PDA

View Full Version : Is It Normal...


user92626
02-01-2012, 10:22 AM
for early 50-ish men who have been playing for 4+ years (1-3 hrs, times /week) to not be able to groundstroke the ball in for 3 consecutive times?

Do you generally shun those men or they are ...good enough to be around? :confused:

LeeD
02-01-2012, 10:24 AM
Very normal....
In rallying, they all can hit 25.
In a point, when impatient, they might be going for the shot of their lifetime, but you can't tell because they are just old farts who don't play well.

user92626
02-01-2012, 10:38 AM
Very normal....
In rallying, they all can hit 25.
In a point, when impatient, they might be going for the shot of their lifetime, but you can't tell because they are just old farts who don't play well.


You know what, LeeD, you might be right on with that assessment.

The men I play with don't seem to know what they are doing. Then, a few times they have an inkling of control from trying really really hard, ie one or two shots in, then they suddenly wack really hard, over-hitting, missing by a mile. Then, they assess that because they place their body this way or that way, or because of their racket like this or like that!!!!!

woodrow1029
02-01-2012, 10:50 AM
LeeD, you might be right on with that assessment.



From what I've seen, that's not something you hear every day!

LeeD
02-01-2012, 10:52 AM
Case in point. Yesterday, I missed the first forehand ad court our ad 3 times in a row. No pressure, our ad, the returner much better and more consistent. When he finally got one to my feet on the backhand side, I pulled off the low volley to within a foot of his baseline, putting away the following volley.
I could never play even with him using my groundies, but at net, have a slight advantage.

user92626
02-01-2012, 11:17 AM
From what I've seen, that's not something you hear every day!

That's why it needs to be said! :)

But LeeD is correct. I can't tell whether they are impatient, eager to play their best shots, mimiccing pro's or simply tennis is beyond their ability. Why would you use all your might to wack the ball out or given your skills, agility at advanced age, "pound-volley" the ball really hard to the side lines which is virtually impossible to make.

(sorry, I'm ranting. :))

LeeD
02-01-2012, 11:53 AM
Hope for the shot of your lifetime? In my case, once the returner got a deep ball to my forehand side (shaded half way, court dipping downwards a foot, moss at in the alley, me no left ankle push), I knew the point was lost, so why not try a Nadal go for everything shot? True, I get nothing 80% of the time, but I"m just killing time until I can get a better (for me) shot than a half volley running forehand against a solid player.

TimothyO
02-01-2012, 12:05 PM
This week our ALTA mixed doubles coach was so fed up with the men trying to kill everything (and then missing) or poaching inappropriately he sent them off to other courts and they couldn't return until they hit 20 stroke rallies. If they missed, they started at 1 again.

Fortunately I missed practice and was at home helping my son with his homework. :)

TimothyO
02-01-2012, 12:06 PM
You know what, LeeD, you might be right on with that assessment.

The men I play with don't seem to know what they are doing. Then, a few times they have an inkling of control from trying really really hard, ie one or two shots in, then they suddenly wack really hard, over-hitting, missing by a mile. Then, they assess that because they place their body this way or that way, or because of their racket like this or like that!!!!!

This describes perfectly so many B and A level ALTA games I've watched, both men's and men in mixed doubles.

thug the bunny
02-01-2012, 01:24 PM
IMO after 4+ years you and your friends should have at least a few shots that you know you can get in 90% of the time without them being bunts and floaters. Stick to these shots until you get one you can put away or can use to lead up to a put away. My regular rally ball is mid-paced, 1 - 3 ft above the net with abundant topspin. I can hit this all day long.

I'm 51, been playing 4+ years just like you, and I regulary have 20+ shot rallies during the course of a match. They really draw upon your stamina, but they're fun!

user92626
02-01-2012, 01:49 PM
thug,

That's my expectation, too. That's why I'm quite baffled when my friends hit blatantly UEs.

