A Roadmap to a Hall-of-Fame Forehand - Part 4: Introduction to the Functional Anatomy of Optimal Tennis Performance

In our previous post titled, “A Roadmap to a Hall-of-Fame Forehand – Part 3”, we suggested that anatomical terminology is far more useful in describing and explaining the movements used by players to execute their various strokes.

We’ve found that using highly precise, widely-accepted and understood anatomical terms is more effective in teaching players about stroke mechanics compared to using the overly-simplistic and easily-misunderstood tennis-specific jargon such as – “wrist layback”, “windshield wiper”, “hit in the slot”; “double-bend structure”, etc. –that dominates the current stroke instruction vocabulary used by players, teachers and coaches alike.

This way, we would finally have a common language – a common terminology that would also be easily understood by doctors and physical therapists in the case, heaven forbid, when tennis somehow leads to injury – to describe the stroke mechanics used by any and all tennis players.

In stark contrast to the fundamentally over-simplified, imprecise and confusing jargon, anatomical terms like “abduction”, “rotation”, “pronation” , “supination”, etc. have very precise meanings which then provide you with far more precise instruction to help you (re-)produce the exact movements you need to increase your racquet speed, the amount of topspin you can generate, the trajectory of your shot, etc.

In this post, we’ll introduce a visual, “anatomical” map of the movements Federer uses to execute his forehand.

In other words, what we’re presenting here is the “functional anatomy” of Roger Federer’s forehand.

Before we really kick things off, let’s make two important points here:

1. because we are looking at still images of what is actually “in motion”, what we are really doing with those labels is identifying the type of (joint) movement that was used to achieve the static position that you see “freeze-framed” at each stage of the stroke.
2. because we are looking at “freeze-framed” events, you need to realize that the body positions you see are not always “static” positions. Rather, a given position you see may be “motion-dependent”—where the pictured position  is the result of moving the arms (or legs) in a particular way.

For example, the (sorry for the jargon here) so-called, “back-scratch” position witnessed in still image sequences of the serve is motion-dependent. Specifically, the downward rotation of the racquet tip is the result of moving the racquet arm using an overhand throwing motion. The “back-scratch” movement is caused by/the result of the external rotation of the shoulder that precedes the internal rotation of the shoulder that propels the racquet to impact.

So, the “back-scratch” movement you see is really a position-in-motion.

Therefore, you can’t reproduce it (or its intended result) by “posing” in that static position then “resuming” the rest of the stroke movements from that point.

Finally, we’ll save any discussion of the labeled movements for later posts.

For now, let’s focus on becoming familiar with correctly identifying the movements we see in any still image stroke analysis using the correct terminology…

1. The Ready Position

 2. Breaking the Triangle

 3. Completed Backswing

  

4. First Forward Move (FFM)

5. 20 frames (95.2 milliseconds) before Impact

 6. 10 Frames (47.6 milliseconds) Before Impact

 

7. Impact

8. 5 Frames (23.8 milliseconds) after Impact

9. Follow-Through - Hands at Shoulder Height

10. End of Stroke

Now, to end this post, let’s compare the “anatomical map” of Roger’s forehand at certain key stages with the map of one of his less-successful contemporaries, Andy Murray.

Before we see the evidence, how similar or different do you think the forehand mechanics between these two players might be? Are the differences subtle or “obvious”, and are the consequences of those differences small or large?

At this point, we’ve spent considerable time trying to sort out the answers to questions like these, and what we’ve found out it that the answers are mostly 180 degrees-opposite of what’s accepted and blindly followed and repeated today.

Maybe what’s more worrisome (but not surprising) is that most coaches, teachers and internet gurus don’t even know what questions they really need to ask to help their players achieve higher performance – at least in terms of stroke mechanics. (Kinda goes back to my example of expecting that your car mechanic can clean your teeth with the same competence and skill as a trained dental hygienist).

Let’s now take a look at the Federer and Murray forehands side-by-side, at five (5) key stages of the stroke: 1) the Completed Backswing; 2) at FFM, 3) at 10 frames before Impact; 4) at Impact; and, 5) during the Follow-Through at the point when the racquet hand reaches shoulder height.

