Tactical Tennis
Tactical Tennis - in-depth coverage of match strategy, point construction, court positioning, and player analysis. Tactical patterns for offense, defense, and transitions.
Source: Fault Tolerant Tennis DOCX archive (extracted from "Tactical Tennis.docx").
Tactical Tennis Tactical Tennis is a blog started with the goal of providing in-depth, insightful ideas regarding tennis. Tackling everything from overviews of pro players, to basic tennis technique, to equipment analysis and review, the author doesnât consider any area of tennis off-limits when it comes to providing readers with useful information. tacticaltennis.com Movement - The Universal Athletic Position Glen Hill Introduction Athletic movement is a critical difference maker in tennis performance. It is also one of the areas that players struggle to improve the most. Movement patterns are learned and habituated at a young age. Most players develop their physical capabilities (strength, explosiveness) as the pathway to better movement. This neglects the technique component. Understanding the universal athletic component is a critical piece of movement technique. Tennis requires a greater adaptability in movement than almost any other sport. A tennis player must be able to react explosively in all directions. While other sports also have this requirement, few demand this capacity in such a wide variety of circumstances. For reactive movement in tennis, only the return of serve offers us an opportunity to reset. During a point we must constantly adapt our positioning, and the demands of the movement are changing. As such, it becomes important to be guided by principles rather than rules. Understanding the essence of good movement gives us the ability to adapt our movement to the situation in front of us. What constitutes a perfect split step changes depending on where in the court we stand and our direction of travel. Ultimately we are guided by three key needs: 1. Balance 2. Explosiveness 3. Directionality All movement begins somewhere. The position that we begin from influences the movement that follows. The better the starting position, the better the potential for the movement. Our starting position should allow us to be balanced, to generate power efficiently, and to move athletically in all directions. Enter the Universal Athletic Position. The Universal Athletic Position (UAP) is so named because it is the most common position in sports. While there are sports that donât feature the UAP at all, most land-based sports feature some version of it in at least some aspects of the sport. We donât train and use the UAP because itâs in most sports though. It is in most sports because it is the most efficient stance to be able to react explosively in all directions. Thatâs what makes it universal. More specialized sports that feature limited dimensions of movement will tend not to feature the UAP. However sports that require reaction in multiple axis of movement (baseball, tennis, basketball, soccer, cricket, among others) all see usage of the UAP at the highest levels. How does it address our three primary needs? Balance Balance and stability go hand in hand. The more stable a stance, the less athleticism required to remain balanced in it. An athlete standing on one leg on an uneven surface faces greater challenges than one with a wide stance on a flat surface. Primary things to note here are stance width, posture, and weight distribution. Generally, the wider the stance, the more stable it becomes. Past a certain point that stability becomes counterproductive. An athlete in the splits will not fall over, but also cannot move very quickly. We should aim for a stance wide enough to provide stability (heels outside the hips) without compromising movement (narrow enough we can comfortably bend at the ankles, knees, and hips). Good posture doesnât always mean standing upright. It does mean good spinal alignment. Across sports we see great movers keeping their spine erect even as they have flexion in other joints. Finally weight distribution. We should strive to have as much of our foot in contact with the ground as possible when our direction of travel is uncertain. Different movement directions require applying force to the ground through different parts of our feet. If an athlete is on their toes, they cannot utilize their heels for movement without first putting their heels down - costing valuable time. Explosiveness If we consider peak explosive movement from a stationary position, we can take cues from great jumpers. There is a significant overlap in the muscles used for a standing jump and those required for explosive movement laterally, forwards, or backwards. Byron Jones set an NFL combine record for the standing jump. His goal (and that of any great jumper) is to recruit as many useful muscles as possible towards upwards propulsion. We can see he engages flexion at the ankles, knees and hips. This allows him to use all of the powerful muscles involved in extending those joints to launch himself upwards. We want to follow a similar path. A good Universal Athletic Position will feature the same patterns of flexion, just to smaller degrees. We should have bends at the ankles, knees and hips to utilize our quads, hamstrings, glutes, and calves to maximum effect. Where a tennis player differs from a great jumper is in the amount of flexion and the width of the stance. A tennis player must compromise their