TimeSpiral
Professional
yes.. keep arguing and make my thread grow. grow my child, GROW
Humorously, your troll bait did turn into a, "that shots not that impressive," debate.
This is what happens if you leave a ball short against a pro
- Thread starter KineticChain
- Start date
Humorously, your troll bait did turn into a, "that shots not that impressive," debate.
arche3
Banned
I think its great that the dz is STILL getting trolled even after his long absence. Lulz....
arche3
Banned
yes.. keep arguing and make my thread grow. grow my child, GROW
So funny. You can post a 145mph isner ace and some dude will say he has faced similar on his club matches.
KineticChain
Hall of Fame
well 145 rounds down to 100 at 1 significant figure.... so most decent 4.5 players have a first serve ~145 mph, give or take 50 mph
5263
G.O.A.T.
Even that is different and easier to do; but still very rare.... For a serve is almost like long ball drive contest....it's the same court, and your toss and there are rec players who can drill some amazing serve speeds....
But can they do it at the Open with a % to hold serve against a returner like DJ who is providing tons of pressure.....
But in this thread it is about taking a kicking ball with spin and a contact pt that is well over most players heads with one foot well behind the BL....then hitting down on a inside/in 100+mph Fh ...gimme a break...
Bobby Jr
G.O.A.T.
Yeah, I was tempted to say this when the video when up - I thought the OP may have been joking since, as you say, that's hardly a short ball at all given its height when he hits it 2 feet inside the baseline.
TobyTopspin
Professional
I'm not sure you read my full post. I said that the juniors and college players I've hit with could put the ball away. I said it wouldn't have the same power. I hit with a current ATP pro (ranked around the 500s currently) at least two or three times a month. I said that they may not be able to hit it as hard or as consistently, but they can still hit the shot. I have over 10 kids that I have coached over the last 7 years on D1 rides. I'd like to think I know a little something about the game myself.
mrpeterman
Banned
It bounces at the service line.. What else would it be called?
Bobby Jr
G.O.A.T.
All serves bounce inside the service like too. Are they all short balls?
Where a ball bounces nowdays is not actually a great indication of how short it will in an attack vs defence sense. Nadal hit the ball inside the service line heaps, but with so much spin they are above shoulder height behind the baseline.
mrpeterman
Banned
Are you being serious?
Where a ball bounces nowdays is not actually a great indication of how short it...[/QUOTE].
Where the ball bounces is the only indicator.. There is no other. Where the ball lands is what determines if it is a short or deep ball. The amount of spin it has on it or how high or low it bounces has nothing to do with it.
Topspin Shot
Legend
You're missing his point. He's saying that how short the ball bounces is not the only indicator of how attackable that ball is. A ball that lands six feet from the baseline with no pace or spin is more attackable than a ball that lands fifteen feet from the baseline and has a lot of pace and topspin.
Avles
Hall of Fame
Here's a Nadal forehand that bounces inside the service line: http://youtu.be/m7njuHOSG2U?t=15s
I wouldn't describe it as a "short ball." Would you?
5263
G.O.A.T.
And above is an example of why I make the point that many short or shorter balls are not attackable. I do think a great deal of posters here are educated enough to now realize that while a ball bouncing near the svc line may be short....that is not the same as leaving it short to be attacked...
Bobby Jr
G.O.A.T.
Correct. That was my point exactly. Landing inside the service line is not a good indicator of weakness of a shot anymore. In fact players often do it deliberately when rallying side to side as the vast majority of players at all levels don't move forward nearly as well as the move laterally.
5263
G.O.A.T.
I'm sure you know tennis and in fact I expect I've seen you coach up in Dallas.. Not suggesting you don't know tennis or how to coach, but that I'm not sure YOU read the Op clearly. He is suggesting (joking I expect) that a shot like in that vid is what you could expect if you leave it short against a Pro (any pro). You accurately admit that it wouldn't likely have the same power from your Jrs....which means you don't see that shot everyday... All of us see inside/in Fhs put away everyday, but it's the combination of power, depth and high contact pt of that particular rip that make it quite special.