 1. Completed Backswing

 2. First Forward Move (FFM)

  

 3. 10 Frames (47.6 milliseconds) Before Impact

  

 4. Impact

  

5. Follow-Through (Racquet Hand Reaches Shoulder Height)

Now, for those of you out there who still want to believe that the top players use (virtually) identical movements to execute their respective strokes - an opinion you probably have (and staunchly defend) that's reinforced by the over-simplified instruction you've received over your tennis-playing life - maybe you should start looking more closely at the evidence that's now available.

Then, based on this evidence, you might begin to reconsider what you believe you understand about forehand mechanics.

There are some clear (anatomical) differences in the movements used by Federer and Murray at the same stages of their respective forehand strokes (hint: take special note of the differences at stages #2 to #4 between Roger and Andy).

Now that these differences can be identified using a common language, maybe we might want to ask how these differences influence the resulting shot - in terms of power (racquet and ball speed) and control (spin generation potential, trajectory control, etc.) - if they exert any influence at all.

That's the question we'll begin to tackle in our next post...

TTFN!

The Power Revolution in Tennis - Part 2 (Defining the New Topspin)

In my last post, I began talking about the fundamental difference in the understanding of the proper use of topspin in today’s modern power tennis between US tennis and the rest of the successful tennis nations (i.e. Spain, France, Argentina, etc.).

The “rest of the tennis world” understands topspin as:

“Topspin” = “Control”.

Whereas, here in the US, the powers and coaches understand topspin as:

“Topspin” = “Slowing the ball down”.

Therefore, the “rest of the world” has been teaching their players how to maximize control at ever-increasing ball speeds that we see in today’s top-level tennis, and here in the US, we are developing players whose strokes become inconsistent, unstable and uncontrollable at those same speeds…

And you wonder why US tennis has trouble consistently producing legitimate (ATP) Top 100 prospects?

Who in the US pro tennis pipeline possesses the technical profile of a true Top 100, much less Top 50 ATP pro—i.e. a player with excellent foot speed, who can consistently hit first serves over 125 MPH, and has today’s super-heavy, high-speed topspin groundstrokes?

Well, at least there’s one US player who fits this profile and his name is Donald Young (ATP #98).

Is there anyone else?

The answer is not really… What we have is a tiny smattering of players who have one or two of the required attributes above, but it’s just not in the right combination to give me any reason to foresee a Top 30 or Top 50 future for them. Physical superiority cancels out all theory, and our “prospects” simply fall short on the physical and technical side of things these days.

For example, there are some US players who fulfill the 125+ MPH serve part, but not the heavy groundstroke part, nor the speedy footwork part (i.e. Isner, Delic, and Kendrick), and some who have the heavy groundstrokes but not the foot speed nor supersonic serve (i.e. Kuznetsov), etc. Is there an up-and-comer who at least has the foot speed/heavy topspin groundstroke profile other than Young? Maybe Jesse Levine, but he first needs to generate at least another 10 to 15 MPH on both his first and second serves.

So to close out this part of our discussion, is there anything we can do about the scarcity of legitimate US tennis prospects?

Well, having now met many of those in charge of US high-performance tennis, I’d say there’s not much anyone can do to change this situation really, unless we start hiring coaches and trainers from outside US tennis. The knowledge level of the principals of the US tennis establishment today is simply too dated and therefore inferior to be useful today or for the future. And since we haven’t yet perfected time travel, the only solution is to (reluctantly) admit that we lack modern tennis knowledge and begin hiring those outside experts from Spain, France and elsewhere.

You know that’s not going to happen anytime soon, so expect the prospect drought to continue.

Sorry about the slight drift off-topic, but the more I observe here in our fallen tennis nation, I feel more disappointed than encouraged ...

Back to the subject at hand, and let's continue our on-going conversation about the proper use of topspin…

So, the first thing you need to understand about topspin today, is that topspin is a(n) (technical) attribute that must be maximized in today’s high-performance tennis. Maximize topspin production on your groundstrokes (and serves, for that matter), and by definition, you are maximizing your ability to control your shots.

This fact is especially true given the ball speeds that top players today can consistently generate on their strokes. We have measured groundstroke speeds well over 100 MPH that are struck in the regular course of matchplay at the pro level, where the average rally speed is consistently in the mid-80 MPH range (it was in the low-to-mid 70s for the most part up to about 2002 or 2003). The only way to control the length and placement over such high-speed strokes, maybe the only way to keep the ball in play, is to maximize the amount of topspin applied to each stroke.

