PDA

View Full Version : What is your opinion on this statement.


Claudius
07-22-2009, 06:49 PM
Speaking toward 4.0 players "Think of the fastest/heaviest most ridiculous winner you ever hit. Any 7.0 pro would see it as an attackable ball"



Wouldn't you consider that a bit extreme? I mean an extremely heavy ridiculously fast winner a 4.0 player hit may cause trouble for even the 7.0 player.

pvaudio
07-22-2009, 06:53 PM
I agree with that statement. That's because pros are rarely out of position, much less against a 4.0. They are only winners at the lower levels because we don't have the court sense that they do and as such get away with shots that the pros will have already anticipated.

Mick
07-22-2009, 06:59 PM
yeah but if you hit a really crazy angle ace serve, some 7.0 might not be able to return it. not all 7.0 can return like federer or nadal :-)

mmeyer1
07-22-2009, 07:02 PM
I would say it is a bit extreme, maybe the shot wouldn't be attackable, but against a 7.0 I would definitely expect it to come back...

WildVolley
07-22-2009, 07:05 PM
It's a stupid statement. Some 4.0s definitely hit occasional balls that would give the pros difficulty or be outright winners. Actually, I've seen 3.0s hit shots that would be winners against the pros.

However, I've watched the pros from court level a number of times and almost every shot they hit is so far superior to a 4.0 that it would be a very boring slaughter if they played a 4.0 or even a 5.0. The pros have far superior movement, pace, spin, and especially consistency as compared to lower level players that they wouldn't be fazed by a lucky winner.

raiden031
07-22-2009, 07:06 PM
I have banged my head thinking about this. When I watch the pros play, I often feel like it is too easy to hit winners. I mean these guys hit winners from behind the baseline against other professionals! Often times I feel like the shot could've been retrieved, but maybe they just gave up because they anticipated it just a tad late and just decided to let it go. I honestly don't think pros look that much better than 4.0-4.5 players (those who have advanced stroke mechanics of course), except maybe that they are just more consistent overall, and especially that they don't blow easy putaways as much.

Anyways what is weird is that when I would play against 3.5s, I can hit alot of forehand winners that I feel like are good shots, even for advanced levels. However against 4.0 players these shots that would normally be winners always come back. I feel like a 4.0 retriever never lets a ball go, even though I see pros let balls go all the time.

I guess tennis shots and skills are so relative (as opposed to being absolute) and differences are not as obvious through just watching, but instead you must be on the court with each level of player to really understand the differences.

topher.juan
07-22-2009, 07:16 PM
I'm not sure. I have little confidence that my "most ridiculous winner" would do much harm to a 7.0, it would probably be completely anticipated, as for 'attacked' that's tough, I think they'd at least get a racquet on it. I haven't played anyone above 5.5 and those guys have some ESP on the courts, I can't imagine a 7.0, a 7.0 probably teleports to where I'm hitting that 'winner' two shots before, it's like great players play the game in super slow motion. You also have to consider what shot you received by the 7.0, doubtful anything a 4.0 could make that ridiculous winner, but for the sake of the statement say it's a mishit you think you can put away; I think any point I (a 4.0) won against a 7.0 would be on their racquet, not something they didn't see coming, something they let happen rather than something I created.

WildVolley
07-22-2009, 07:21 PM
I would think that the main issue isn't that some 4.0s aren't capable of hitting a clean winner past a pro, it is just that in an actual match they'd rarely ever get the chance to be in a position to hit that winner. The pros wouldn't be giving them easy balls or short floaters, etc. I would think it would be most likely to happen against a 4.0 who has a big first serve which might set up a put away shot.

Claudius
07-22-2009, 07:30 PM
I'm saying a 7.0 player won't be able to attack some of the hardest winners seen at the 4.0 level.

coyfish
07-22-2009, 07:31 PM
Kind of a vague statement. Any ball that you can reach is technically "attackable." Meaning you can hit a winner off anything you can get a racket on. As for the question itself . . . some winners are winners regardless of the opponent. Im a solid 4.0-4.5 and I can hit some 7.0 level winners every once in a while.

