Q:
In the September 1998 issue of
DZT, the German tennis magazine, 220 top professionals were studied and the following was observed:
90 percent of all forehands were hit with an open stance
40 percent of all two-handed backhands were hit with an open stance
45 percent of all one-handed backhands were hit with an open stance
100 percent of all students use rotation, and the linear momentum in each shot was minimal
Please comment on these results and their ramifications to teaching tennis. Should everyone begin hitting open-stance strokes now?
A: There are several things that must be said about such a study. First, I must assume that the scientific method used to evaluate the strokes was adequate and that no problems occurred that would affect the validity or the reliability of the data.
Given that, data do not lie. There is no question that the open stance has been used more and more over the last several years. And by all indications, it is here to stay. The utilization of an open stance enables a pretension to occur in the rotary muscles of the trunk and also allows for a greater degree of rotation.
It doesnt surprise me at all that so many forehands at the world-class level are hit with an open stance; the same is true for an open-stance two-handed backhand. As the body rotates backward preparing for the stroke, the arm controlling the racquet is directed away from the net. In addition, there is little question that the footwork required to hit with an open stance is not as demanding as when a player constantly tries to set up to hit with a square stance.
At the world-class level, a player learns to adequately get in position, set up properly, rotate the body in preparation and then strike the ball effectively. This even allows the great player to recover back toward the center of the baseline without stepping out, catching him or herself and then pushing off to accelerate back into court.
As for the open-stance one-handed backhand, this takes a little more coordination. The racquet arm is actually closer to the net. Therefore, when an athlete uses the open-stance one-handed backhand, there exists the potential for tremendous rotary stress on the lower back. Again, at the world-class level, there would likely be adequate strength and flexibility to perform such a movement at high velocities.
From my perspective, the biggest caveat now presents itself teaching the open-stance stroke. Let me begin by saying that open-stance strokes are excellent as far as mechanically enabling the player to strike the ball effectively. However, world-class players understand their games and their bodies extremely well. They are totally in touch with what they can do and what they cannot do.
As a player develops, I see absolutely nothing wrong with developing open-stance strokes. Where I feel mistakes are made is when open-stance strokes are taught from the beginning and the player never learns how forward momentum can be used to make the game easier. As long as players understand how forward movement can facilitate their game, I have no problem with open-stance strokes. However, when players begin hitting with an open stance due to laziness or a lack of knowledge of how to use great footwork to position themselves, I see a major problem in development.
To summarize, data such as these are always very interesting. Data, in themselves, however, do not mean that is how everything must be done. We always need to study, find new answers and then ask more questions. Then, we will truly begin to understand the developing player.