The topspin rates on today’s strokes are also higher than they’ve ever been as well, as topspin production increases in direct proportion with increasing overall racket and ball speeds, and especially given the techniques used by players today to strike their shots.

So, how do you strike the ball to maximize both straight-ahead ball speed and the topspin to control all that speed?

There are two crucial elements to today’s maximum topspin groundstrokes:

First, contact is made with a slightly closed racket face (anywhere from 3 to 10 degrees closed; and the racket face is closed throughout the entire forehand movement for most top ATP pros);

AND

Second, the overall swing path is considerable shallower (by almost 50% or more in many cases) than the swing path used in the past to generate heavy topspin.

The Federer forehand is representative of this “new topspin”, where he maintains a very closed racket face at all stages of his forehand stroke—from the backswing, through impact and during the follow-through—as well as swinging his racket on a path that is only about 30 degrees upward from start to finish such that rarely does his racket finish higher than his shoulder line. The result of this “swing geometry” is an extremely high-speed, high-spin stroke that flies through the air with the trajectory of a stroke with a much lower spin rate—i.e. the trajectory of what’s understood to be representative of a “flat” groundstroke.

Previous incarnations of the heavy topspin forehand involved both a far less extreme closure of the racket face (a perfectly perpendicular racket face was considered to be optimal), and a much steeper—anywhere from 45 to 60 degrees upward versus 30 degrees—overall swing path. What also needs to be mentioned here is that the racket speeds used in the past were also significantly slower than those used today, and the only way to hit groundstrokes that landed deep in the court with heavy topspin was to employ the “swing geometry” described above.

If you try to use the same swing geometry as the “classic” heavy topspin forehand to achieve today’s ball speeds (i.e. 85 to 95 MPH), I can almost guarantee you that every shot you hit using the “classic” geometry would fly well beyond the lines of the court. You cannot generate enough topspin with the “classic” topspin stroke mechanics to control the shot trajectory that results from making contact with such high racket speeds.

I have been a frustrated first-hand witness to this physical reality as one of my own players insists on relying on his “classic” heavy topspin forehand mechanics… Despite the fact that he can only put between 50 to 60% of his forehands into the court in a no-pressure, fed-ball drill when he tries to strike the ball over a certain speed using his current “classic” mechanics.

I concede that at this point, my conclusions about the differences between the “modern”, Federer-type swing and impact geometries or the “classic”, Borg/Lendl-type geometries, are based for the most part on anecdotal information, and not on discrete measurements of their actual “geometries” in terms of degrees and MPH. I have only limited measurement data of these attributes and let me say that even acquiring those measurements is a daunting (financial and “cultural”) challenge that involves pricey (to say the least) high-speed video and Doppler radar technologies.

However, I can say that I am very interested in getting this information because I think it has tremendous value in systematically teaching players the type of swing mechanics that will enable them to generate the kind of strokes that are required to be truly competitive at the pro level today and in the future. And, let me say that few of my colleagues and I have already launched an effort to collect this information, so stay tuned…

Let me close out this post by discussing my keen interest in, and dismay about the overall lack of interest on the part of the tennis coaches in the physics of tennis—especially when it comes to measuring the physical attributes of a tennis ball flying off of the string bed of a tennis racket swung by a live human being. There is no readily available information or, it seems, interest on the part of the vast majority of tennis coaches on knowing and understanding, much less teaching the proper launch and impact conditions of tennis strokes.

Contrast the apparent disinterest of the tennis crowd with tennis “ballistics” with the nearly obsessive-compulsive concern of the typical pro (and recreational)golfer with the launch conditions, swing geometries and impact physics of their 14 or more different clubs with their specific model of golf ball that they use during for competition. On the other hand, if someone is interested in performing at the “ultimate level”, isn’t it logical that they (the athlete him/herself) would be very uncomfortable and unsettled to hear from their coaches that a such detailed level of understanding of the very skills they need to have to be competitive with the best of the best is “unnecessary”.

Extreme as it sounds, I think it’s normal for a professional athlete and their coaches and trainers to know and understand as much as possible about the attributes of the skills required to produce a performance level that enables them to be truly competitive at the highest echelons of their chosen sport.

That the tennis crowd largely doesn’t care to know, or worse, believes that this level of understanding is somehow unnecessary to improving the skills of all players who enjoy this great sport is somehow disappointing and disillusioning. But given the reality that the vast majority of tennis knowledge circulating today is based solely on anecdotal information, why would anyone in tennis even bother to care about understanding the game using authentically objective information?

