which can be perceived as attacking play but really it is rally, just they are good at it.

With younger players there is obviously a wider rally potential and that the match up of players where one player rallies the other defends or a rally ball from one player is seen as an opportunity to attack, meaning that they are not rally balls at all.

This leads me to thinking that the desire for high quality rally balls is of great importance and not from single position but from all over the court (to include rallying on the move).

Time and Space

Tennis is really a game of time and space and controlling both parameters.   These two parameters appear in varying situations.

1. The time available for a player to manage the space in which they must move and execute
2. The time and space required to effectively recover
3. The effect of this on the opponent

Example

Hitting into a space causes the opponent to have to manage a distance (space) in a certain amount of time.  If the space and time is managed well by effective reaction, court coverage and selected footwork then the player will be able to execute an effective shot maintaining rally.   If not then the player must adopt defensive techniques in order to solve the problem of lack of space and time.  The player must be able to create suitable time to recover.  Depending on the management of space and time the player will be able to exploit the space and time of the opponent who will have to manage their space and time to counter.

A player will be comfortable rallying in certain situations and at a certain level and will also have a programmed view on when it is possible to attack and similarly when to defend.  However, player’s choices of these may be contrary to our views.   A player may choose to defend when in fact they could rally and hit a more effective shot given that they had or could have the physical and technical competencies to support this new tactical desire.

There are times in a game where a player will utilise varying ball speeds, spins, flights etc in order to manage their space and time and also to have some impact on the opponent’s space and time.  All degrees of these can be used in any of the three situations although some will be more desirable than others. This is where pre conceived understanding of rally, attack and defend can cause problems.

In essence a player will resort to defending when they feel it is necessary and similarly attack.  It is worth considering whether when a player resorts to defence the player could rally and that surely the player would want to rally before defend where possible.  Also in considering attacking there are more options than just increasing ball speed.

The Pressure Scale

I have thought about using a pressure scale as opposed to Attack, Rally, and Defend in order to encompass more options within play.  In an ideal rally situation both players are 50/50 in pressure and arguably at zero pressure (or the centre of the scale).  A player can apply a pressure in numerous ways by exploiting the opponent’s space and time using a variety of ball speeds, spin, flight, direction etc.

In any instance a certain amount of pressure is applied to the opponent (simply because they now have to deal with and execute their tactics).  In rally the opponent’s goal is to play a shot that keeps the opponent neutral and hence brings their pressure back to 0.  The opponent will want to manage the space and time by covering court efficiently and within the given time frame created by the oncoming ball, apply a footwork pattern to firstly execute and secondly allow recovery, play a shot that allows appropriate recovery and cover the said court again efficiently.

Both players have fluctuated up and down the pressure by applying and feeling pressure.  There has been no need to defend and no player has been able to attack?  Simply pressure has been applied and managed.

Controlling points

Through the application and management of pressure which links seamlessly to the management of space and time which is underpinned by effective tactical movement players can understand how they can control points.

Points are constructed by searching for ways to increase the application of pressure.  When serving, there is chance for the server to apply pressure from the outset.  The returner aims to neutralise and the players will be somewhere on the pressure scale post these shots.  When both players are at the back of the court players will look to construct a point by testing the opponent’s space and time and when appropriate apply more pressure.  This could be through repeated shots to a weakness, playing the ball side to side, injecting pace, using angles and a whole lot more.

This suggests an overwhelming importance to consider rallying in a wider context and also to consider the other 2 situations (attack and defend) in more holistic way.  For example a player may finish the point with a drop shot having constructed the point through consistent rallying exploiting space and time.

Quality Factor

There is of course a variety of quality in play from mini tennis through to professional levels and therefore there becomes a quality factor that at all levels must be considered. Andy Murray’s rally ball is of a much greater quality than mine and within that match (if it were to happen) I would find it difficult (maybe impossible) to rally and apply pressure against him.  Similarly my rally ball will affect certain players in the same way.  The qualify factor dictates that a player can manage the space and time well enough to execute a stroke that manages the pressure and applies a certain required pressure to the opponent.

If two players are rallying but one can maintain a higher tempo than the other, the player with the lower tempo or lack of sustainability at the higher tempo, will break first through error or opportunities to apply pressure.

I am sure we have all seen a player who can get to ever ball and get it back with seemingly low quality but the other player makes the error first.  There could be a few reasons for this.  The player with the lower quality shot is managing their time and space well, although presenting opportunity for the opponent to apply pressure.  The opponent sees this opportunity but tries to apply pressure through pace and continually increases this pace until the error appears.  This, I would consider, to not be very smart play.  The player has neglected rally and assumed the old meaning of attack, instead of applying more and more pressure through direction, controlled pace and spin etc where undoubtedly the opponent would be forced to strive for higher quality or alter tactics.