Blake0
07-22-2009, 07:33 PM
I rate myself a 4.0 (split sets with a real 4.0 a lot of times).

IF i was playing a point against a 7.0 and i attack a ball to try to go on the offense, then yeah obviously (well 99% of the time :)) the 7.0 would read it and attack it back, putting me on the defense (if he went all out on my offensive shot and not in the rally then i wouldnt get a chance to hit an offensive shot..).

But say i was playing a point against a 3.0 and the 3.0 sets me up with a short ball that i can kill flat DTL or hit short angle CC, and then the 3.0 magically switches place with a 7.0, and the 7.0 is in the middle of the court and ready, i highly doubt he would be able to turn that situation into an offensive one with 1 ball..he could return it if he read it properly, but i'd just shoulder fake him..or try..

Blake0
07-22-2009, 07:37 PM
Kind of a vague statement. Any ball that you can reach is technically "attackable." Meaning you can hit a winner off anything you can get a racket on. As for the question itself . . . some winners are winners regardless of the opponent. Im a solid 4.0-4.5 and I can hit some 7.0 level winners every once in a while.

So you can paint the lines hitting a ball at 100mph and you're a 4.0-4.5 :shock:.

I read somewhere that an intermediate junior player rally ball is around 40 mph, and college level rally balls are 60, and top pros are around 80. So say your somewhere inbetween a college level and intermediate level, and your rally ball is somewhere about 50mph, you say you can randomly hit a screaming winner every once in a while at 85-90 mph?

Solat
07-22-2009, 07:44 PM
actually its likely a 4.0 would choose a lower percentage option more times so the pro would actually cover the smarter shot and get done.

put it this way i would be a 5.0+ and the kids i coach have hit stupid winners against me by choosing the risky shot and having it come off, whilst im recovering to the smartest position. So the relative difference between a kid 1.5-2.0 and myself is as much as a 4.0 to a 7.0.

Lastly, when i play better players they make less mistakes, they punish weaker shots better and they dictate points better. At no point are my strokes worse so an ace is an ace and an open court volley is still a winner but the opportunities don't arise as much

pvaudio
07-22-2009, 07:46 PM
I would think that the main issue isn't that some 4.0s aren't capable of hitting a clean winner past a pro, it is just that in an actual match they'd rarely ever get the chance to be in a position to hit that winner. The pros wouldn't be giving them easy balls or short floaters, etc. I would think it would be most likely to happen against a 4.0 who has a big first serve which might set up a put away shot.
That's exactly my point. Your "winner" would no longer be a winner because you would never be in a position to hit one playing a pro. Also, your winner pace is going to likely be less than pro rally pace.

raiden031
07-22-2009, 07:48 PM
So you can paint the lines hitting a ball at 100mph and you're a 4.0-4.5 :shock:.


I feel like there is much more to the pro winner than just painting the lines and hitting with extreme pace. I see them hit open court winners from behind the baseline, within at least 2 feet from the lines. I feel like it has more to do with just hitting at the right place at the right time (when your opponent is not ready for it or anticipates incorrectly), and not always just being a perfectly struck ball.

pvaudio
07-22-2009, 08:01 PM
actually its likely a 4.0 would choose a lower percentage option more times so the pro would actually cover the smarter shot and get done.

put it this way i would be a 5.0+ and the kids i coach have hit stupid winners against me by choosing the risky shot and having it come off, whilst im recovering to the smartest position. So the relative difference between a kid 1.5-2.0 and myself is as much as a 4.0 to a 7.0.

Lastly, when i play better players they make less mistakes, they punish weaker shots better and they dictate points better. At no point are my strokes worse so an ace is an ace and an open court volley is still a winner but the opportunities don't arise as much
No, it just isn't. The difference is that you're a good player playing against decent players who are capable of hitting winners anyway. You then take that 4.0 player against the best in the world and they would never be in a position to hit one of their "lucky" shots since they couldn't handle the pace, spin and angles the pros can hit.