potential jump height to allow for the third criteria: directionality. Directionality All of that force we generate is useless if we cannot direct it in the appropriate direction. Thankfully, there is a large overlap between the demands for balance and those of directionality. As our stance narrows it doesnât simply make balance more challenging - it limits our ability to apply force in any direction other than upwards. Widening our stance to outside of our hips lets us use a combination of extension, abduction, and adduction across our two legs to move forwards, laterally, or backwards. Additionally we can manipulate our weight distribution to allow even more direction of our generated force. An elite athlete will initiate a controlled fall to align their body better with their direction of travel. In a wider stance, lifting our left foot and allowing a degree of falling to the left allows us to better drive force in that direction. Putting It All Together This brings us to the finished product. A tennis stance where our feet are wider than our hips without limiting hip and knee flexion. Where we engage flexion at the ankles, knees, and hips for maximum force production. Where we keep good posture, to allow better control of our balance. In highly contested points, a player might only attain a complete Universal Athletic Position once (as the returner) or possibly not at all (as the server). However great tennis athletes are always moving towards a Universal Athletic Position. They will obtain (or retain) as much of it as possible even as they move dynamically around the court. When we understand the principles behind a position rather, then we can strive towards those principles. This helps guide our movement in non-ideal situations. We can move away from a binary way of thinking about movement technique (either you reached the position or you didnât) to something more sophisticated (I retained as much of an ideal position as possible). This is a path to better movement, and better tennis. tacticaltennis.com Serving Mechanics - The Jump Glen Hill 7-9 minutes Introduction 4% doesnât seem like a lot. In tennis however it can make a world of difference. 4% can be the difference between retiring a millionaire and barely making a living on the pro tour. It is the difference between being Roger Federer (54.14% of points won, 20 Grand Slams) and Andrei Pavel (50.14% of points won, 0 Slams). 4% is also the difference in Federerâs first serve % (62.1) and Stan Wawrinkaâs (57.9%). Roger is 8th on the ATPâs all-time servers, while Stan sits at 61st. Federer and Wawrinka provide an interesting contrast. They are two men who are of about the same height, who serve at virtually identical average speeds, with similar aces per match. Yet one of them is considered among the best servers of all time, while the other is not. One is a very good server, while the other is great. What is the difference? We will use the two (and others) to contrast several aspects of the serve over the next few articles, beginning with the jump. Before we dive in further, it is highly recommended that you read the previous two serve mechanics articles on the ball toss (Part 1, and Part 2). All aspects of the serve impact each other, and understanding ball toss is a critical piece of setting yourself up for success when it comes to the mechanics of the jump in the serve. Why We Jump We do not jump in the serve for power (or any other stroke). This is important, because it is a fundamentally misunderstood part of biomechanics at all levels of tennis. We do not jump for power. When we jump, we are at our maximum velocity in the instant we leave the ground. By the time we hit the ball at the peak of our jump, we are at our lowest possible velocity. Indeed, at the peak our upwards velocity is precisely zero. The energy from the jump does not go into the ball. We exchange the kinetic energy of our jump for the potential energy of being up in the air. Once we hit the peak of our jump, gravity helps us convert that energy back into kinetic energy (by falling). We do not jump for power, we jump for height. Height At Contact The image above shows John Isner (6â9) serving at the Australian Open in 2019. To his right is Mackenzie McDonald (5â10), serving on the same court at the same tournament. We look at the size difference between the two, and intuitively understand that serving is much easier for Isner than it is for MacDonald. Isner is, to use the phrase, serving out of a tree. Relative to Isner, McDonald is serving from down in the weeds. The interesting thing is people often donât move past the intuitive understanding that taller is better. In truth it isnât that taller is better. It is that making contact with the ball at the highest point possible is optimal. The higher the ball at contact, the better the serve can be. As the contact point drops, we are forced to sacrifice velocity, consistency, or both. A ball struck at a higher point can be hit harder, with more angle. It has a steeper trajectory into the box and bounces higher which is more challenging to return. A 5â11 player who can jump 12 inches on their serve is better off than a 6â1 player who only jumps 6 inches (all other things being equal). Trophy Position The trophy position is such a telling moment in a service motion. Everything up until this point has been preparation - movement to get us to this position. In its totality the trophy position is our