Comments on: The Myth Of Correct Tennis Technique

By: Daniel Libeskind Rosenbaum

Daniel Libeskind Rosenbaum — Sun, 13 Apr 2025 10:38:06 +0000

I understand the paradigma: why learning technique form if it is always subjected to change? Well, the “correct” technique from an efficient perspective is a matrix from which strokes derives, obviously depending on the circumstantial playing situation subjected to players tactical decisions (intentions). Not all the solutions to the different coming balls are found within this matrix and it derived spectrum. However, it afford players to manage a wide quantity of of them. This is why they learn it (and perfect all the situational variations) as a way to uniform the patterns. Standardizing solutions is a way to simplify the tasks. In a technological modern society it is “natural” to adopt practical recurrent tools. Nevertheless, although tennis as an “open skills game”, apparently unpredictable and random, which demands different solutions to different problems, becomes predictable and uniform to which players anticipate their reactions, both tactical and technical. However, there is always a margin of playing situations (more or less unpredictable and random – it doesn’t matter) to which the uniformed technique and all the spectrum of derivatives is not able to offer satisfactory responds. In those situations other techniques, based on dexterity, coordinauion, inspiration and improvisation are useful. As the different matrices and derivatives, those different opportune techniques should be perfected as well. Because tennis is the way it is, technique will evolve and players will be always inventing new different shots.In the same way, players will watch all of them and take them as a reference to imitation. So, in part we take references to copy, because they became uniform, or because we try to imitate others inventions, and we always put our own signature and create our own game. As long as it doesn’t contrariate thechnicl send tactical principles that assures higher effectiveness.

By: Daniel Libeskind Rosenbaum

Daniel Libeskind Rosenbaum — Sun, 13 Apr 2025 09:57:44 +0000

Thank you very much for sharing your insights, Tomaz.

By: Tomaz

Tomaz — Fri, 10 Nov 2023 06:19:24 +0000

In reply to Randy. Wonderfully said.

By: Randy

Randy — Fri, 27 Oct 2023 04:50:03 +0000

Tomaz,

Thank you for the generosity of this article. I think you are the truest teacher: the kind who only wishes to takes us on a journey so we can see with our own eyes where you’ve already been.

By: Tomaz

Tomaz — Thu, 18 May 2023 21:05:34 +0000

In reply to Sean Brawley.

Hello Sean,

It’s wonderful to hear from you, I am aware of your work in the Inner game of tennis approach for many years.

I appreciate you stopping by my site and sharing a comment.

By: Sean Brawley

Sean Brawley — Wed, 10 May 2023 23:48:52 +0000

Tomaz,

This article is so spot on. I wrote an ebook a number of years ago for Wilson that makes many of the same points. My understanding emerged out of my Inner Game approach to coaching. Well done!

By: Byron Van Buren

Byron Van Buren — Fri, 01 Jan 2021 18:03:24 +0000

In reply to JonC. I find if I really pull back with my left hand before the swing I slingshot the racket with release

By: Mike Calandra

Mike Calandra — Wed, 19 Feb 2020 02:27:13 +0000

Great article that reveals why my form is just fine on the ball machine but my technique falls short on point play. I’ll definitely pay closer attention to the elements that contribute to technique rather than be obsessed with the minute mechanics of the stroke.

By: peter davey

peter davey — Sat, 28 Apr 2018 11:33:14 +0000

Hi Tomaz, in your article you ask – “So, what is in the mind of a pro player when they hit a tennis ball?”. Pete Sampras was asked what he was thinking during the match, following his ‘perfect’ Wimbledon final in 1999. He replied incredulously, “Thinking?? – I was wasn’t thinking about anything at all, I just played”. Clearly, everything he did was performed by his subconscious brain, which is how he played the perfect match. Not so easy for us though!

By: peter davey

peter davey — Wed, 25 Apr 2018 14:13:36 +0000

Hi Tomaz, I appreciate what you say, in that many players with “poor” technique are able to play to a good standard. However, I believe it’s important to recognise the difference between a technically poor but effective stroke and one which is fundamentally flawed. Even a stroke which may appear to be technically correct can have one or more small flaws, which will result in inconsistency. What is vital, is that a player has the confidence to know a particular motion will deliver an effective, reliable result. There is nothing which undermines confidence more than a stroke (I think you call it form) that delivers an erratic result, dependent on fractional changes in timing and/or footwork. Once a player has established a reliable stroke, in which they believe, they can focus on flight/timing and their subconscious mind will make the adjustments necessary to accommodate any particular situation (given a reasonable chance). I would say that players should establish a sound & reliable technique (not necessarily technically perfect) before anything else. Then, the subconscious brain will be able to program itself to handle the various situations in which a player will find themselves, in the real world of a match (over time and through practice).