Kick_It
07-22-2009, 08:38 PM
Here is where I'd call BS on the original statement - serves. If the statement were isolated to groundstroke games w/o serve and return - I'd be more inclined to believe it.

It is totally possible and plausible for a 4.0 to ace a tour pro, particularly in isolation of one point. Face it, at some point a tour pro would get bored with such an opponent. That said, as I think others above have pointed out this is going to be the exception rather than the rule. It would be very hard for a 4.0 to consistently win multiple points or multiple games off a tour pro.

This is almost like the old threads where do you think a tour pro could win a golden match off a 4.0.

I don't know how interesting one point or winner in isolation is; it is a pretty artificial or rare situation - almost like a tour player playing against a 4.0 ;-)

Have Fun! K_I

Dark_Angel85
07-22-2009, 08:55 PM
So what if they can't retrieve that ONE ball? They're gonna still bagel you anyhow.

People will surely give in one or 2 points... it's human to commit some errors not just in shots but in judgment. Though I don't see how a pro could be out of balance or position when they're playing against someone who's completely below they're level...

imagine this, instead of a 4.0 vs 7.0, think about if a 2.0 player would vs a 4.0. Do you think the 4.0 would miss a couple of shots? yeah, maybe... but how rare would that ever occur?

Toxicmilk
07-22-2009, 08:55 PM
I met a kid at a tourney who is ranked nationally in juniors. So he once got called up to play with James Blake (practice before an event started). My friend hits a ball cross-court..it was BOOMING. James was on the right side and it didnt look like he'd be getting to it. then like it was nothing, Blake had already reached the left corner and slammed that ball into the corner.

So a high ranking junior hitting the hardest shot of his life couldn't even phase blake....

just putting things into perspective here. Not extreme at all.

nfor304
07-22-2009, 09:21 PM
I think if a 4.0 played a top 200-300 pro, they would be unlikely to hit ANY winners past them.

When Clijsters was dating Hewitt she used to practice with him, and she always used to say that she was never able to hit a legit winner past him when they played a practice set because he moved so well and was so quick.

A 4.0 player would never have the opportunity to even take a full swing at a ball, except on the serve. They would be stretching and digging out balls 100% of the time during rallys and returns.

dParis
07-22-2009, 09:28 PM
Speaking toward 4.0 players "Think of the fastest/heaviest most ridiculous winner you ever hit. Any 7.0 pro would see it as an attackable ball"



Wouldn't you consider that a bit extreme? I mean an extremely heavy ridiculously fast winner a 4.0 player hit may cause trouble for even the 7.0 player.
Generally, I would say that statement is true. Literally, probably not.

The quote asks you to think of your most ridiculous winner, not your most ridiculous winner a 7.0 would allow you to hit. A couple of scenarios:

Last night, a strong slice serve to the deuce court pulled me outside of the alley but I anticipated well and cracked a sharp angle topspin fh that left his deuce box sideline and bounced again in the next court's ad box. A 7.0 would be retrieving at best.

Two practically identical situations; one, on the move I buggy-whip a fh down the line - and the other time, I went cross-court. Two of the harder groundstrokes I've ever hit, I'm sure. The 7.0 might attack one of those shots but not both.

A number of overhead winners I've hit (and you too, I'm sure) would be winners against ATP pros. Pros aren't superhuman after all. They're just exponentially better at every aspect of the game than you or I.

The cold water is, the 7.0 would never let me get into a position to hit any of the shots I described, the way I described them.

pushing_wins
07-22-2009, 09:42 PM
Speaking toward 4.0 players "Think of the fastest/heaviest most ridiculous winner you ever hit. Any 7.0 pro would see it as an attackable ball"



Wouldn't you consider that a bit extreme? I mean an extremely heavy ridiculously fast winner a 4.0 player hit may cause trouble for even the 7.0 player.

a 75mph forehand is a 75 mph forehand

Bud
07-23-2009, 12:17 AM
Generally, I would say that statement is true. Literally, probably not.

