Discussion in 'Tennis Tips/Instruction' started by 5263, Feb 11, 2012.
Have Fed and Nadal skewed our opinions because of their spin ability?
They actually work me for me at the rec level, for the wrong reasons perhaps.
Rec players often cannot get past their hitting tendency to give it straight back to the opponent. So placement anywhere else is a novel concept for them. They are also less fit, and a shorter angled shot makes them move forward or sideways, which they can't. So yeah smart targets works good in the club.
Glad to see they are working pretty well for you and your reasoning seems pretty sound imo. They are not for every situation, but a great addition to the tactical toolbox.
Fantastic diagram. Where do you find these? I'm interested in seeing some for lower ranked players, say those playing in Futures and ranked from 100-400
Contributions from interested posters with better computer skills than me. Please share them when you find them, thanks!
Oh, i don't mean the graphics that ware drawn on top of the balls (triangles etc.) I mean, the original images with only the yellow balls. These appear to be Hawk-eye generated.
Right, but same answer...I think they did a snapshot from youtube vids of tv matches, then shared them with us.
and here you have the key...if you leave it short and soft, then you have basically opened your court for attack.
Also I'd like to mention, "Down the middle, solves the riddle". Now that's a good saying I'm sure most will recognize and appreciate the value of during doubles play.....but does it address every shot or every situation? Of course not, but it is still good info for the toolbox. Same with Smart Targets. They are not to fit every situation of course, but they are tools. And as the reference they are designed to be, they can help you hit deeper as well as further from the sidelines if that is your intent. They are not a bounce here spot unless that is what fits that day. They are a reference to aid you without being focused on the lines.
Did you see the charts on pages 5-8....especially on p.7?
More precisely what I'm saying is that no matter your position on the court or situation, you likely can use one or the other Smart Target as a Reference for placing your rtn...if you so choose.
I've also mentioned many times that if you have a overriding intention, then by all means, go with that....and I've given examples of where I myself would do just that...hit somewhere unrelated to the targets, like with a drop shot. The Smart Targets are more of a default reference when working to one or the other sides and allow for tighter angles up by the shorter cones/corner and provide reference for deeper rally shots by the deep cone or corner. They even provide for a more conservative placement past the svc line with the more central cone/corner.
I so appreciate you posting this. You would not believe how many people have denied this happens.
We can flip this around and ask: how do you prevent your opponent from hitting smart targets?
That is exactly what I was getting it, but left it out so that an intelligent poster like yourself will fill in the blanks. Great people think alike it seems.
LoL, But I though you said that hitting deep caused players to hit shorter....always trying to have it both ways on that side of the fence?
But yes, if you can hit winners or overpower your opponent consistently, then yes, you will keep players from having the control to hit their targets...no matter where they are Smart or dumb targets.
I don't even think you need to hit all that hard as long as it is deep to make the ball harder for the opponent to handle. im all for consistency.
But I didnt say deeper balls made you hit shorter. But I actually think it has some truth. A deeper ball is harder to handle. And a short ball reply off a deep ball is usually what a player is working for. To get an easy ball.
A lot of times I think personally my balls are shorter in the court it is due to the top spin. And im taking a good rip at the ball most times. So they usually are not too deep for safety. And for me it is harder to handle deeper balls than short. I think its like this for most tennis players. But tennis is not really that hard of a sport. People on ttw make it harder than it is.
Deep balls coming in repeatedly is the immediately noticeable issue when playing up a couple of levels. They are exhausting to deal with and leave no opportunity to angle it out smartly.
I don't think I ever said a deep ball was bad, but only that most folks had ideas about depth that take their depth risk too high. If you can hit deep and consistent...by all means...a tough strategy to beat...Smart Targets are about Moderate Depth anyway, as several have already pointed out.
I just don't see anyone at any level do it against equal or better competition. I think if a 4.0 thinks he is going to decide to hit deep enough to do damage and with enough consistency to start beating better 4.5s he is likely fooling himself and chasing fools gold. I believe this is a slow path to improving and I have helped many players make this jump much quicker than normal.
Glad to hear it. I'm the first to admit it is not Brain surgery, but sometimes it is the simple cues that can really help. These help you to not let them control the center of the court as well along with challenging their movement.
5263, this is bogus. You double-replied to his original post just to bump this thread. Enough, already. If you are trying to promote your method, you really should put up a blog and put a reference to it.
You are using subversive cross-replies as spam for your innovation. Cross-replying like this breaks the entire flow and purpose of an original thread. All to bring your own thread back to life.
He does this often. The last few pages are filled with this.
I hit so many Smart Target winners against cheetah now that he admitted it was a great strategy
get over yourself already...I do this to keep the info in one organized location for anyone who is interested. Nothing makes you read this thread and you are welcome to block my post, which I'm happy for you to do if you want to make false reasons why I do what I do. You don't know my mind, so try to mind your own.
I appreciate you say "IF" because there is nothing to promote...it is a simple tool that has helped many. If you don't like it, then don't read it :???:
Coaches stress hitting deep so that YOU can learn a tool.
If you ONLY can hit deep, they will teach you how to hit short angles.
Every stroke is a tool for your repetoir. You pay a coach to increase your skillset, whot?
Why would you resist what he has to say?
It is repertoire
One thing to add to your repertoire...... a good service motion from using a longbody racket.
There is one simple physical aspect to this no one has mentioned - a fast groundie will mostly be deep. A fast shot cannot help but be deep, except for some corner case scenarios like hitting down on the ball.
Now don't tell me that is can be fast and short due to spin. I am not talking about total energy on the ball, but its raw speed as measured by a speed gun.
I have a problem with "smart targets".
Being around a low 4.0, it seems every other opponent knows the same. So, they stand there, my "smart target", and cover the "favored" shot.
Seems to me, and seems to the entire AussieOpen crew of players, that to hit winners, you have to change things up a little.
Very few people actually know about smart targets, and certainly not most low 4.0s. Some may hit them out of intuition, but few have the ability to angle the ball out of the sideline with spin in an effective way, even if they realize it may work, which they don't.
Most of these negative comments about the targets have come from those who think they know what is in this thread, but have not actually taken the time to familiarize themselves with the ideas here. You probably have noticed that sureshs, from reading their uninformed comments. Of course the good side is they make comments that open discussion on the topic that promotes better understanding of depth and how to manage it.
Hey....there is some promotion there, so maybe that is what I'm being accused of promoting? Thanks for your balance comments on this sureshs.
Separate names with a comma.