Not to get distracted about who has coached more pro and D1 players, but my point with that was I have fathered only 2 children of college age and coached each to Full rides. That's 2 for 2, or 100%. The Big point here is that Delpo has one of the very Special Fh "smashes" (as one poster noted), maybe in the history of the game....So NO..we don't see that type Fh everyday...Even from Delpo himself!
Last edited:
mrpeterman
Banned
I see the ball like a particle is quantum physics, the state of the shot and ball is determined by the actions of the opponent. The ball exists in all possible states until the action of the opponent determines the outcome. Whether it's attack-able or not is decided by the opponent not the shot.
5263
G.O.A.T.
It's fine for you to see it that way, but according to physics and statistics, certain balls are not attackable in a consistent matchworthy situation, given the current levels of pro play.
Don't hesitate to come back and defend your position. It's great for the forum to get some heavily contested points sorted out on here....lots of great points come out of the discussions.
Last edited:
jussumman
Hall of Fame
Great angle. Why won't they show matches from this angle now and then? (pros live matches). Also I hate it when they have camera zoomed onto the server close up and then only show the entire court after he goes thru his serve motion, they skip a critical step I want to see (yeah I canwatch youtube videos of serving but nice to see it live sometimes).
5263
G.O.A.T.
And did you notice how many of these top 15 Rafa Fhs were hit short and near the Smart Targets? And even though one was stated to be 106mph, I'd bet none of them had the pace of the Delpo shot and at best 2 of them could have been close...each was cross court....and not inside/in.
TobyTopspin
Professional
I do agree that you don't see that forehand everyday. I took the post to be exactly what you said. I thought it was about putting the ball away in general.
I have been in Dallas from time to time, an no unfortunately, I'm not 100% on getting my students on full scholarships. If I were, I could charge a lot more!
We are very selective about which kids we take, but even advanced high schoolers lose interest once in a while. We had one young lady with a full ride to Auburn only to turn it down so she could go to a small school with her boyfriend. Of course that school doesn't have a tennis team. Man, were her parents mad after paying for all of the coaching and tournaments for the past 10 or so years.
5263
G.O.A.T.
I do agree that you don't see that forehand everyday. I took the post to be exactly what you said. I thought it was about putting the ball away in general.
I have been in Dallas from time to time, an no unfortunately, I'm not 100% on getting my students on full scholarships. If I were, I could charge a lot more!
We are very selective about which kids we take, but even advanced high schoolers lose interest once in a while. We had one young lady with a full ride to Auburn only to turn it down so she could go to a small school with her boyfriend. Of course that school doesn't have a tennis team. Man, were her parents mad after paying for all of the coaching and tournaments for the past 10 or so years.
Yes, kids do some funny things...especially the gals in sports.. I'm sure nobody gets all their many students to scholarships, or even close for that matter... except maybe someone like Lansdorp who gets the cream and can be very selective on who he works with. My point was just that when I had a captive audience, we could get it right for the most part.
mrpeterman
Banned
I do agree that you don't see that forehand everyday. I took the post to be exactly what you said. I thought it was about putting the ball away in general.
I have been in Dallas from time to time, an no unfortunately, I'm not 100% on getting my students on full scholarships. If I were, I could charge a lot more!
We are very selective about which kids we take, but even advanced high schoolers lose interest once in a while. We had one young lady with a full ride to Auburn only to turn it down so she could go to a small school with her boyfriend. Of course that school doesn't have a tennis team. Man, were her parents mad after paying for all of the coaching and tournaments for the past 10 or so years.
Here is a story you will not believe. We have a 15 year old sophomore who has been playing for a year.. ONE year and who has already attracted the attention of a couple of D1 schools (Albany and I forget the other). I see her hitting at the club all the time. She puts a lot of time into it and is beating girls who have been playing for 7-8 years. I've never seen anything like it. When her name came up and someone said she started playing a year ago, I thought he had the wrong kid because there is no way this girl could hit like she does with only a year of experience but sure enough he was correct.
I don't believe she has played enough tournaments to get a good regional or state ranking but she is easily one of the top 5 players in the district.
Her private coach is also the national zonals coach and the private coach to the girl's 2013 state champion so he knows what a good junior looks like and he thinks she will be competing in level 4 and 3 tournaments next year.. and nationals after that. She is such a pleasant young girl, always smiling. Just the kind of girl you would like to see do well.