A player will want to be able to inject pace into the ball in order to reduce time for the opponent and there is a time and a place for this as is there for any other shot.  It is the point of the shot and the way the space and time is managed that will affect the outcome.

Limitation model links

My limitation model suggests that the 4 performance factors (technical, tactical, physical, mental) each limit one another, the tactical factor being the one that provides purpose for the others.

Taking the rally concept the tactical outcome would be to be able to rally over increased distances and in varying court positions under certain degrees of pressure.

The considerations that follow are

1. To what degree can the player do this?
2. What techniques are working and which could do with some help?
3. Is the player covering the court?
4. Is the footwork choice appropriate?
5. Does the player recover effectively and to an optimal position?
6. Does the stroke keep the opponent neutral and apply sufficient pressure?

Although there is a racket requirement to handle to sending of the ball there is also a heavy movement and footwork requirement which precedes it.  In order to rally in such a wide context a player will need a host of physical ability including applying certain movement techniques and footwork patterns to achieve the tactic.  If players are doing this well then the racket skill can be optimised.  Ideally it is all done in conjunction at the same time.

Considering this in a holistic manner to include the 4 performance factors players will understand what it is they are trying to do and also understand the progressions that you employ as a coach to improve certain areas within the whole game.

Note on Mini Tennis

This idea can be worked on within mini tennis red, orange and green and of course full ball.  The idea being that if a player can rally from behind the baseline with a sponge ball can the player rally on the move?  Can the player manage the space and time on the red court?  Can the player use a variety of shots to manage pressure and apply pressure?

I believe that a player in mini red can do these things and that this is what will effectively allow players to reach high levels.  If a player struggles to manage space and time on the red court how can you justify moving to orange?

This last part on mini tennis is to put the logic of keeping children in the stages for as long as possible in order to fully develop the skill set and understanding of the wider game.  It is possible for a player to be behind the baseline, using a variety of shots to play the game, managing space and time and looking for ways to exploit space and time of the opponent.

Thanks for reading!

Development vs Performance – one and the same

Hi All,

Recently I read our club newsletter and in the staff profiles it said that I was the “Performance” coach.  As nice as that is I started to think about the wording and the message that this sends to the members, in particular the juniors.  In addition to this a few coach friends had mentioned that they prefer the “development” coaching.

I became confused (this is not difficult for me).  The words just don’t make sense and I will begin to explain why.

“Performance” tennis seems to refer to the “talented” ones or those that show a greater degree of competence at a certain age or stage.  “Development” seems to be considering everyone who does not fall into the “performance” category.   This infers that there is a transition a player can make from development to performance tennis?

Having done some thinking on this development can be linked with improvement.  This makes it independent of standard or skill competency.  Simply every time a player is on court with a coach the aim is to develop or improve as a tennis player.  Performance coaching is a redundant term as the goal of the coaching sessions is still to develop and improve the players tennis.    After all a coach is aiming to develop the player to improve the performance within a match.  This is the case always.  If not then there is a question to be asked as to what the point of coaching is.

Some issues that come up in my own head is that not everyone is at tennis coaching to try to become number 1 in the world and of course the vast majority won’t realise this but that does not take away the fact that they all have the right to learn to play tennis.  Develop their skills to improve their performance when they play the game.

There will be degrees of coaches who specialise in certain areas but in the centre I work in every player is in development (as primarily U10) even those reaching national standards.  Every person who enters the centre is in the same boat of wanting to play tennis and therefore they have the right to be taught and developed.

Coaches, whatever the qualification, experience etc should all be aware that they can teach people to play tennis and play tennis well.  Whether the player is once a week  or 4 times a week a player must be taught as this will allow the player to realise success.  Success will breed enjoyment and enthusiasm.  Circumstances in terms of money and parental interest play a part in the whole rate of development discussion but still foundations can be implemented to future proof the players.

I see myself as a both performance/development as my primary goal is to enable everyone who steps on my court to learn and improve at tennis which means developing technique, tactics, physical capabilities and a mind set to play the game.  the players I work with are good but that is because they have been taught and they have learnt and worked hard to improve.

I am a coach with the goal of producing tennis players (whatever that means).

