View Full Version : Could anyone explain how Daniela can hit the ball so hard?

Mar 17th, 2002, 02:56 PM
While I was watching her match against Hingis, I couldn't understand how such a thin player can hit the ball so hard!
Is it arm-acceleration?Low-tension string?Babolat rackets? ;)

Mar 17th, 2002, 03:50 PM
She's 18 and fearless; let's see how she does when the expectations to win are suddenly upon her. And I don't mean that as a putdown, but pressure overwhelms a lot of players.

Mar 17th, 2002, 03:54 PM
I think she just has a lot of power in her arms.
she's been working out a lot.........:rolleyes:

Mar 17th, 2002, 03:56 PM
The 'Open Stance'.

It's the same reason Venus Williams hits the ball so hard. Neither have much in the way of muscle mass in their arms and shoulders. But they both have VERY long legs and use the open-stance to hit. It generates a lot of power, but you get a lot of errors too. If you saw the match at OZ, the similarity in how Venus hits and how Daniela hits went from the ridiculous to the sublime was rather pronounced.

Mar 17th, 2002, 03:56 PM
Meghan Shaughnessy is even skinner, and hits the ball harder.

I guess I'll go along with what everyone else will say... it's "technique". ;)

Mar 17th, 2002, 04:04 PM
Power is derived from raquet head speed and the degree to which you either hit through the ball (flat stokes) or come over the ball topspin ......it doesn't matter how tall you are ,within reason, if your raquet speed is fast (and you hit through the ball)then you will produce power, though not necessarily accuracy and consistency....players like rios or Aggassi will almost always hit with as much pace off the ground as much taller opponents cos they use their incredible hand eye coordination to swing very fast without the usual amount of errors that should go along with increased speed.
Why taller players tend to hit harder than shorter players is because assuming they must contact the ball at the same point in time as a shorter player their raquet has to be travelling faster
(same principle as the slingshot) .If you draw 2 concentric circles with the same centre and take a radius from the center through both circles assume that the radius to small circle represents a shorter arm r and the radius (along the same line) to the outer cicle R represents a longer arm ....for that whole line to move in an arc the distance travelled by the a point on the outer circle is always greater than a point on the inner cirlce in the same time hence faster angular velocity.......sorry to be tedious ,don't know how else to explain it .. . in short if Venus Daniela Lindsay want to hit the ball at the same point in time with thesame amount of backswing and the same amount of hitting through the ball as shorter players their raquet will have to be travelling faster .

Mar 17th, 2002, 04:44 PM
Monica at 5'4" and exactly 100 lbs hit the ball nearly as hard as Steffi at RG89. It can be done.

Mar 17th, 2002, 04:49 PM
you mean monica was so tiny in 89??? :eek:

Mar 17th, 2002, 04:52 PM
I have the match on tape. Steffi looked absolutely HUGE compared to her. By the 1990 RG, she had grown to 5'8".

Mar 18th, 2002, 12:12 AM
I agree with brian, being tall is a big advantage, the longer your arms the greater the speed the racquet head can reach. It's the whip effect. If you swing a long whip the far end actually cracks because it breaks the sound barrier!

In addition height above ground helps to hit a stronger serve too since you cn get better angles. Again, even though Daniela looks thin, she is probably quite strong, since her height will disguise her muscle more.

Raw strength will also increase your hitting power, which is why people like Monica and Kim have power shots.

Finally technique, good muscle co-ordination and wrist snap add to effectiveness.

Mar 18th, 2002, 05:36 AM
Well then why can't martina do that? Why doesn't she juss change her techniques to be like venus or hantuchova. I say she should juss do it from time to time, like when she needs to. Whats the harm? She isn't going to win anywaz with her old passive style.

Mar 18th, 2002, 05:48 AM
I would've thought that weight transfer (body torque) would play a roll too. Also tall players have a larger strike zone.

Mar 18th, 2002, 06:03 AM
i like the explanation about the 'open stance.'

Mar 18th, 2002, 06:07 AM
It's not just height. DH was right about Monica-who until her stabbing was a tiny little thing that belted the hell out of the ball.
Hingis COULD hit the ball harder if she chose to, and look at the speed Justine Henin generates off her backhand. Of course the men's #1 is no giant hulk either-Hewitt is a small dude.

Mar 18th, 2002, 06:20 AM
Are you trying to say that Hewitt hits the ball hard despite his size or that he is not #1 even though he is not a power player?

Actually Lleyton can whack the ball pretty hard but mostly doesn't and wins most of his points because he is so fast that it's hard to keep up with him. Once he seizes control of the point with his foot speed he is getting to your shot faster and faster and therefore his shots which are well placed are getting harder to get too until he hits the winner. He hits a lot of winners that are still 5 feet from the lines because of his ability to take the ball so early. Still if the ball sits up for him he can zing it decently but his shots are nowhere as hard or heavy as Safin's, Sampras or even Agassi's for example. Lleyton is also incredibly able to neutralize power.

Which brings up a related question. How is Lleyton or Martina or say Chrissy Evert in her time able to neutralize extremely powerful shots and make so many of their defensive shots land over and over just inches from the lines? Pete Sampras hits probably one of the hardest, heaviest forehands in the history tennis when he really winds up his swing and goes for it. He used tha shot to overpower even Safin at times but REPEATEDLY in the semis he hit that shot soooooo hard at Hewitt and to my astonishment Lleyton seems to have the exact perfect swing and spin to loop that shot back at Sampras and have it land on the baseline. This he did at least 7 times that I counted and never missed one of those shots and never did they land less than 6 inches from the baseline. Sampras then lost six out of seven of those rallies.