TTFN!

P.S. Note that I’ve omitted any mention of the “double-bend structure” that is commonly touted by so-called tennis experts as a fundamental element of their conception of the modern forehand…

Why is this?

It’s because, IMHO, the “double-bend structure” is a mechanical flaw that emerges naturally to compensate for less-than-optimal positioning relative to ball contact (and is itself justified and reinforced by another myth of “classic” tennis instruction that’s commonly used by the coaching establishment that usually comes out as “crowd the ball for more power”). Let’s put it this way, if you do possess authentic, Federer-ian forehand mechanics, you need to disrupt the double-bend structure to reproduce what Roger is actually doing.

I think my friend puts it best: “double-bend” = “double confusion”.

I mainly see the “double-bend structure” as another flawed variation on the modern forehand.

Anyway, we’ll return to this subject in a future post.

Court Movement 102

Today’s post is the continuation of the post titled “Court Movement 101” where I began to discuss the fundamentals of efficient, effective court movement. The take-home message from that post was to help you understand how proper court movement “feels”—it feels as if you are constantly accelerating and decelerating in response to your opponent’s shots rather than moving around at a single, uniform speed.

The whole point of that moving that way is to enable you to consistently find a solid hitting stance from which to execute your strokes, regardless of whether it’s a groundstroke or overhead (the volley is a different animal entirely, a stroke you need to hit while moving)—ideally, before the ball bounces on your side of the court.

Let’s expand on this concept here…

1. WIN THE RACE WITH THE BALL

The message I tell my own players about their court movement is that what they are really doing is “racing” with the incoming ball… Their goal is to win that race with the ball so that can achieve their optimal hitting stance before the ball bounces on their side, such that they can execute their own return with maximum power and control.

If you don’t win that race and fail to achieve a solid hitting stance for your groundstroke, volley, or overhead, you will compromise almost every element of your return— power, control and consistency. When you move poorly and lose that “race” with the ball, the chances of hitting a poor return, or missing the court outright grows almost exponentially. A smart, experienced competitive player understands that you have to dial down the precision or the power (or both) of your return when you’re moving poorly because the chance of making stroking error multiplies exponentially when you’re late to the ball, can’t find a solid stance, rush to make contact, etc.

A savvy competitor knows that when their movement is slow for whatever reason, they need to become way more conservative with their power and placement of their own strokes and focus on both 1) improving their movement and 2) keeping the ball in play rather than “going for their (big) shots”. The not-so-savvy player won’t make those necessary adjustments to their shots and their gamestyle rapidly descending to the level of what I like to call “sprinkler tennis”, where a player appears to be randomly spraying their returns everywhere but inside the lines of the court.

2. DEFINING THE ATTRIBUTES OF A SOLID HITTING STANCE

So the immediate benefit of proper court movement is the consistent ability to create a solid hitting stance. So what is a solid hitting stance, then?

First, let’s consider the attributes of a solid hitting stance for a groundstroke. In general, there are three main attributes of a solid hitting stance:

1) The feet are placed well beyond shoulder-width. A solid hitting stance is a wide stance.

2) Your knees comfortably flexed (or bent sufficiently to get down to the contact height of your stroke on low returns.

3) Your back is relatively straight and is tilted slightly forward from the hips.

4) Given today’s rotary groundstroking movements (emphasizing fast hip and shoulder rotation), you need to find either an open or square stance with your feet.

The closed stance, while still used by players during live matchplay, not only inhibits the full range of hip and shoulder rotation necessary to properly execute modern rotary groundstrokes (I will get more into this rotary concept in later posts), but will cause undue stress and strain on the hip and knee joints in the long term that may lead to chronic and possibly debilitating injuries (i.e. chronic hip injuries in former ATP #1s Kuerten and Norman).

When you find a solid hitting stance that incorporates these four fundamental characteristics, you will maximize your potential to make a long, fast, powerful and balanced stroke. The width of your stance will enable you to maintain your balance easily despite the great forces you will generate with your hip and shoulder rotation, as well as enable you to transfer the force you generate more efficiently into contact.