setup for so many things - the jump, hip/shoulder rotation, arm action. Combined, these things impact control, disguise, and power. Since we are focusing on the jump in this article, we will look primarily at the trophy position as it relates to the jump. Best Jumping Practices Since we donât get a running start on the serve, it might be helpful to look at how the best standing jumpers in the world do it. Many people expect professional basketball players to be the best standing jumpers, but itâs actually NFL athletes. Playing in the NFL requires more raw explosiveness. This is part of why they test jumping ability at the NFL combine every year. So letâs take a look at Byron Jones. Jones is the greatest jumper in NFL history - his standing broad jump was over 8 feet long! But for our purposes, he also put up an astounding 44 inches (112 cm) with a vertical standing jump. Note the starting position for his jump. Bends at the ankles, knees, and hips. Arms are swept back. Every piece of his body is poised to generate upwards momentum with maximum explosiveness. Such a starting position would be absurd for a serve. The idea is not to copy Byron Jonesâ jumping position exactly, but rather to ask ourselves a question. What elements of these jumping mechanics can we incorporate into our own trophy position without negatively impacting other elements of the service motion? Wawrinka and Federerâs Trophy Positions The differences between the two are fairly quickly apparent. Federer has a greater degree of flexion in his knees. His stance is a little wider, his hips and shoulders significantly more closed off to the court. For the purposes of examining the jump, the rotation matters less to us right now (although it does impact other elements of the serve). Federer doesnât just have a greater knee bend, though. The other important facet is flexion at the hips. We gain power from our posterior chain as it straightens - hip extension is a critical part of that process. In his trophy position, Stanislas Wawrinka has little to no flexion of the hip, which means he can get little extension (essentially only what extension he can manage past a neutral hip position). The Difference At Contact All of this brings us to the height at contact. Nobody watching Wawrinka and Federer serve would claim that Wawrinka is putting less effort into the motion. If anything, the opposite would appear true. And yet, here is the difference between them at the point of contact. This image is to scale. The difference in the height of their jumps for the serve is actually this large. Which brings us back to 4%. There are some other factors that impact first serve percentage. Technique, spin, neurological performance (targeting) are just a few of them. Other aspects of Federerâs serve are undoubtedly superior to Wawrinkaâs. However the single biggest impact on the difference in their first serve consistency is likely to be the difference in their jump. We are dealing with two elite tennis players - one arguably the greatest ever, and the other who has built a hall of fame resume in the toughest era in menâs tennis history. Both have amazing neurological performance, and both hit a heavy first serve. But Roger jumps significantly higher than Stan. This increased elevation at contact grants Federer better access to the box, which has a direct impact on first serve percentage. Conclusion It is clear that gaining more height at contact is beneficial to the serve. Increasing our leg strength and explosivity is one way we can increase that height. Improving our service technique is another. By adopting better elements of vertical jumping technique (such as greater knee bend, or more hip flexion) into our trophy position, we can bring our first serve percentage up considerably. The challenge is doing so without compromising other elements of the serve. After all we still need to have the arms in positions that allow for good attack angles to the ball. There are significant benefits to having rotation of the trunk towards the back of the court. These are just some of the other things we need to incorporate. Finding the balance is part of the journey in progressing from mediocre to good, or good to great. tacticaltennis.com Serve Mechanics - Ball Toss (Part One) Glen Hill 13-16 minutes Introduction There is no scientific formula for the perfect serve. The serve is possibly the most complex biomechanical movement in tennis. When we consider that every individual comes to the table with their own unique functional movement patterns, the idea of âperfectâ quickly goes out the window. Two people of the same height may have different length arms, legs and torso. Athletes bring their own injury history to the table. Their range of motion will be different across various joints and in different directions. The short of it is no two people are identical in terms of their mobility and physical capacity. While we might surrender the idea of a universally âperfectâ service motion, what we can do is identify the guiding principles that help people develop the best service motion for them. We begin by looking at the ball toss because the toss location influences what the underlying philosophy on what our serve will be. Perhaps no single aspect of a fully developed service motion is so variable and subject to so much debate. Poor toss placement limits our ability to hit different types of spin, to achieve disguise, and also limits the