The only potential issue that might impede her progress is her size. She is only around 5'3" and her parents are not very tall. Although I here the the father was an excellent athlete.
Spin Doctor
Professional
This story sounds familiar...I heard the girl's father just fired her coach for suggesting she change from western to eastern grip.
GoudX
Professional
I've played decent college players and while they're much better than me, they're clearly not the quality of Del Potro. Watch the video again, and see how wide and how much spin Gascquet's shot had. Don't forget that Gasquet's spinny backhands are about on par for spin with Nadal's forehands (he hits his backhand with less pace on an average rallying shots though).
Only a truly great player would have the ability to get around the ball, step inside the court, track the extreme kick on the ball, get to the right height (Del Potro is going airborne when hitting at shoulder height, even though he's 6'6), and then drill a 100+mph flat shot within a foot of the net, accurately into the corner on the shortest part of the court - All the while making it look easy.
A good college player would be signifcantly later getting around the ball then less capable of dealing with the kick. So they would probably shank it.
A really good college player (the better D1 players) would be around the ball slightly late, before being caught off guard by the kick - so they would be forced into hitting a defensive shot, or attempt a very low percentage winner.
A great player (pros and the few D1 players who will make it pro) have a chance of pulling of what Del Potro did, but with less pace, consistency and accuracy - but we are comparing them to a player with one of the most consistent massive forehands ever...
TobyTopspin
Professional
.
Where the ball bounces is the only indicator.. There is no other. Where the ball lands is what determines if it is a short or deep ball. The amount of spin it has on it or how high or low it bounces has nothing to do with it.[/QUOTE]
You can't underestimate heart! We had a girl who would always seem to play Odin in the finals of the Georgia rounds of tournaments, our girl was a little over six feet tall. She never could get past Melody, who was short in stature. Some times it's jus how much heart the kid has an how strong their mental game is during play.
Our girl hit the ball better in every way, but he just didn't have the mental strength to handle the relentlessness (or pushing as some call it) from Melody.
Last edited:
TimeSpiral
Professional
Avles, unless you're counter-trolling, you know better! Djokovic was essentially beat in that point, and nine times out of ten, Rafa is going inside/in right there and surprised Djokovic who was in a defensive position with a ridiculously paced angled winner (what a shot it was, too!). Hardly what I think people mean when they are talking about "short balls."
[some of] You guys might remember my contentious chart that attempted to provide a basic landing-spot guide which aggregated both the idea of angles and depth (I've included it below). I do believe that you can (and should) qualify a ball's depth as short or deep based on it's bounce phase location, but because of the angular nature of tennis, I don't believe this can be done with a straight line, like the service line or the baseline.
This is just some ridiculous myth propagated by online tennis gurus and their followers. Moving forward is easy. I would argue just as easy. Playing the ball, in some cases, might be harder because you don't have as much experience with the shot, but the movement is not an issue, imho.
I like your style. That's very metaphysical.
Here's that chart I was talking about:
^ I know some people take issue with the language in the legend. *shrugs* If that language bothers you, just change it in your head to a basic heat map, 0-5, if that's make you feel better about it.
mightyrick
Legend
Shortness, depth, or width of shot make no difference in terms of "attackable" balls.
In general, any ball is attackable if it is a SITTER.
If you get a SITTER, you have an opportunity for either an approach shot or a putaway. Regardless of where it is on the court.
In general, any ball is attackable if it is a SITTER.
If you get a SITTER, you have an opportunity for either an approach shot or a putaway. Regardless of where it is on the court.
Topspin Shot
Legend
Avles, unless you're counter-trolling, you know better! Djokovic was essentially beat in that point, and nine times out of ten, Rafa is going inside/in right there and surprised Djokovic who was in a defensive position with a ridiculously paced angled winner (what a shot it was, too!). Hardly what I think people mean when they are talking about "short balls."
[some of] You guys might remember my contentious chart that attempted to provide a basic landing-spot guide which aggregated both the idea of angles and depth (I've included it below). I do believe that you can (and should) qualify a ball's depth as short or deep based on it's bounce phase location, but because of the angular nature of tennis, I don't believe this can be done with a straight line, like the service line or the baseline.