Essentially, your hitting stance should be very similar to your ready position after your split-step… Where, you need to get into an “acceleration” posture (this is the whole purpose of assuming the classically-defined “athletic stance”, as it enables the body to accelerate most efficiently in any direction) that allows you to maximize your ability to explosively accelerate in any direction (i.e. overall body angle of 45 degrees relative to the ground). This same posture also allows you to rapidly accelerate the body segments (upper and lower) required to properly execute the modern rotary groundstrokes.

Narrow hitting stances also tend promote shorter strokes as it’s harder for the body to maintain its balance while making a long, fast stroking motion. Players who use narrow stance typically have trouble controlling the depth of the strokes, and have a strong tendency to hit the ball very short rather than deep.

This concept is easy to demonstrate… Assume a narrow stance, and try to make a long, fast stroke with a full, forward weight transfer... Trouble maintaining your balance?

Now try widening your stance and make another long, fast stroke. Didn’t lose your balance this time, right? What’s the result on-court? Well, when you widen your stance, you should find that hitting with great, consistent depth becomes a whole lot easier to do mainly because the extra width of your stance encourages the full, fast, long stroke required to generate consistent depth.

3. HEEL FIRST—USING THE "LONG STEP" TO FIND THE PROPER HITTING STANCE

OK, what’s the easiest way to find the correct hitting stance when the game’s in motion? It’s quite simple… Make your last step on your approach to your opponent’s return an extra-long step. Typically, the final two to three steps as you near the exact point where you want to set up to the oncoming return should be smaller, choppy steps to help you decelerate smoothly from your initial (often longer) explosive move toward the oncoming return. But, small, choppy steps typically encourage finding a narrow stance.

So, instead, you should consciously make that final step, what the Germans refer to as a “long step” leading with your back foot, to encourage, if not ensure that you “form” a wide stance with your feet well outside shoulder-width.

Another important detail to consider when making that “long step”, is to make sure that you land with your heel first, then transfer your weight onto the ball of your foot. That’s right, I said land with your heel first when making the “long step”.

For many of you that is a contradiction in terms, as you should know that to run at maximum speed, you need to land on the balls of your feet. Indeed, that is what you need to do in the first two phases of your movement toward the oncoming return, you need to move explosively and this absolutely requires that you make contact with the court with the balls of your feet.

However, when you need to establish your hitting stance, the final part of the three-part court movement sequence (actually, it’s four parts, including the recovery movement after finishing your follow-through), landing on the ball of the foot during your “long step” is not the best method.

Remember, finding your optimal hitting stance requires that you stop and set your feet, and it is far more efficient to stop, and, more importantly, maintain your balance while stopping, by landing heel first. Landing heel-first enables you to “roll” forward onto the ball of your foot—if necessary—to dissipate any remaining movement forces. Landing heel-first also enables you to flatten your feet completely against the ground to promote an efficient forward weight transfer during your stroke.

Trying to stop and form your hitting stance by landing on the forefoot rather than on the heel will cause you to lose your balance as there is no way to dissipate any movement forces other than to lose your balance momentarily (the force(s) essentially has “nowhere to go” when you land on the forefoot) and typically causes you to make another extra step to regain your balance. Landing on the ball of the foot to make the final, “long step” is an inefficient and potentially risky method (What if your forefoot gets “stuck” on the court surface? All that sudden force then goes into stretching, shearing, and tearing your ankle tendons and ligaments… Not a good thought!).

So, what’s the take home from this post?

After you win the “race with the ball”, use the long step to “find” a proper hitting stance.

TTFN!

Introduction to Conditioning Today's High Performance Tennis Player

After my discussion of Tennismetrics 101, I think that this is a good time to begin a discussion of my current thoughts about the fundamental principles of conditioning the modern, high performance tennis player.

Let’s start by considering what physical skills need to be emphasized to help today’s tennis athletes perform their best.

First, players need to demonstrate the ability to run hundreds of short sprints with an explosive “first step” toward each of their opponent’s returns as well as an explosive “first step” to recover court position after each of their own.

Second, players need to have high levels of speed(-specific) endurance because they may need to move explosively for the two or three hours required to complete a competitive singles match.

Third, they need to demonstrate the ability to move explosively in all directions: forward, backwards, sideways, and upward to respond to the types of shots that are encountered in tennis.

Fourth, players need to demonstrate considerable arm/shoulder/upper body power and endurance to consistently generate high racket speeds over a period of several hours.