amount of energy we can reliably put into the ball. The toss is a boundary that will affect every other aspect of a service motion if done poorly. Power And Consistency Traditionally, for those of us who arenât 6â9 serving has been considered a constant balancing act between power and consistency. This war between the two has largely come about due to misunderstandings on where the power in the serve comes from. It is this misunderstanding we aim to address (and hopefully correct) as we work through the various principles of a great service motion. Power comes from two things - the speed of the racquet head at contact, and the amount of that energy that is transferred into the ball. The higher both of these numbers, the faster the serve will go. Consistency is more complex. It is affected by the repeatability of the motion itself, neurological âaimingâ, and other things. Regardless, there is one simple concept that impacts consistency universally - the higher the point of contact, the higher the capacity for consistency with any given service motion. This last is the aspect we can impact with ball toss. In summary, we want to get the racquet moving very quickly, we want to transfer as much energy as possible into the ball, and we want to do so as high above the ground as possible. What does this mean in terms of the ball toss? What Do Elite Servers Do? For this article we will look at the serves (specifically the tosses) of four players: Federer, Isner, Raonic, and Kyrgios. Each of them has a phenomenal serve. Importantly, we are dealing with players whose height ranges from 6â1 (Roger Federer) to 6â9 (John Isner). First weâll take a look at what their toss is like at contact. Next weâll put some numbers to what they are doing. Finally, weâll talk about the why of it all. And why what youâve always thought about ball tosses is probably wrong. Federer is known for serving with both accuracy and disguise. What is often overlooked is his âflatâ serve clocks in at around 125 mph. Roger generates such easy power, which is a big part of why he is able to be so precise. At the point of contact, Federerâs toss is barely in front of him on the first serve. What about on the second serve? We can see that Federerâs toss is even closer to the baseline on his kick serve than it was on his first serve. The angle of attack into the ball is different on this serve, in part due to the change in ball toss location. 6â4 Nick Kyrgios tosses the ball slightly further into the court than Federer, but is also 3-4 inches taller. We can still see that the toss is far more upwards than it is outwards. Roanicâs toss appears to be slightly closer to the baseline than Kyrgiosâ, yet slightly further out than Rogerâs. At 6â5, he is the second-tallest of those whose serves we will be examining. Last but certainly not least, we have John Isner. His toss is further into the court yet, but it is important to remember that he stands a towering 6â9! Angles, Not Distance Ultimately, the distances donât really matter. Or rather, the distances only matter in the context of how high the point of contact is on the serve! As the contact point becomes higher and higher, it allows for more and more projection into the court towards the net. Letâs go back and check the angles on those serves that we already examined. Federer is the most upright of the players that weâll examine. On his first serve the ball is at roughly 82 degrees from his launch position on the baseline. As noted in the image, this means only 14% of the velocity from his jump is going âforwardâ into the court. 99% of the velocity goes upwards (thanks to trigonometry, these two numbers donât need to add up to 100%). Raonicâs toss is at a slightly lower angle. His 79 degree launch angle means 19% of his jumping velocity is into the court (and 98% upwards). Give his 4âł height advantage over Federer, he can afford to surrender a small amount of height and toss the ball slightly further forwards We see Isner and Kyrgios with almost identical launch angles. Isnerâs 78 degrees nets him 21% of his jumping velocity forwards, which Kyrgiosâ 79 degree launch angle matches Raonicâs and also puts around 19% forwards. It probably isnât coincidence that three of the greatest servers in the history of the sport all have 78-79 degree angles for the point of contact on their first serve - regardless of their height. It might also not be coincidence that the only 6â1 server in the modern game to even come close to these three giants has a steeper angle at 82 degrees. There is a critical idea here related to height, distance, and angle. A 6â9 player at 78 degrees (such as Isner) will inevitably make contact further into the court from a pure distance perspective than a 6â1 player with the same launch angle unless the 6â1 player jumps so high as to match the contact height of the taller player. This doesnât mean tossing further into the court is better! It does mean we should focus on an optimal body position at contact, and use a toss that enables that. This angle is much more upright than most people realize. It is also possible that even the angles of Isner, Raonic, and Kyrgios might not be quite ideal! Jumping Forward And Power (Math Time!) The common dogma/myth in tennis serving is that we need to jump into the court for power. There is, as it turns out, some advantage to being closer to the net at the point of contact when we serve. However that advantage cannot come at