Do You Know These 3 Forehand Styles? Most Players Don’t!
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 5 ก.พ. 2025
- Every players needs to decide which Forehand Type is best for them. There are 3 different approaches to hitting a forehand, and I am not talking about “Approach Shots”. This is a subject I’ve not seen spoken about before on TH-cam and it’s a fundamental aspect for your stroke mechanics. If you enjoy these video, let me know in the comments and I can dive-in deeper into the specifics of each of these approaches in future videos.
🧵 Buy Me Some String! buymeacoffee.c... 🎾
👋 SOCIALS/CONTACT
IG: / tktennischannel
Bluesky: bsky.app/profi...
Email: tktennischannel@gmail.com
These videos are meant to be thought provoking and I hope you enjoy this perspective. Every player needs to find the forehand approach type that suits them best. I haven’t seen this discussed on TH-cam before and I hope it was worth the time to create. If you’d like me to dive deeper into the 3 forehand approaches, let me know in the comments!
Help me 💣up this video with a LIKE, SUBSCRIBE, and SHARE...and drop your questions in the comments
A compact stroke, or The Measured Approach as you call it, is what I have always recommended to beginners who talk to me. I am not a coach, but honoured to be consulted every now and then.
I'm very glad that your forehand ideas approves mine. I get a confidence boost too.
I think you are wise. For certain segments of players, the measured approach simplifies the mindset. I would much rather see players make proper contact with the ball versus taking a full swing and only occasionally make proper contact.
Interesting, thanks for preparing and posting this. I'd like to suggest that preparation on all these starts before the bounce; in other words the players don't just stand doing nothing until the ball bounces. Rather they are moving to the side of the incoming ball and turning. I'm sure we agree on that (and am not suggesting you are saying the opposite). What happens after is more about the player's preferred body/arm to swing motion, with Mannarino having a very compact and linear arm (basically on one plane at 90 degrees to the body - them through), Korda's arm goes a little high, then is lowered and swings through with a higher follow through, and Etchverry a high elbow and arm, followed by big drop and drive (which needs more timing). But in all cases the body turns back and then rotates through. So the main difference is in the arm placement on the backswing, and what that then entails on the through-swing to hit the ball. Whereas i've tried pretty much them all i do agree with your analysis of pros and cons, and that most players find what suits them. Unfortunately this gets obscured with all the stuff on ATP vs WTA, pat the dog and so on. A lot of that comes from the grip the player uses and too often that is ignored. Conti or eastern grip - big difference from a semi-western or western in terms of what needs to happen! Good content!
100%, I could have been more clear that a unit turn and movement starts as soon as possible and well before the ball bounces.
Great content! I had just previously arrived at the measured approach(of course I didn’t know there was a term for it) due to bad timing and hitting late. I’m an adult learner so I’m hoping this approach will help me. Again, thanks for the content, please keep these topics coming.
The tennis coaching world does a very poor job labeling strokes and when they do, most people still have no idea what they are referencing. I'm trying to do my small part in defining things with more clarity and this topic specifically is rarely if ever spoken about. My goal is for players to experiment and determine what works best for them based on their skill and ability. I hope this gives your options some perspective. 👋
I think that I have the natural approach. I’ve never had a coach/lessons growing up. I would also always play/practice with my dad during the spring/summer for 1 hour per day. When I was 11, I was taking tennis more seriously. I googled who was the best tennis player, so that I could learn from how they played. The search result was roger Federer. My perspective at the time was to not copy his technique (because frankly I didn’t knew that his technique was desired by all) but to get inspiration on how he striked the ball. Fast forward to today, my technique closely resembles the one that Korda has (minus the elite ball striking and footwork of course) with also a similar approach to striking the ball.
I don't like the word natural as it suggest everyone starts out with that stroke. I think the difference is in how they were coached. Some starts out withe racquet back early approach because the coach say to starts with the racquet back. Rather than compare forehands, I like to analyze why the forehand is so by looking at the play style. All three have different play styles. So most likely they all have different forehand.