And fifth, tennis players do not have to develop large amounts of muscle mass associated with protecting athletes who compete in sports that involve physical contact—impact, if you like—with their opponents.

I am specifically mentioning the fact that tennis isn’t a contact sport because it provides me with an easy transition to the heart of this discussion... Which is to raise your awareness of the fundamental inferiority of the methods used to condition the majority of high performance tennis players here in the US.

This fundamental inferiority in tennis conditioning know-how is most plainly apparent in collegiate tennis where one of two typical scenarios occur:

a) There is a football-focused conditioning coach who tries to adapt conditioning ideas and methods developed specifically for football to tennis, OR

b) If the tennis team has no access to the department conditioning specialist, the tennis coaching staff themselves will employ their anecdotal, and outdated understanding of conditioning methods for tennis that is typically based on the conditioning drills and exercises they did themselves as active players “back in the day”.

So, the typical collegiate tennis player is either trained in the image of a football player who happens to hold a tennis racket while chasing tennis balls or is trained using archaic and largely ineffective exercises that have become irrelevant to the current demands of today’s tennis.

How could this situation be remedied in the short term?

First of all, I would recommend to the vast majority of collegiate conditioning coaches that they should acknowledge that football-specific conditioning methods have only a very general application to tennis players, and football methods fail to completely address the most important performance requirements of tennis.

Second, they need to understand that tennis is a unique composite sport that requires the development and training of diverse athletic skills and attributes, well beyond that of any single sport. By definition, they need to look beyond football and begin examining conditioning methods and philosophies from sports that require similar, if not identical physical attributes as tennis.

For example…

1) To develop the ability to perform short sprints over extended periods, I would look closely at conditioning methods from:

Basketball, Soccer, Rugby, and Aussie Rules Football

2) To develop the ability to move explosively in all directions, I would look closely at conditioning methods from:

Basketball, Soccer, Badminton, and Squash

3) To develop the overhand and sidearm throwing power and endurance required for serves and groundstrokes, I would look closely at conditioning methods from:

Baseball pitching, Football passing, Javelin, Handball, and Volleyball spiking & jump serving

Bottom line is, the majority of conditioning programs for tennis at the collegiate level today are designed and implemented by football conditioning specialists and does not adequately prepare players for the actual demands of today’s high performance tennis.

All of the conditioning programs I’ve designed and implemented for my own players only scarcely resembles what college tennis players are currently doing. The programs I’ve designed for my own players address the specific demands of today's high performance tennis and generally follow the guidelines below:

a. We do extensive assessments of relevant, individual athletic attributes to determine individual strengths and weaknesses that impact tennis performance.

b. We educate players about the performance standards they need to meet or exceed to perform at an elite (“world class”) level in tennis.

c. We fully customize all training activities to address the specific needs of individual players.

d. We periodize all training activities according to individual player performance goals.

e. We focus primarily on variations on interval training for general endurance training and development.

f. We perform specific drills and exercises to increase first-step explosiveness.

g. We perform strength training that addresses stabilization, deceleration and muscle endurance.

h. We perform speedchain training (using the Tennis SpeedChain and the Torsoburner) to increase racket speed, explosiveness of the core muscles and lateral movement
acceleration.

What I’ve described here is a very basic framework that I use to evaluate, design and implement an appropriate conditioning program for individual players. The initial evaluation of fundamental athletic attributes (#1 above) itself takes 2 to 3 full days alone. The results of those evaluations are then integrated with the information I obtain through extensive conversations with the player about their goals, injury history, etc. to develop the initial program.

Developing an effective conditioning program for high performance tennis players is a very time-consuming, involved process, so don’t be fooled by coaches and trainers who claim that they can just hand you a rote program to follow without doing the legwork to determine what’s really necessary for you to maximize your physical performance on court. If your conditioning program is not customized to your specific needs, you will end up wasting valuable time doing things that aren't going to help you improve your ability to perform.

Conditioning today’s tennis athletes given the demands of the current—and future—high performance game is inherently complex, and it’s not surprising that there are only maybe a handful of players, coaches and fitness trainers in the US who truly understand the true physical basis of high performance tennis.

And until the majority of so-called conditioning coaches improve their understanding of how to properly train today’s players to meet or exceed the actual demands of the sport today, the vast majority of high performance tennis players won’t be fully prepared to confront the challenges that await them on the tennis court.

TTFN!