The quote asks you to think of your most ridiculous winner, not your most ridiculous winner a 7.0 would allow you to hit. A couple of scenarios:

Last night, a strong slice serve to the deuce court pulled me outside of the alley but I anticipated well and cracked a sharp angle topspin fh that left his deuce box sideline and bounced again in the next court's ad box. A 7.0 would be retrieving at best.

Two practically identical situations; one, on the move I buggy-whip a fh down the line - and the other time, I went cross-court. Two of the harder groundstrokes I've ever hit, I'm sure. The 7.0 might attack one of those shots but not both.

A number of overhead winners I've hit (and you too, I'm sure) would be winners against ATP pros. Pros aren't superhuman after all. They're just exponentially better at every aspect of the game than you or I.

The cold water is, the 7.0 would never let me get into a position to hit any of the shots I described, the way I described them.

That's the difference.

EtePras
07-23-2009, 12:54 AM
I think I could out-winner Roddick easily in a match. If Murray the "pusher" could outwinner him at a 5 to 1 ratio...

Claudius
07-23-2009, 07:56 AM
Man, I really want to play a match against Roger Federer! Arthur Ashe Stadium - him trying his best. I wonder how I would fare. That's my dream!

Wizard of id
07-23-2009, 08:16 AM
^^^
Who wouldn't! Bagels are best in New York :)

Cindysphinx
07-23-2009, 09:49 AM
It is totally possible and plausible for a 4.0 to ace a tour pro, particularly in isolation of one point. Face it, at some point a tour pro would get bored with such an opponent. That said, as I think others above have pointed out this is going to be the exception rather than the rule. It would be very hard for a 4.0 to consistently win multiple points or multiple games off a tour pro.

This is almost like the old threads where do you think a tour pro could win a golden match off a 4.0.

I don't know how interesting one point or winner in isolation is; it is a pretty artificial or rare situation - almost like a tour player playing against a 4.0 ;-)

Have Fun! K_I

Could a 4.0 ace a tour pro? Honestly?

No way. I mean, I play mixed against 4.0 men. I am a 3.5, middle-aged woman, and my service return is without question my weakest shot. Even I don't get aced on every serve by the 4.0 male opponent. If the typical 4.0 can't routinely whip the ball past me, how can they do it against Djokovic?

The real question is whether the 4.0 guy serving to Djokovic would ever get to touch the return, or would Djokovic hit clean winners every time?

Cindysphinx
07-23-2009, 09:54 AM
Man, I really want to play a match against Roger Federer! Arthur Ashe Stadium - him trying his best. I wonder how I would fare. That's my dream!

I've often wondered why top pros don't do charity events for their foundations where they agree to play a set against anyone willing to pony up the money, with the pro trying their best (or not, depending on what the customer wanted). You figure each "match" would only take about 30 minutes to complete, and then the next victim would step up. You could raise $1 million in a single day for charity. Wouldn't that be more lucrative than the typical event where the pro teaches kids how to hold their rackets for a few minutes and then plays an exhibition against another pro?

Wouldn't there be a lot of people willing to pay $100,000 to see if they could take a point off of Federer or Serena?

Cindy -- who is certain she could take a point of of Safina because Safina would double-fault

GuyClinch
07-23-2009, 10:03 AM
Its almost true. I think some shank shots are unreturnable even for pros. :P As for regular legit winners - the anticipation and speed of a male pro is pretty awesome. Those are all attackable balls for them.

Pete

Mick
07-23-2009, 10:12 AM
if you play federer, aim for the net. from what i have seen on tv, he could return everything except for some of the balls that hit the net and rolled over :)

theenrighthouse
07-23-2009, 10:17 AM
I think the major issue to consider is that you might theoretically be able to hit a ball that a pro couldn't return IF the pro would hit at you like a 4.0 player, but in reality you would never get the chance to hit a winner off of a 7.0's balls.