This is just some ridiculous myth propagated by online tennis gurus and their followers. Moving forward is easy. I would argue just as easy. Playing the ball, in some cases, might be harder because you don't have as much experience with the shot, but the movement is not an issue, imho.
I like your style. That's very metaphysical.
Here's that chart I was talking about:
^ I know some people take issue with the language in the legend. *shrugs* If that language bothers you, just change it in your head to a basic heat map, 0-5, if that's make you feel better about it.
I seriously dislike that chart. First off, I have a problem with the language in that a shot that lands super close to the lines is not a good shot at all. It's way too low percentage to stand up in match play. I realize you're saying, "Just ignore the language," but the fact is that the language is part of the chart. And then there's that there's a lot of factors that go into what makes a shot tough to return besides placement, including power, spin, and the tactics behind the shot.
TimeSpiral
Professional
Yep. There is a whole article that accompanies the chart. This is just the stand-alone graphic. But for your benefit, I will explain that the regions are for where the ball lands, not where you aim the shot.
Secondly: of course, man. You're describing tennis, lulz. This chart is not intended to be the "gestalt unity of all tennis." It's a basic chart about shot depth and quality. It cannot--and does not--take into account pace, spin, player positioning, match-up, etc ... which are all--obviously--important elements of tennis.
Avles
Hall of Fame
I was responding to the argument that bounce location is the only factor that determines whether something is a "short ball." Mrpeterman said this:
The obvious counterargument is that shots that bounce "short" can (and often do) kick in a way that makes them anything but a short ball. The video is an example of such a shot.
And of course it can also happen that a ball which bounces relatively "deep" can effectively be a short ball. A floaty slice that sits up is an example--those shots can be attacked from inside the baseline even if they bounce well beyond the service line.
The larger point is that it's impossible to effectively evaluate a shot based solely on the location of the first bounce, without considering other factors like pace, spin, angle, and the context of the point.
Topspin Shot
Legend
Then what's the point of the chart?
TimeSpiral
Professional
In case the question is genuine, you can read the article here: http://timespiral.hubpages.com/hub/A-Tennis-Shot-Quality-Chart-Guide
Like most things in tennis, you really can't say or do anything without a legion of people telling you how wrong and stupid you are! Haha. TTW, even though I love it here, is no exception.
Topspin Shot
Legend
Ohhhhh.... You wrote the chart. Honestly, I didn't know that. The detailed descriptions make it make more sense though I still think it doesn't really capture the whole picture of shotmaking and provides an overly rigid view on placement.
TimeSpiral
Professional
No worries, guys.
If the chart / guide doesn't benefit you: move on. I'm not being facetious either. I mean that with all due respect. But when you see and play guys that move into the court after hitting a "short ball"--or otherwise demonstrate that they do not know when they've hit a good shot--it becomes obvious that not everyone is as knowledgeable as the avg. TTW poster.
The "whole picture" rebuttal is the most popular one to that guide. Capturing the "whole picture" would probably be something like writing a book--or series of books--or employing professionals, marketing for clients, and operating a tennis academy. Not something I can, or am willing to do.
Fintft
G.O.A.T.
^^^
The chart is beneficial, i.e. indepenently of it, I drew a similar conclusion after my first match in this ladder, Tuesday night: it was the short balls that done me in, not my errors....
I got tense in match situation and I was just pushing about 1/3 of my balls(1/3 were errors and 1/3 "too good balls"/winners).
I also remember how in the past I would keep count of my BH winners and if I didn't have any, that meant that I was too tense('cause I always have some FH ones).
The chart is beneficial, i.e. indepenently of it, I drew a similar conclusion after my first match in this ladder, Tuesday night: it was the short balls that done me in, not my errors....
I got tense in match situation and I was just pushing about 1/3 of my balls(1/3 were errors and 1/3 "too good balls"/winners).
I also remember how in the past I would keep count of my BH winners and if I didn't have any, that meant that I was too tense('cause I always have some FH ones).
Bobby Jr
G.O.A.T.
Regarding my comment "the majority of players at all levels don't move forward nearly as well as the move laterally."
