PDA

View Full Version : Efective tennis is more about... ?


stnick
08-31-2007, 12:02 PM
I think my mental tennis... the way I envision the game and approach a match... is changing. I think a poll might be interesting on the topic.

What do you think, is effective tennis more about time and movement, or about mechanics and geometry?

Or, to put it another way, what are the more important elements that lead to victory: a) taking ball-striking time away from your opponent and forcing him to keep moving (but not going for outright winners), or b) excellent ball striking and playing the angles?

burosky
08-31-2007, 12:23 PM
Is this a trick question? How do you play "effective" tennis without doing both and all the other elements that make your game effective?

stnick
08-31-2007, 12:29 PM
Is this a trick question?

No.

How do you play "effective" tennis without doing both and all the other elements that make your game effective?

Hence the word "more".

burosky
08-31-2007, 01:00 PM
Hence the word "more".

You did say more but you only gave two options for voting.

stnick
08-31-2007, 01:17 PM
You did say more but you only gave two options for voting.

Yes, because one of the two options represents what heretofore I've believed to be more important, and the other represents what I am beginning to suspect might be more important.

Also, I think these two options represent the dominant strategies or "playing styles" I find out there on the courts. I don't want to mention any labels as it might bias the votes.

Anyway, if you think there's a third option that represents the dominant elements most important to effective tennis, feel free to mention it. (Amd we all know that having all the elements in good measure and comination is what any tennis player lusts after, so, no need to point it out- it's assumed.)

mucat
08-31-2007, 11:58 PM
Why can't I have:

Mechanics and movement.
Time and geometry.

stnick
09-01-2007, 12:12 AM
Why can't I have:

Mechanics and movement.
Time and geometry.

muscat, you can have anything you want.

As already stated, I think the options reflect the dominant qualities as they appear in real world players "down at the club" so to speak and, more importantly, the dominant combinations that are stressed while learning/teaching tennis.

But at any rate, it doesn't matter- as the poll is stated, which would you prefer? I'm asking for selfish reasons really. Because I am looking for confirmation (or not) that I've been thinking of my whole game wrong for quite a long time.

mucat
09-01-2007, 05:28 AM
muscat, you can have anything you want.


Wow, that's nice of you, I wish someone told me that while I was young... ;)

Well, you have to explain a little what each of them are first.

ACCSF
09-01-2007, 04:35 PM
this isn't a difficult concept, guys.

I think, as in most things, time is most important. The manipulation of, and more often, the taking of time, is the central pillar of tennis. Everything else is secondary and derivative.

Ball striking, angles, movement, technique, play styles, equipment, they are simply manners of time control.

WildVolley
09-01-2007, 04:40 PM
I'm lost too. I don't understand the options.

EricW
09-01-2007, 05:14 PM
So your asking whether being a machine baseliner (taking time away form yoru opponent and keeping them moving but not going to outright winners), or being a baseline basher, which takes excellent ball striking, out right winners and angles, is more important? Obviously we have both playing styles in the top ranks!

EricW
09-01-2007, 05:15 PM
this isn't a difficult concept, guys.

I think, as in most things, time is most important. The manipulation of, and more often, the taking of time, is the central pillar of tennis. Everything else is secondary and derivative.

Ball striking, angles, movement, technique, play styles, equipment, they are simply manners of time control.

What the hell...? Based on the quoted post, It's like your sitting here trying to convince a bunch of people on a message board that you're smart or something

stnick
09-01-2007, 08:31 PM
Or, to put it another way, what are the more important elements that lead to victory: a) taking ball-striking time away from your opponent and forcing him to keep moving (but not going for outright winners), or b) excellent ball striking and playing the angles?

I did already explain a bit about what I mean, but I'll try to say it yet a third way....

Of the two game plans/psychologies, which would you recommend to a player wanting to improve results longterm:

Game Plan A: maintain moderate pressure on the opponent by taking the ball early, not overhitting, staying safely between the lines, and keeping the opponent moving to the ball. try to strike cleanly, but focus on placement and safety rather than pace, power or ending points quickly. wait patiently for the easy put away and pounce on it, but focus on allowing/encouraging the opponent to make mistakes.

Game Plan B: leverage great stroke mechanics, strength, and spin to hit with power and pace. try to make the court bigger for your opponent by working angles. look to end points early and quickly. maintain pressure on the opponent by being consistently aggressive and on offense... nearly every shot you have time to set up for is an opportunity to go for a winner or force the opponent to mishit.

stnick
09-01-2007, 09:12 PM
So your asking whether being a machine baseliner (taking time away form yoru opponent and keeping them moving but not going to outright winners), or being a baseline basher, which takes excellent ball striking, out right winners and angles, is more important?
Well, yeah, sort of... I just don't really care about the baseline part. As demonstrated in the "playing styles described" thread, and i think quite rightly, there are varying psychologies even amongst all courters and attack-the-netters. For example, an attack-the-netter could be a fast-footed serve and volleyer who uses great, instinctive/grooved stroke mechanics and angles, or he could be a patient work-to-the-net and put it away kind of guy.

Obviously we have both playing styles in the top ranks!
Yes, obviously. But which path would you recommend to an open-minded developing player?

And the question isn't about which elements to develop to the exclusion of the others, but as the leading or dominant elements to work on.