Double bagel
07-23-2009, 10:20 AM
5.0's + who use their serve as a weapon, and not to start a point, fare well against WTA players who are not named Williams or Dementieva, perhaps Kuznetsova as well.

Players like Li Na, Hantuchova, etc. might have the consistency...but it would be an entertaining match.

JRstriker12
07-23-2009, 10:21 AM
Speaking toward 4.0 players "Think of the fastest/heaviest most ridiculous winner you ever hit. Any 7.0 pro would see it as an attackable ball"


Wouldn't you consider that a bit extreme? I mean an extremely heavy ridiculously fast winner a 4.0 player hit may cause trouble for even the 7.0 player.

No, not extreme.

I've seen pros his silly hard, fast, heavy shots and another pro got it back for a winner. Think how fast Fed or Nadal can go from defense to offense.

Most pros have an unreal sense of postioning, sick speed and anticipation. So I'd say 99% of extremely well struck balls hit by a 4.0 would probably get smacked back by a pro.

This is sort of what makes a 4.0 a 4.0 and a pro a pro.......

But it seems like the real answer this question is seeking is if a 4.0 could hit a winner against a pro, and the answer to that would be yes..... maybe once or twice in a match...

LuckyR
07-23-2009, 10:27 AM
If the OP's idea of a "winner" is a hitable ball that wins the point solely because of pace, then the statement is true, assuming the 4.0 is at the baseline and the Pro is as well.

Any other way of looking at it falls apart.

Double bagel
07-23-2009, 10:29 AM
Pros have spent the time, obscene amounts of time, honing their chops. They have spent more time working on just their footwork, than you or I have spent practicing serves and groundstrokes.

Blake0
07-23-2009, 11:20 AM
I feel like there is much more to the pro winner than just painting the lines and hitting with extreme pace. I see them hit open court winners from behind the baseline, within at least 2 feet from the lines. I feel like it has more to do with just hitting at the right place at the right time (when your opponent is not ready for it or anticipates incorrectly), and not always just being a perfectly struck ball.

Well i was overexaggerating a little..:).

Kick_It
07-23-2009, 07:20 PM
Could a 4.0 ace a tour pro? Honestly?

No way. I mean, I play mixed against 4.0 men. I am a 3.5, middle-aged woman, and my service return is without question my weakest shot. Even I don't get aced on every serve by the 4.0 male opponent. If the typical 4.0 can't routinely whip the ball past me, how can they do it against Djokovic?

The real question is whether the 4.0 guy serving to Djokovic would ever get to touch the return, or would Djokovic hit clean winners every time?

I wrote that a 4.0 _can_ ace a tour pro. I'm not saying give any 4.0 one shot at it and they'll guaranteed ace 'em with one chance - no way. In the context of playing a set where they have multiple opportunities, and the pro can get bored, lose focus, it is a possibility.

Hitting one winner, namely an ACE, in the context of multiple attempts like a set - anyone can get lucky. Would that person be able to piece together more than 2 points in a game - extremely unlikely.

Also - all 4.0s are not created equal; it is a pretty broad range. Would the equivalent of someone just above a 3.5 be as successful as someone just under 4.5 - no. Perhaps the guys you play against don't represent upper-end 4.0s. I also presume a tour pro isn't necessarily a top 10 player.

But hey - we're all entitled to our opinions, and that's what OP asked for.

Have Fun! K_I

pvaudio
07-23-2009, 07:31 PM
5.0's + who use their serve as a weapon, and not to start a point, fare well against WTA players who are not named Williams or Dementieva, perhaps Kuznetsova as well.

Players like Li Na, Hantuchova, etc. might have the consistency...but it would be an entertaining match.
A 5.0 player is not going to be doing anything to a top 20 ranked woman player. Sorry, they just aren't. A 5.0 male would lose to a D1 college woman, almost without question. Upping the ante to one of the best in the world makes it almost an asinine statement.

tennisisawesome
07-23-2009, 07:31 PM
Actually, I've seen 3.0s hit shots that would be winners against the pros.