the cost of decreased height at contact if we want to be an elite server. In truth, the idea that power comes from tossing the ball further into the court is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of where power actually comes from. This is where we get to the math/physics portion. If we assume a player jumps 12 inches (30 cm) off the ground in their service motion, some good old fashioned math tells us they are traveling at around 2.5 m/s (roughly 5.5 mph). Now remember from above, the majority of this velocity is straight upwards - only a small portion is forwards into the court. At the peak of their jump, all of the serverâs upwards velocity has halted (thanks gravity). Their forward momentum hasnât stopped though. They are still moving into the court at around the same speed they were when they left the ground. For Federer, this means his forward velocity on his jump is about 0.75 mph. For Nick Kyrgios, itâs 1 mph. To put that in perspect, the walking speed of an average sized adult is around 3 mph. If jumping forward is so important for power, how does having your body moving at 1/3 of walking speed make a difference on a 130 mph serve? How could this 1 mph possibly matter? The short answer is, of course, that it doesnât matter at all. Jump And Toss For Height (Not Power) We can probably agree that making contact higher in the air is beneficial. If you had any doubts, consider that top three aces per match in ATP history are Reilly Opelka (6â11), Ivo Karlovic (6â10), and John Isner (6â9). Thatâs probably not a coincidence. We know that being higher at contact improves not only our consistency on the serve, but also our ability to serve aggressively. Conversely, the lower we are at contact, the less margin for error we have. Weâve established that the jumping only adds approximately 1 mph of body momentum to the serve. This could potentially be increased by tossing further into the court. Increasing the toss angle to 65 degrees would double our forwards jumping speed to a massive 2 mph. Critically, doing so would decrease the height at contact by 12 inches! Does this seem like an equitable trade-off? When it comes to the position of the toss relative to the baseline, the primary goal should be height, not forward momentum. It is true that we want the toss in front of our body, in order to be able to hit a biomechanically sound serve. But beyond a bare minimum of 4 to 12 inches (10-30 cm), tossing further forward decreases our serving effectiveness by reducing the height of the ball at contact. Other Considerations For someone who plays serve and volley tennis, there are other advantages to tossing the ball forward than adding a negligible amount of velocity. Landing 2 feet closer to the net puts one, well, 2 feet closer to the net. That can be the difference between playing a regular volley or a half-volley for the first follow-up shot after the serve. There is also the matter of having more forward momentum on landing. Being able to continue a forward motion gets one to the net more quickly than jumping completely vertically, landing, and then accelerating forwards. These are very real considerations for a serve-and-volley player. The key point is understanding the trade-off that we are making if we choose to toss the ball further forward. Our serve will be less effective, but we get to the net a little more quickly. First Serve versus Second Serve The main difference between what most players hit for a first serve versus a second serve is the prioritizing of spin over velocity. This necessitates a difference in approach vectors of the racquet towards the ball. That is the trade-off when we consider kick serves over slice or âflatâ serves. It isnât that Federer swings slower on his kick serve than his first serve. His goal is to put just as much energy into the ball. Rather, more of that energy goes into rotational energy (spin) instead of kinetic energy (velocity). What does this look like in terms of toss position for Federer? Federer has a steeper angle of approach to the second serve toss, which is placed slightly closer to him than the first serve toss. With spin being a huge focus, his goal is to put energy into the ball in a more upwards vector, driving huge rotation of the ball. Access To The Ball This brings to light the final, and important concept. Our toss doesnât just change the way that we jump. The position of the ball relative to our body changes which parts of the ball we can make contact with. As a simple example, when we toss the ball in front of us on a serve we cannot make contact with the side of the ball closest to the net. The toss location (and the desire to hit it towards the net) preclude that. When the ball is largely directly above us, we have the capacity to strike the ball in many different places. We get to approach the ball with the racquet from a lot of angles. As the toss gets further and further into the court, the parts of the ball we have access to become smaller and smaller. This limits our ability to impart different spins on the ball! This also reduces our ability to create uncertainty in the receiver. If we can only hit one type of spin due to our toss, then they have one less thing to worry about. What About Power? Players make contact around the peak of their jump. At that peak, they are not traveling upwards at all, and forwards only at a fraction of walking speed. This isnât exactly a great way to add power! So