Interesting topic TK, I’d be interested in seeing if many coaches are actually teaching either specifically from a beginner standard rather than allowing the student to find their natural way, which I’d probably more assume. I coached 15yrs up until 2013 and from memory(which is terrible) I recall most students naturally had the natural approach from day one and I only really needed to address this topic early on with some of the less coordinated students. And in that, it wasn’t an option when I did my coaching accreditations, natural approach was the only way to ‘prepare’ as far as they taught us.
I doubt it. In all my years coaching and playing I've never seen this specifically defined and I figured its a topic someone should cover because at least in my mind it's very relevant. I completely agree that coaches should evolve someone natural strokes. However as you've undoubtedly seen, all players start doing janky unnatural things as they progress and having these approaches defined can be helpful. As an example, the Natural Approach is the most common but we all notice how often recreational players hit the ball late due to various stroke mechanic or positioning issues. The Measured approach can be used as a practice tool to get people to course correct, and/or some players may be better served changing to this approach full-time to ensure they hit properly out in front. My 2 cents
Lol, Mannarino is very unique for Low racquet speed and VERY low string tension.
Glad you gave another example.
And did you recommend to begin the backswing when the ball bounces? Is that what you have in mind at 09:00 (give or take)?
That's the very first thing that I tell beginners not to do, or they will be late on every ball that vaguely approaches the baseline.
And yet again, only practice footage.
I realize some of these perspectives go against long held beliefs, but the video evidence speaks for itself. Mannarino's string tension has no bearing on his strokes. The natural approach (which most players use) clearly shows the full backswing only starts as the ball is bouncing (Not including the shoulder-unit turn). I don't understand the practice footage quip at all, do you think the pros practice one way and play matches differently. To appease you, I'll show you match footage in my upcoming video about the best movers on each tour.
@@TK-Tennis Yes, in your footage the backswing starts when the ball bounces. But only then. Because the players that you show in practice have all the time in the world after the nice and gently played ball bounces.
Many beginners (if not all) get a rhythm with the ball bounce and stick to that very moment, even if the ball penetrates and land deep. And fail.
There is simply no time for that in a match situation, and that´s why match footage will show different takeback mechanics as soon as the opponent applies real pressure.
I have seen so many beginners showing technically elaborate swings in practice, just to see their technique crumble when the ball is shot in anger.
Even more advanced players that I face in league matches more often than not show impressive strokes during warmup - just to fall back to pushers as soon as I switch to match pace.
The only players who remain stable under pressure are those who do not synchronize the ball bounce with their takeback.
You already promised to use match footage in your uniswing video. Speaking of uniswing: Steffi Graf still is the only player using what I would call a uniswing on her forehand - and succeed with that.
It is true that all players including pros often need to prepare sooner or before the ball bounces when (1) If the ball is hit very hard and the ball is bouncing very close to the baseline and the player is also close to the baseline or (2) they are on the run to the side of the court.
The reason players struggle during matches has nothing to do with the timing of the ball from the natural approach. The problem lies with players footwork, positioning and the stress that comes along with match play...which is also why some players resort to pushing as they are wholly focused on winning the point versus playing like they do in practice.
Knowing the video evidence is everywhere, I surely won't convince you. All anyone needs to do is watch the vast majority of advanced players and the evidence is profoundly clear. You don't need to agree, that's your purgative.
@@TK-Tennis I disagree, string tension has a lot to do with strokes. Someone that has a low string tension (Mannarino) does not need to generate as much racquet head speed and kinetic energy as someone with a high string tension (Sinner). This is evident in their strokes with Sinner having more of a next gen forehand with his strings facing the back fence before swinging forward towards the ball. In contrast Mannarino with his low tension keeps as you said “a compact back swing” as he can more easily use the pace of the incoming ball since his string tension is lower.
@mannarino also has the lower spin rates in the ATP by far. There is a graph somewhere showing the rates for all players and the difference is quite big between him and everyone else. This, together with the low tension generating high power could explain why he doesn’t need to accelerate his racket as much. So, probably an outlier on the pro tour but perhaps not so different from a lot of recreational players.