That's completely untrue. The original quote said "the fastest winner from the baseline," so obviously overheads don't count, and no 3.0 could hit a shot that would be a winner against a pro, unless it was a very lucky mishit that had some crazy spin on it.

tennisisawesome
07-23-2009, 07:32 PM
A number of overhead winners I've hit (and you too, I'm sure) would be winners against ATP pros. Pros aren't superhuman after all. They're just exponentially better at every aspect of the game than you or I.

The original quote said "the fastest winner from the baseline," so overheads don't count.

pvaudio
07-23-2009, 07:35 PM
I wrote that a 4.0 _can_ ace a tour pro. I'm not saying give any 4.0 one shot at it and they'll guaranteed ace 'em with one chance - no way. In the context of playing a set where they have multiple opportunities, and the pro can get bored, lose focus, it is a possibility.

Hitting one winner, namely an ACE, in the context of multiple attempts like a set - anyone can get lucky. Would that person be able to piece together more than 2 points in a game - extremely unlikely.

Also - all 4.0s are not created equal; it is a pretty broad range. Would the equivalent of someone just above a 3.5 be as successful as someone just under 4.5 - no. Perhaps the guys you play against don't represent upper-end 4.0s. I also presume a tour pro isn't necessarily a top 10 player.

But hey - we're all entitled to our opinions, and that's what OP asked for.

Have Fun! K_I

No see, you're using qualifying statements. Upper end 4.0s. If the pro got bored. If a lion ran into the pro during teh toss. These are just useless hypothetical situations. The question is when both players are focused, could a 4.0 ace a pro. My serve is my best stroke by far, and I get many aces off it during 4.0 play. I would be shocked if I got one ace off a pro.

WildVolley
07-23-2009, 07:37 PM
That's completely untrue. The original quote said "the fastest winner from the baseline," so obviously overheads don't count, and no 3.0 could hit a shot that would be a winner against a pro, unless it was a very lucky mishit that had some crazy spin on it.

Sorry, I stand by my statement. I've seen a 3.0 hit about a 90mph flat with slight underspin forehand that knifed off the line. It was a shot that would be difficult for any player anywhere to return. Young aggressive guys can hit some pretty incredible shots with horrible form if they swing away.

I had no difficulty with bagels against this player because he hit a lot of shots directly into the net or into the back fence. Don't assume a 3.0 is a weak timid person who just dinks the ball.

Birke
07-23-2009, 07:49 PM
I think a really hard angle return of serve from a baseline player might do the trick.

But only if I could get my stick on a 2nd serve from a pro LOL

RoddickAce
07-23-2009, 07:51 PM
One of the only situations where the statement would most likely not be true would be a sitter smash hit at max pace 1 metre from the net. The 7.0 would probably get it back but most likely would not see it as an attackable ball.

tennisisawesome
07-23-2009, 08:11 PM
Sorry, I stand by my statement. I've seen a 3.0 hit about a 90mph flat with slight underspin forehand that knifed off the line. It was a shot that would be difficult for any player anywhere to return. Young aggressive guys can hit some pretty incredible shots with horrible form if they swing away.

I had no difficulty with bagels against this player because he hit a lot of shots directly into the net or into the back fence. Don't assume a 3.0 is a weak timid person who just dinks the ball.

it's a far cry from dinking the ball and hitting 90 mph.

btw: the pros would still have no difficulty returning this ball, not even ivo karlovic (with the poorest footwork in the top 100) would!

dParis
07-23-2009, 10:43 PM
Speaking toward 4.0 players "Think of the fastest/heaviest most ridiculous winner you ever hit. Any 7.0 pro would see it as an attackable ball"



Wouldn't you consider that a bit extreme? I mean an extremely heavy ridiculously fast winner a 4.0 player hit may cause trouble for even the 7.0 player.

The original quote said "the fastest winner from the baseline," so overheads don't count.
Are you reading from an imaginary post or do you know the origin of the quote and claim the OP left that part out?