I only know my own tennis, and have no idea how others see this sport. Easy, difficult, or relative to level but then we're talking about weekend, recreational, basic tennis here. Sometimes it feels like as if you took up water polo for recreation but always got drowned when you set foot in the pool! That's definitely no fun. :)

You definitely know what you're doing when you could hit 10, 20+ shots off of relatively neutral balls. I think our group needs people like you!!!! hehe

LeeD
02-01-2012, 01:55 PM
Sounds almost like mindless ball bashing, hitting 20 shots past the netman, and to the backcourt player.
I"d take a seat and grab a book.
I know, at my 4.0 level, I can force the issue and end points within 5 shots anytime I hit center. Why hit 20 shot rallies?
See, different strategy, mindset, and philosophy.
And sure, playing the percentages can garner you more wins, but it's less FUN, and you won't advance your skills.

user92626
02-01-2012, 02:53 PM
LeeD,

Generally speaking if you can end a point within 5 shots with a win, good for you. If it's a loss, it would suck for everyone involved. Everyone will see that your tennis is a joke and all respectable players will eventually leave. Who left to play with you are players with the same mindset, ie another LeeD who ends points within 2 shots. If that's a successful propostion, philosophy, you'll eventually have two players who don't even bother to hit more than 1 shot to win. LOL.

LeeD
02-01-2012, 03:25 PM
Ah, that's the beauty of tennis. Your 40 shot rally vs my 5 shot winner attempts. We're free to employ whatever strategy we think we should.
My thinking. As a bad 4.0, but someone who played almost exclusively A/Open in SanFrancisco area, I can hit almost any shot in that level (either the current 4.0 or any current 5.5. Sure, it might be 50% of my actual match tries, but that means at least half the time, my shot will pressure my opposition. Say, 30% of the time, my shots will win me the point. That means 50% of the time, I hit a loser. That's good enough for me to play pretty good 4.0 doubles, top of the heap.
You, hitting safe conservative shots, will also win 50% of your say....4.0 level shots. If you're a 4.0. Those slow, no risk balls will ensure you stay at 4.0 foreever. Very few pressure shots, almost no winners.
I have lost to plenty of guys like you (your philosophy). I've also crushed plenty of guys with your thinking.
OTOH, you have never BEATEN a guy like me. You might win, but not with winners. You happen to win when I miss. You didn't WIN. You managed to avoid losing .....................:):)
And I respect your philosophy, I just don't choose to adopt it.

Frank Silbermann
02-01-2012, 04:27 PM
for early 50-ish men who have been playing for 4+ years (1-3 hrs, times /week) to not be able to groundstroke the ball in for 3 consecutive times?

Do you generally shun those men or they are ...good enough to be around? :confused: That just means you're not a pusher.

5263
02-01-2012, 05:31 PM
I have lost to plenty of guys like you (your philosophy). I've also crushed plenty of guys with your thinking.
OTOH, you have never BEATEN a guy like me. You might win, but not with winners. You happen to win when I miss. You didn't WIN. You managed to avoid losing .....................:):)
And I respect your philosophy, I just don't choose to adopt it.

Then OTOH, I do beat guys with your philosophy truly all the time as move them around, soak up their UEs in the process, blunt the effectiveness their 2 of 4 lucky big shots with good positioning, then
after setting them up nicely rip the winner with a shot as big as any of the big ones they tried. Only difference is that I set the table first, then Made the shot instead of missing 2 of 4 and nearly always hit twice as many winners as those type risk takers.

LeeD
02-01-2012, 05:38 PM
Assuming I got to hit even ONE ball before my winner attempt, I AM setting up for my shot.
First ball misses are not recommended, for either of us.
Slow torture can kill almost as well as quick death, but it takes longer, and you gotta do more work.
If you like your work, go for it.

thug the bunny
02-02-2012, 07:58 AM
Sounds almost like mindless ball bashing, hitting 20 shots past the netman, and to the backcourt player.
I"d take a seat and grab a book.
I know, at my 4.0 level, I can force the issue and end points within 5 shots anytime I hit center. Why hit 20 shot rallies?
See, different strategy, mindset, and philosophy.
And sure, playing the percentages can garner you more wins, but it's less FUN, and you won't advance your skills.