if power on the serve doesnât come from the leg drive, where does it come from? We will cover this in an upcoming article on the serve. If you want to get started on figuring it out yourself, read the article on Shapovalovâs jumping backhand. In the next article, we will look at the second part of ball tossing. We now know we should toss it fairly close to the baseline, but where on the baseline relative to our body should it be? Appendix We calculated the jumping velocity using kinetics formulas, then confirmed the numbers with energy calculations as follows: Kinetic Calculation Velocity at peak of jump = 0 Acceleration = -9.8 m/s^2 Distance = 0.3 m Velocity = (Initial Velocity) + 2* (Acceleration)*(Distance) 0 m/s = (Initial Velocity) + 2* (-9.8 m/s^2) * (0.3 m) Initial Velocity = -2 * (-9.8 m/s^2) * (0.3 m) Initial Velocity = 2.42 m/s (5.41 mph) Energy Calculation Potential Energy at peak of jump is equal to the Kinetic Energy at the beginning of jump. Taking Federer as example: mass = 85 kg gravity = 9.8 m/s^2 height = 0.3 m P.E = mass*gravity*height P.E = (85 kg) * (9.8 m/s^2) * (0.3 m) P.E = 249.9 kgm^2/s^2 Kinetic Energy = 1/2 * (mass) * (velocity)^2 249.9 kgm^2/s^2 = 1/2 * (85 kg) * (velocity) ^2 velocity ^2 = 2*(249.9 kgm^2/s^2)/(85 kg) velocity = 2.42 m/s tacticaltennis.com Serving Mechanics: Ball Toss (Part Two) Glen Hill 9-12 minutes Introduction The optimal position of the ball toss is one of the common misunderstood elements of the serve. In part one we examined how far into the court the ball should be tossed. The misconception that tossing further into the court added significant power to the serve was addressed, showing that elite servers have a launch angle of between 78 and 85 degrees into the court. In Part 2 we will look at the lateral position of the ball toss. If we know that the toss should be close to the baseline, now we will examine where along the baseline relative to our bodies we would want the ball to be. The Goal The goal of serving is to put as much energy into the ball as possible with accuracy and disguise. Some of that energy will be in the form of kinetic energy (velocity) and some of it in rotational energy (spin). In order to maximize our energy transfer into the ball, we must make as complete a contact between the racquet and strings as possible. The further off-center we strike the ball, the more inefficient the energy transfer. Similarly, if we want the ball to travel forwards, but our racquet is moving to the side at contact, we will lose more energy at contact. Where we toss the ball places limits on how we can hit the ball. It is possible to hit the ball in almost any direction from almost any toss, if we are willing to make a convoluted enough movement to do so. Ultimately though, our ability to hit a high quality serve is directly impacted by our trophy position (which informs how we will swing at the ball), our toss location (which limits where we can make contact), and the direction we want to hit the ball. These things dictate how much energy we can get into the ball and get it going in the right direction. They also impact how many different types of spins we can put onto it with the same toss. Here weâve taken the image above and moved the toss into different locations. For the sake of example, the left and right images are exaggerations of common ball toss mistakes. On the left, we can see that it becomes impossible to hit any slice on the serve and still serve with any power into the ad court. On the far right, the only spin Federer could hit on the ball would be slice, and he would again not be able to put power on the serve. The middle image, the correct one, has the toss on a path that would let him serve to any part of the box with any desirable spin. In both the left and the right images, the only way to get the ball to move in the correct direction is by reducing the quality of the contact, and hence the quality of the serve. Lateral Toss Position We will look at the lateral toss position at the point of contact for four players: Isner, Federer, Kyrgios, and Raonic. In all of these images, we will use the line of the left hip in the trophy position as a reference point for where the point of contact is on the serve. Federer Here Federer is about to power a heavily sliced serve up the T on the ad court. It will be surprising to many that for the slice serve Federer has the ball toss âsoâ far to the left. Many players (and teaching pros) think that to hit a slice serve the ball should be tossed out to the right so the player can cut the right edge of the ball. This is why so many players both lose significant power on their serve and they struggle to disguise their location. Kyrgios Again we see the toss to the left of the body line of Kyrgios. In this instance, Kyrgios hits a huge serve right up the âTâ on the deuce court. Off this same toss however, he could just as easily have hit topspin slice wide, or a kick serve to the body. All of these options are available to him because of the toss location. Isner Isnerâs toss location should look familiar by now. Similar to Federer in the first image in the series, Isner is hitting a big slice serve up the âTâ on the ad court here. Again this is a toss location that many players would associate more with a second serve than a 135 mph delivery. Raonic When we look at Raonicâs toss location here it we see, not surprisingly, that it follows the same pattern. At contact the ball