 

 

 

“Centre” – a little anecdote

The table I am sat is wobbly and to say the least annoying.  I look around for an obvious solution to the problem presented.  I find an old magazine, newspaper or bear mat and I fold the object to a suitable size and place it under the affecting leg.  The table ceases to wobble (for now) and my issue is solved.  Until of course the object deteriorates or the dog chews it or it is removed for some reason and the table reverts back to its old self of wobbliness.  the table has no way of adapting to this situation as it has no mind but it does rock to its so called or perceived centre.  It is just when the table is called upon to be functional the problem presents itself.  The degree of the problem is also a question in that the problem has to become suitably bad before anything is done about it.

The human body can be likened to this situation where there is a compensation or an inhibition but the body can adapt to function (or perceive to function) until one day it decides no.  The body adapts to what the requirements are but the degree at which it can perform the requirements are dependant on how the body currently functions.  If it functions optimally (or as close to as possible) the outcome is arguably good in the required function.  At least it gives the person the best possible chance. 

We could simply replace the table with a new one that doesn’t wobble but in the case of the body this isn’t a solution (apart from in obvious situations and I am not referring to enhanced aesthetics).  

In my work as a tennis coach I have been presented with a child who is struggling to serve due to techniques I have instructed previously.  Not that these techniques are wrong but since I have been with Anatomy In Motion (www.anatomyinmotion.co.uk) I have recognised that there is no wonder the serve is struggling. I have looked at segments of the chain where there are problems and low and behold a foot issue presented itself where the player struggled to absorb weight into the foot when performing the serve and had to constantly reposition the foot to accommodate the action.  This led to mishaps up the chain and hence affected the outcome of the serve.  Attention to improving the foot function allowed a smoother transition of weight into and up through the serve. 

In this case there was no wedge to place under the wobbly table but to educate the body to function optimally (or closer to optimum) to improve the serve.  

There are other situations where I have seen children essentially being prescribed wedges to stop their table wobbling.  What happens when the wedge is moved?  the table wobbles again.  This is the same for the child with a wobble stopping wedge.  Once it is removed the body reverts back.

As a sports coach I am starting believe in a relationship between body and requirement and that the body is our primary tool.  We need allow time to focus on allowing the body to function optimally if it is not and this will help players in their development.  

The question is do we as coaches need to skill up our knowledge in body function, posture, gait etc or do we outsource this to another professional?  I have chosen to delve into this subject as it fascinates me. For me this is a definite requirement of the modern day athlete but who is responsible for it?  

Yves Latreille – Some Thoughts on Mental Training

Hi everyone. So this post is a regurgitation of a conversation I had with my friend and coach Yves Latreille. The hope is to provide some thoughts on the requirements and the training of the mental side of sport and in this case tennis.

For me this is a mind field (haha) that is extremely difficult to implement. I have asked questions etc about their performance and what they are thinking and feeling and have just received the answers I want to hear.

So the conversation started in regards to a player I work with that is experiencing difficulties in performing in competitions. the player is very talented and in my harsh opinion underachieves in competition. I can you all already that this could be influencing his state of mind. It might but I very rarely let him know that (or at least I think I do).

A link to another article on Yves’ site Mental Training

So I chatted with Yves and here are some thoughts.

Sometimes the player is over confident or in some cases under confident. This is something you can find out by discussing with him. Ask him/her questions about what he thinks of competition and how he/she approaches it. Try to find out how he/she feels before the match, the day before, just before he/she steps on court, during the match and after the match. Does the player feel confident, energised, up for it, willing to fight? Does the player feel afraid of losing or playing poorly? Is there player worried about what the coach will think or what his parents think?

As I thought more about this it became clear that it was imperative that I knew this stuff and the people around the player also knew this stuff!

Sometimes players can focus more on the result and winning the match that they forget about the process of actually playing. Yves referred to this as Competition Paralysed!

this is very hard work and Yves suggests being positive all the time with explanations of what is needed to improve the outcomes. As an example focus on the level of intensity in training. A simple scoring system of intensity and setting this as a match requirement or goal. The result is secondary or completely lost now.

When a player focus’ on the result this can paralyse the player not only mentally but physically. This explains the perception of not trying or being lazy.

We can tackle this by focusing on the intensity in points or drills and the relaxing between points or drill sets. Use the patterns of play and the focus of sessions to distract from the result and focus on the process. This can also be the focus of a match or competition. Next time the player plays set him to targets 1. focus on game plan and 2. focus on intensity (no matter what!).

Following this discussion came this…

players can interpret anxiety as a negative instead of using it as a challenge. Can the player identify all the things that make them feel this way? Can you find away to control them or avoid them?

Does the player know what level of arousal they perform best at?