Hi TK, thanks for the video. You can’t have a discussion about swings without stating the context of the incoming ball. The start of the prep and type of swing is dictated by the ball speed, the spin, and where the ball lands. The example in these videos are take from warmup clips that are relatively slow. Fonseca hit a 112mph FH at AO; you’re not starting your prep after the ball bounces, for a shot like that. Next, at club levels, which I think most of this analysis is for, maybe you can think of swings this way. But If you’re an aspiring high-level player playing against guys with pace and heavy spin, you need to get the prep out of the way asap - if it’s even possible. Then hopefully your good foot work takes you to the ball. Some factual errors (IMO), all swings should drive from the legs, (not one style involving more leg than the other); having arms out helps with gauge spacing. it helps with positioning; players are far less likely to overrun the ball with the non-dominant arm and the racquet out stretched. The early approach increases accuracy and consistency not decreases it.
That's a fair point and addressing the speed of the ball is a factor I should have discussed. However, in a typical rally ball 60-80MPH the majority of pros are executing their uniswings as the ball is bouncing (natural approach). When the ball is hit dramatically harder then it's true the preparation and swing does happen sooner and as early as possible. The opposite also holds true when a ball is hit much slower or is a "sitter" where you will see the pros move to the ball, let it bounce and then wait even longer before they execute their uniswing in one fluid motion. My general position here is the typical swing is most commonly executed as the ball is bouncing, but agin ball speed is a context I could have covered. In fact, it's a good idea for a follow up video 👋
@ I appreciate the analysis and I’m definitely a fan of looking at what the pros do and how they do it, but sometimes it’s still not clear how they are so good. In this case, I agree that you can find a lot of examples of where the pros start their hit around where the ball bounces but I would argue that doesn’t mean they aren’t trying to get the racquet back sooner. If the ball is traveling faster, or too fast, they will need to move back, I.e. Medvedev returning serve. So it looks like that’s the it’s all intentional but they are operating as close as possible to the ball. My contention is, when pace is a factor, it’s starts dictating the manner in which a player preps and the swing style he/she uses. Speed of prep becomes a factor and what works at 2.5 -3.5 level goes out the window. Additionally, swing mechanics that work at 2-3 also go out the window. For example, most club-level players swing in with the arm; unless you’re bunting or blocking the ball back, you literally cannot consistently return a FH going 80mph with the arm alone. You have to bring in the legs and body, and some sort of forward momentum moving through the ball. But anyway love the content and the discussion-as you say “this is not pickle ball “.
I am a huge fan of this channel but in this regard I am afraid I don’t agree. Firstly Manarino is not a good example. Also I think you are missing the wta stroke and how the larger circular movement in an arc requires much less effort and has less inertia to overcome than the natural. I would suggest that the long arc slow smooth prep is natural and the “natural” is designed to maximise the change in direction to maximise in turn a whip racket lag. I agree that this is most common but not most natural. The same can be said for the backswing. Federer would be a better example than Manarino where he combines early unit turn and prep with a “natural” flip of the racket. Also maybe it’s easier to think of the prep and release phase like pulling a bow and arrow. The prep would be slow and precise and the release explosive. An interesting point you made was in term dog which large muscle groups generate the power and initiate the swing. Hips and shoulder turn for sure but the wta fluency relies on a long take back and early prep. Maybe not Coco G but definitely Swiatek. Again this issue here is how to load the rollercoaster and a lot of the difference are whether the racket head is set above the shoulder or below. Think fonseca?! Or compare Novak D and Federer. I agree prep is important but there is a general rule that I do think helps and that is to establish a rhythm and the ball hit is split step, ball flight is unit turn ball prep bound is racket cocked and bounce is final wrist release and as the ball rises then the firing of the kinetic chain which typically involves a contrary motion of the wrist and racket head to the large muscle movement and the arm pulling through to contact. Hope that makes sense. And thanks again for such great content.
Hey Ken, Watch Federer in slow motion, and you'll see his full backswing typically starts as the ball is bouncing and his racquet stays in one continuous motion i.e. uniswing. This does not include the unit turn which of course happens as early as possible. This is different than Mannarino's measured and abbreviated approach. I labeled it the "Natural" approach simply because it's the same general approach taken by all beginners who are totally new to the game.
Reminder that all the other aspects you mentioned are valid, but they are all part of the kinetic chain and biomechanic requirements regardless of the approach type. Whether everyone agrees with all the details or not is up to each individual, I'm just glad it's thought provoking and makes us all challenge how we view stroke mechanics.
Thanks for watching and enjoying the videos.