is well inside the line of his left hip in his trophy position, and yet from there he hits a ~140 mph serve up the âTâ. Raonic could equally hit a slice serve wide with a lot of movement from this same toss. The Arc Now that we have a sense for where we want the ball to be, itâs time to talk about how to get it there. Tossing the ball is really quite simple. If we put a basketball 3-4 feet above your head, and asked you to hit it with a tennis ball youâd hit it basically every time. Thatâs the kind of space we need our toss to go through. Simple enough, right? So how do elite servers do it? One thing that we see commonly among almost all elite serves is the arc of the ball toss. The ball isnât just traveling a short distance forward towards the net as it rises, but also traveling across the body of the server. It is important to note that the two images above differ in both perspective and scale. It isnât intended to compare the height of Federerâs toss with the height of Kyrgiosâ - in truth they make contact at very similar heights off the ground (around 10 feet). It does show us two things: Both players arc their ball toss from left to right Kyrgios makes contact much closer to the peak of his ball toss than Federer does Letâs take a closer look at these two players, and the difference in their tosses between first serves and second serves. Federerâs Toss Federer releases the ball with his tossing arm almost straight across his body, near parallel to the baseline. His release point is the same for both first and second serves, and the tosses follow a remarkably similar path. There is only a small difference between the position of the ball at contact for a powerful serve up the âTâ, and a wide kick serve. This speaks to Federerâs ability to disguise his serve so well. If Federer were hitting the wide serve with power, the toss would imitate the âTâ power serve position exactly - it is almost impossible to tell where he is going to serve the ball based on the toss. By extending the tossing arm across the body, Federer is also priming his body to move to a closed position, helping to rotate his torso away from the net. Doing so sets Federer up to maximize his vector of attack to the ball for spin and power, while also improving his disguise. Kyrgiosâs Toss Nick Kyrgiosâ toss provides an interesting counter-point to Federerâs. We can see here that the trajectories of Kyrgiosâ first and second serves here are basically identical. However, Kyrgios actually tosses the ball lower for his power serve up the âTâ on the deuce court than he does the body kick serve. Notice that the contact points are almost identical? As mentioned above, Kyrgios also makes contact with the serve much closer to the top of the ball toss than Federer does. In the same way that Federerâs service motion allows him excellent disguise, Kyrgiosâ quick motion achieves the same. The human brain is excellent at pattern recognition. It is capable of distinguishing small differences in things it is familiar with very quickly. There are limits however. When Nick Kyrgios serves, he allows his opponents less time between the release of the toss from his hand until contact with which to read what is taking place. This might only amount to a fraction of a second, but at the time scales we are talking about that fraction of a second can make a significant difference. It is also worth noting that more than any other player on tour, Kyrgios has a large amount of variety in the ball tosses he uses. Nick is as likely to hit a 138 mph serve up the T on the ad side off a âkick tossâ as he is to hit an actual kick serve. It is less useful to compare his âfirstâ and âsecondâ serve tosses to each other than most other players. We do have the two important takeaways though: Kyrgios makes contact much closer to the peak of his ball toss than most players This allows his opponents less time to read the serve and react Conclusion The serve is, as weâve noted previously, a very complex movement. The toss is ultimately a very simple movement. The true struggle for most people when it comes to the ball toss isnât really an inability to put the ball through the correct space, itâs a misunderstanding on what the correct space is. When we focus on getting the ball into the place that allows our body to move into better positions, then our quality of serve improves. We toss the ball close to us and high, to allow for better elevation. Better elevation improves our margins on the serve, and who doesnât wish they were John Isner when it was serving time? Power doesnât come from jumping forward - we can get better quality power from elsewhere in our service motion! Laterally, we want the ball inside the line of our lead hip (left hip for right handers, right hip for left handers) on the first serve. Moving the ball too far to the right or left of this restricts the types and quality of spin we can put on the ball. The second serve toss should be almost identical to the first serve toss. It might be that your current motion limits your ability to do this and make good contact - a sign that there are other problems that also need addressing! Ultimately, the focus is on improving the quality of the serve on both first and second deliveries. In order to do so, we have to put the ball in a space that allows us better vectors through the ball at contact. The toss cannot force us to hit better quality, but a poor toss can prevent us from doing so.