I was talking singles, and our rallies are very entertaining, usually involving some angle shots and gets and sometimes some net play. We don't just bash it down the center waiting for a UE. I am always moving my opp and looking for a good angle to finish the point while still hitting conservatively with varying sprinkles of aggression.

user92626
02-02-2012, 10:29 AM
Ah, that's the beauty of tennis. Your 40 shot rally vs my 5 shot winner attempts. We're free to employ whatever strategy we think we should.
My thinking. As a bad 4.0,

And I respect your philosophy, I just don't choose to adopt it.

I highly doubt that that's the beautfy of tennis because I highly doubt that you could be successful at a winner within 5 shots given your level.

It's not a philoshophy that you need to stay on the point as long as you need before you see an opportunity. That's the proper way of playing. It's just bad tennis to force an end when there's no opportunity or you could not.

LeeD
02-02-2012, 10:37 AM
Once again, counter puncher vs first hitter.
You haven't even seen me hit, and you already KNOW I can't end a point in my favor within 5 of my shots at the 4.0 level.
Funny.
Some 4.0's, especially the recently promoted, do indeed hit like 3.5's, but more consistent.
I hit more like 5.5's, but with little consistency compared to them.
I run like a 3.0, I'll admit, but that's another story, not a hitting story.

user92626
02-02-2012, 10:45 AM
I go by your claim 4.0.
So anytime a 5+ exchange inevitably occurs, which I know happen routinely at 4.0, you're automatically at the losing proposition. If playing to lose isn't bad tennis, then what is? :)

LeeD
02-02-2012, 11:00 AM
Wrong again....
Say we're both 4.0's by rating and match play results.
One guy could be a very consistent hitter, very smart, but NOT have big winning and forcing shots.
The other guy COULD be a huge hitter, can actually hit those shots maybe half the time, but is so dumb uninformed that he doesn't think score is the only measure of tennis success.
Second guy could hit enough shots to throw off first guy's consistency.
First guy could be consistent and tough enough to solicit enough pure losers from 2nd guy until the score is ..................EVEN!
Both guys are 4.0, right?
You can win by hitting 2 winners and balance that out with 2 unforced errors.
You can also win by hitting 40 winners and 40 unforced errors.
Which style would you like to play?
Talking if both guys are 4.0's.

thug the bunny
02-02-2012, 12:42 PM
Lee, how about if you're a consistent hitter AND you can hit big winners or forcing shots, just you choose to keep those shots in your pocket until the time is right? Wouldn't that be smart tennis, granted that you can endure rallying?

user92626
02-02-2012, 04:36 PM
Folks,

I have this question that I'd like to get your insight on.

Do you think bad tennis has a big root in laziness deep down?

Yesterday, I probably inwittingly offended my friend when we were rallying and seeing how he was always keeping the racket down, I tried to remind him to keep the racket up (we have the tradition of offering unsolicited advices :)), "don't be lazy", he laughed and said "how do you know I'm lazy?" I was taken back a little.

Now thinking about it I didn't mean that he was lazy on that day, but I think when he was self-learning the strokes, like most self taught folks, me included, he tended to go for and developed the least resistant path, doing things the easiest way. Letting down your arm and racket, and swinging with arm only (as opposed to getting the whole body involved, adjusting as much as we can) seems to be physically and mentally easiest. And that's how bad technique is developed overtime.

Also, when you watch a pro match, what immediately stands out? For me, it's how HARD and how much effort they put in everything. Effort along with gifted athleticism probably contributes 90% of their tennis already.

LeeD
02-02-2012, 05:08 PM
If you can play consistent and hit any winner you want, you are playing below your level.