When playing from the baseline a ball that would optimally be struck say 1m further in (I'm not talking about chest height balls which are probably still on the way up fyi in case you're kicking a reply along those lines into gear) most players recognise this fact and action it far far worse than were the ball going to be a couple of metres sideways to them. For many reasons, including it's far easier to judge the location of an incoming ball when it's coming at an angle compared to not where you have less data to go on, players don't move forward nearly as competently. The urgency of moving to a ball which is coming towards you already is far less than when you absolutely must move to hit it, as is the case with a ball which will come sideways of you.
In a more extreme situation where a ball is much shorter you see the nightmare players have had forever when having the short slice hit to them. Even by virtue of being somewhat closer to the net it makes many balls more awkward which is why short slice works and cross-court shots which land inside the service line are generally harder to handle than harder hit ones that land deeper - because the ball is usually lower by the time you hit it... Instead of being primes to work on moving forward more players have adapter their strokes instead to hit loopy, safer replies or go for angles.
At almost all levels of tennis hitting a ball shorter (I don't mean drop shot short, I mean more like 2m shorter than the last 10 balls) will often draw an error as often as it does compromise you.
You are dead wrong on this. This shows you don't watch tennis all that closely.
When playing from the baseline a ball that would optimally be struck say 1m further in (I'm not talking about chest height balls which are probably still on the way up fyi in case you're kicking a reply along those lines into gear) most players recognise this fact and action it far far worse than were the ball going to be a couple of metres sideways to them. For many reasons, including it's far easier to judge the location of an incoming ball when it's coming at an angle compared to not where you have less data to go on, players don't move forward nearly as competently. The urgency of moving to a ball which is coming towards you already is far less than when you absolutely must move to hit it, as is the case with a ball which will come sideways of you.
In a more extreme situation where a ball is much shorter you see the nightmare players have had forever when having the short slice hit to them. Even by virtue of being somewhat closer to the net it makes many balls more awkward which is why short slice works and cross-court shots which land inside the service line are generally harder to handle than harder hit ones that land deeper - because the ball is usually lower by the time you hit it... Instead of being primes to work on moving forward more players have adapter their strokes instead to hit loopy, safer replies or go for angles.
At almost all levels of tennis hitting a ball shorter (I don't mean drop shot short, I mean more like 2m shorter than the last 10 balls) will often draw an error as often as it does compromise you.
Last edited:
TimeSpiral
Professional
Having an opinion that differs from yours shows that I don't watch tennis all that closely?
Look, man. I said moving forward was easy, because it is. I didn't say that the tennis once you get there is easy, lulz. Tennis is hard! I believe I even specifically stated that players typically have less experience playing those short balls--let me check; yep! Here it is: "Playing the [ball you moved forward to], in some cases, might be harder because you don't have as much experience with the shot [...]"
To be frank, I had trouble understanding your post. But I think I got the idea: hitting short angles or low skidding change of pace balls can be good shot selection choices in a tennis match. Yep! I agree, but; not because moving forward is difficult, instead because those can just be great shots.
Bobby Jr
G.O.A.T.
Not at all. Your opinion per se showed it.
Now you're being facetious. It was clear what you meant. I could similarly say holding a service game is really easy, just hit four aces.
No, you did not. Independent of whether something was a short angle or skidding moving forward does not come easily to the majority of tennis players at all levels. Even recognising a shot has been hit a little less deep/hard is hard to identify quickly enough to do anything about it (positioning wise) a lot of the time.
Players are similarly trained out of moving forward because the flip side of not doing it rarely has an immediate, acute downside. They simply hit the lower ball up a bit more. Those that can move forward to strike balls at a more ideal height and consistently have the intent to reap huge rewards - Federer being a case in point. Forever he has been able to rush opponents simply by rushing them that little bit more than they're used to, and a large part of that is that he is lightning quick at taking a couple of steps forward to strike a ball which is barely noticeably shorter to the average player. Most pros, like Nadal and Murray especially, generally wait for the ball to come to them instead.
mrpeterman
Banned
But it really doesn't make a bit of difference what happens to the ball after it bounces because regardless of pace and spin and angle and regardless of where the ball would end up if you let it go, you still have the chance to approach the net and hit it on the rise. When you hit an approach shot, you want to hit it on the rise right after the bounce and before the ball goes deep. You can make the argument that pretty much every short ball hit by a pro will bounce deep if you don't hit it.