Can someone explain to me how these players can neutralize such shots and still control them? I've seen Hingis and Henman do this with slice. Rita Grande was also placing her slices incredibly well off of Jennifer's incredibly hard hit groundstrokes. Everyone is always in awes of these power shots but I honestly sometimes cannot believe some of these incredible defensive gets. At first one could say it's a fluke but they seem to be able to do it over and over. HOW???

Mar 18th, 2002, 06:26 AM
As long as you meet any hard hit ball solidly it goes back with equal(and sometimes even more) force. I can't explain why very well-this comes from my experience playing. Of course the pros do it much better!:) The people you mentioned(Hewitt, Hingis, Evert) all have/had excellent speed and anticipation.

Mar 18th, 2002, 06:34 AM
That's true. But I am talking about their ability to loop the ball back on the line or slice it back with great control in which case they are taking pace off the shots not just deflecting the force back with a flat shot (which is great to do in changing directions of the ball to open up the court).

Tatiana Panova
Mar 18th, 2002, 01:07 PM
Its all about timing and positioning. She times it beautifully and hits in front and away from her body. She also uses the open stance which allows her to rotate into the shot with her abs and get winners from nowhere. She ain't that strong - e.g. Jen, Mary Peirce, but she times the ball brilliantly and has very clean followthroughs. She is just breathtaking to watch!!

Mar 18th, 2002, 01:12 PM
You're experiencing of playing Rollo is backed up by the laws of physics. :)

Mar 18th, 2002, 01:30 PM
Sure Daniela hits hard but not that much, not more than Lindsay, Venus, Serena or Kim for instance.
As a matter of fact, Daniela has a great timing and her motion is very pure (maybe the purest) as well in bachand as in forehand (though she makes a few more errors in forehand).
The point with Daniela is that with a significant power, she hits very deep balls, rarely more than 1 ft from the baseline, which is very hard to manage for any opponent.
I think the depth of her shots is far more bothering than the speed of the ball as far as the opponent has no possibilty to build an efficient tactic (i.e. Martina Hingis had rarely the opportunity to finish at the net).

aura of daniela
Mar 18th, 2002, 01:45 PM
Daniela has the ability to see the ball early, allowing her to use her long smooth backswings as leverage through the ball.
It's is like a pendulum on a clock, the racquet speed is at it's peak when the racquet is just in front of Daniela's leg, and slows up through the follow through, thats why her game is so smooth.
But at the end of the day, Daniela has unforced power, it just comes naturally to her through her great technique and timing. Thats why she doesn't grunt and moan.
Monica forces her power game, through short compact backswing, thus the loud grunting.
This is also the case with Agassi, short compact backswings.
I see Daniela power similar to that of Roger Federer's shot production. It just seems to come so easy to them. Long smooth backswings. Also Kuerten has long backswing that produce his power.
The downside of Long, Smooth swing is that you don't have much time for adjustments to your swing, ie. during windy days, and you are often committed to a shot that needs you to adjust, thus the ball come off the frame.
But Daniela definitely has something. I have never seen anyone, Man or Woman hit the ball so consistantly crisp of her string and still produce so much power.
Just try to hit 10 shots in a row absolutely going for your shot, then try 10 shots with a smooth action and long follow through.
The later always produces the more consistant shot and often in any sport, going for a full blooded shot often results in something with half the power of a smooth relaxed swing. This is the case especially in tennis and golf.


aura of daniela
Mar 18th, 2002, 01:49 PM
Originally posted by lambosoa
The point with Daniela is that with a significant power, she hits very deep balls, rarely more than 1 ft from the baseline, which is very hard to manage for any opponent.
I think the depth of her shots is far more bothering than the speed of the ball as far as the opponent has no possibilty to build an efficient tactic (i.e. Martina Hingis had rarely the opportunity to finish at the net).

That is also what makes Daniela shot look so much faster, she is always a foot from the line, be it sideline or baseline, and she indeed gives her opponent less time to react, thus making her shot look faster and more powerfully.

Great post lambosoa.
Gee we have some smart people in this thread, hehehe.


Mar 18th, 2002, 02:16 PM
A person doesn't necessarily have to be huge to hit the ball hard.

Martian Martin
Mar 18th, 2002, 04:01 PM
It's definitely all about timing, that's why even someone like Justine that is so small can still hit the ball so hard.

Mar 18th, 2002, 04:11 PM
It's not all about timing.

Weight (mass), leverage (arm span), weight (mass) of the balls and racket too.

But yeah, if you can take the ball while it still has optimum "useful" (potential as opposed to kinteic I think) energy, before its trajectory/path is falling (where 'useful' energy is transferred to 'less useful' energy), there'll be more 'thwack' on the ball basically. :)

Useful in tennis terms at least.

Mar 19th, 2002, 12:01 AM
Thank you very much for the information!
U R GREAT! :bounce:

Mar 19th, 2002, 12:13 AM
A lot of people have mentioned timing, and that is a big thing. Muscles and length of arm are also very helpful. (length of arm allows me to throw a baseball absurd distances)

But anyway, about timing. The amount of power your arm/arms generate when moving forward can be plotted on a curve. At the beginning and end of the movement very little power is generated. Near the center of the movement the power increases dramatically in a short distance, then falls off just as quickly. The ability to make contact at the exact highest point in the power curve is about 1/3 taught and 2/3 instinctive, so if you don't have it you probably can't get it.

Mar 19th, 2002, 01:28 AM
:eek: :eek: WOW!!! What a physics lesson this thread has been!!!