So in conclusion

We need to allow players to learn how to avoid stress factors before competition, and during competition to learn to relax between points, (breathing techniques).

Set performance goals not results based goals. If you don’t set any goals be sure the player is setting results goals and this is where the problems occur.

focus on Intensity, relaxation between points and game plan!

Well there is some food for thought,

A link to another article on Yves site Mental Training

good luck and make it count x

How do you know?

Well so far on this blog I have posted my archive of articles. This is content I use when I demonstrate the Hotspot Training System in how to maximise its use.

Now, interestingly enough all this developed from a simple question..How do you know? How do you know you are getting better at certain things?

Answers to the question such as
“I lift heavier”
“I am winning more” are valid but there is more to it..isn’t there?

How do I know if I am getting better at the agility drill or the tennis movement drill or that movement pattern. How do I know if that extra weight I am lifting is helping me get faster and hit harder? The answer is you don’t!

The only way to know is to measure. Now that is tough because off technology costing so much or in fact it dosnt exist.

Well it does now..

Whilst at University in America I trained in the gym to improve my tennis. I could see strength gains and I could run for longer but I had no idea whether I my foot speed was improving, or my agility was improving or my speed around the court. Vague attempts at measuring were made but we used to make it up (don’t tell coach van dyke at SBU tho!).

As a result of this the Hotspot concept was born. It is affordable, simple to use, can measure agility drills accurately, does force good mechanics and control and is repeatable for monitoring improvement.

So why don’t you take a look at http://www.youtube.com/gelcrooks to see it in action and check out http://www.hotspottraining.com

Why put your improvement down to chance? Take control and make it count with Hotspot

Hasta luego!

Brain or Technique?

Cognitive Vs. Physical Player Development

This idea has come about due to recent experiences in the development of some of my younger players in addition to the desired outcomes of the mini tennis structure.

I would firstly like to mention that this is not a critique of the mini tennis concept as I believe personally that it has a great place as a coaching tool.

I have found that the ability for a young player (aged 6-8) to develop technical and physical competencies on the mini red court and increase these abilities through the mini tennis ball and court progressions is readily available.  The degree of technical ability is high and I personally believe that this should be the main goal the early stages of mini tennis.  The interesting development of tactics and strategy are not as obvious and this is where I think the competition structure and ratings etc come into disrepute.

We have all seen players who demonstrate great technical capability struggle to win matches against players who are not as technically developed and we put this down to lack of tactical awareness of mental factors.  I am speculating that the tactical options available due to the high degree of technical ability are not cognitively understood by such young players.

I have seen players who can simply retrieve the ball due to the slower game and by luck or judgement (mainly the foremost) the ball’s result is one that is not common in the game in older age groups exactly what the aim of developing a player long term is.  As a result of players who win we see players with high rating’s that have serious work to be done later but who gain a false understanding of their ability and in fact the opposite is true where a player who is deemed to have a high degree of technical ability believes they are in fact rubbish (for want of a better word).

The conversation of long term development with players and parents is a constant one to reassure players and parents.

Another aspect of this is that when working with a player of this age and wanting them to experiment with learning objectives in competitions the outcome is one of wanting to win irrespective of development (understandably).

The question of the slower ball and smaller courts encourage tactical awareness and creativity is true to an extent it falls down massively in practice.  I think in theory this is a reason to have players compete however the results based ratings contradicts that of development.

The tactics that we see are the basics such as “over and in”, “move your opponent” and play to the weakness namely the backhand side.  This is comprehendible by a young player but moving the play from one situation to another to allow this seems to be not as obvious.  Since in education there is a progressive learning model i.e. we don’t study calculus in primary school for a reason, it could be that the tactical expectations are simply beyond the understanding of a 6-8 year old player.

There are obviously other aspects of sport to be gained by competing but potentially the emphasis of winning (ratings) should be lost until players are able to understand how to use the tools they have or are developing.  This would in the long term develop a far greater and higher quality of player as they are able to experiment and explore the game without the pressure of winning or losing.  Just because a player wins at young ages I am sure does not correlate with success at the older ages or in fact guarantees participation.

All in all I adopt the philosophy of high degree of technical development at a young age and later maybe U12 bring more of a tactical focus to the development using and tweaking the current tool set.  As players find areas more and more difficult or become aware of the needs for the game players are then subjected to techniques to achieve desired results and tactics.  This doesn’t mean to say there are no tactic’s at all at young ages as there always must be a tactical element to learning but it is appropriate to the learning age (not chronological).  Players are then expected to try and experiment with these learning objectives free of outcome expectations.