TimeSpiral
Professional
Okay, brother. Normally I'm down for arguing for arguing's sake, but there is no fruit to be had here.
5263
G.O.A.T.
Just not true....and this is the myth that hurts more tennis players games. All you have to do is watch any pro match to see how false the bold above is. Once I posted a vid of a shot by DJ where is shot was 3-4' INSIDE the svc line and 2ond bounce was near the BL, but his opponent barely had time to blink. No man on earth had a prayer to even reach for this short ball hit by DJ. In fact, most clean winners tend to be shorter/ closer to svc line. Wasn't it this thread with the top 15 Rafa Fhs from Oz Open and 10+ of them bounced short.
Pace coupled with direction are far more important than depth, with spin being a 3rd xfactor as well....as it pertains to attacking short balls or not.
Last edited:
5263
G.O.A.T.
Well said here....and by context of the point I guess would address the receiver's court position, because if you have the chance to hit away from their position with pace, they have no chance to attack it as a short ...no matter the depth of the bounce.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7njuHOSG2U&feature=youtu.be&t=15s
In the vid above you will likely lose count of the balls hit short near and inside the svc line that do not get attacked to end the point and many of the shorter balls are hit for the very winners showcased in the vid.
mrpeterman
Banned
You're talking about hitting winners. I'm talking about what constitutes a short ball regardless of hitting a winner or not. If the ball hits the service line, who in their right mind would call it a deep ball? If you call a ball that hits the service line a deep ball because it bounces deep than what do you call a ball that hits the baseline and bounces into the stands, a "really really" deep ball?
TimeSpiral
Professional
Some seem unwilling to discuss shot depth as an independent variable. If you're not talking about the entirety of tennis during each discussion, you're "missing the point."
I disagree. While aggregate and contextual analysis is obviously important in it's own, individual metrics can and should be analyzed as well. Examples: Directional Control, Depth, Spin, and Pace -- in that order of importance, can be analyzed individually on a shot by shot basis, given certain circumstances.
5263
G.O.A.T.
Really not sure where you stand on this based on your comments, but the point is there is a "tennis lingo" and in that lingo, there is the general idea that short balls can be attacked...I believe it was mrpeterman who stated that ANY SHORT ball can be attacked. BUt this is a proven myth.
The point being made is that yes...we all can see if a ball is short (some argue what is short or deep though)...but we are explaining how wrong the idea is that any short ball is also always attackable....we are explaining that a ball may be very short (inside or the svc line even) but still impossible to attack due to pace and direction away or behind the opponent.
Since tennis lingo has a life of it's own, some have stayed with that term "short ball" to mean an attackable ball, and they have added elements that help discern whether it is JUST short or "a short ball" meaning it is a ball that should be attacked aggressively to hit winners or force an error.
I tend to use the tennis lingo "ball left short", which infers that not only is the ball short, but also that is sort of left there as some type sitter...opposed to a kicking or penetrating short ball away from the opponent where there is no way to reach it soon enough to attack it. Does this help?
5263
G.O.A.T.
Yes, but not just winners, as it could just be a good rally ball......AND, you also posted...
so yes, a ball hit near the svc line measures short, but does not mean it fits the tennis term, "short ball" , used to mean a ball you can step in and go for winners or forcing errors. If the pace and direction are excellent, there may be NO chance to step in and attack.....happens quite often in every Pro match.
And nobody said to call a short shot with excellent pace and direction a "deep ball"....does every ball have to be deep or short? Is there no in-between? Maybe it is just a good rally ball if, no matter where it lands, it is aggressive and can't be attacked?
Last edited:
TimeSpiral
Professional
Oh, well. Maybe we were talking about different things.
I have always thought that leaving the ball short, or waiting for the short ball meant: a ball that landed short of it's target. If someone is playing a short angle, or a drop shot, then I wouldn't call that a short ball because they executed their shot. A failed short angle is either too central (and would then be classified as a short ball), or too long (out). A drop shot can have plenty of errors with it also: sits up, too deep, too central, etc ...
I really don't think anyone would take the position that any short ball is be definition "attackable." That would be silly. If some hits a drop winner, or a drop that I have to scrape off the court, or a short angle that I have to slide 15 feet for, or play a running slice, I'm not thinking to myself, "dang, I should have attacked that short ball."
