Talk Tennis

Talk Tennis (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php)
-   Tennis Tips/Instruction (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/forumdisplay.php?f=17)
-   -   Pro Net Clearance? (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=456193)

SuzukiSS 02-28-2013 03:03 PM

Pro Net Clearance?
 
Who has some data on the average net clearance at the pro level on groundstrokes? It seems I heard Li Na averaged around 15 inches vs. Azarenkas 18 inches at the Australian Open. Also seems I read Federer averaged less than two feet? I will fire up the debate and say no way do pros get anywhere near 4-5 feet over the net as some proclaim!

iradical18 02-28-2013 03:10 PM

I think 4-5 feet is pretty absurd as far as an average goes but I'm sure there are some shots that are in that range every now and then.

LeeD 02-28-2013 03:18 PM

I think, in general, WTA pros have a lower net clearance than most ATP pros.
Rallyballs are hit higher over the net than winner attempts, and confirmed counterattacker's generally clear the net more than player's who go for winners to shorten the points.

Relinquis 02-28-2013 05:09 PM

there are quite a few moonballer on WTA and quite a few guys in the ATP hit hit clearance spin when on clay.

having said that, i think net clearance is a lot lower than most people think. Just look at how many net cord hits there are.

WildVolley 02-28-2013 05:18 PM

It depends on the player and the surface, but the claims of 4 or 5 feet over the net as an average, which means approximately 7 to 9 feet in the air when it crosses over the net, are not accurate for most hard court play.

I mostly watch tennis in person at Indian Wells, and usually the average net clearance is a lot less. Some players tick the net a lot which gives you an idea of the net clearance. I've seen James Blake warming up and he hit like a fifty shot rally and most of the balls were probably within a foot of the net.

I can well believe the net clearance is higher on clay. And some players like Nadal will hit heavy topspin defensive shots that do go high over the net.

Venetian 02-28-2013 05:22 PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPP1...HEVf1g&index=2

This can give you a good idea I think. Looks like 1-3 feet or so on most shots to me.

Relinquis 02-28-2013 06:25 PM

This old thread suggests 60cm+ or so for some big hitting pros.

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=320880

surely someone, somewhere has measured this stat for a match.

Relinquis 02-28-2013 07:13 PM

in court level videos online federer has high (ish) net clearance when practicing rally balls, but when practicing points it seems he hits closer to the net...

his backhand slices are barely over the net during practice.

This is Federer Vs. Blake court level at the US Open:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hp0cc-leZg8

What do you think of the net clearance on these points? Watch the whole thing please (only a few minutes long).

Greg G 02-28-2013 08:35 PM

Can anyone define what "academy ball" and "ATP ball" are? Came across it in a Lansdorp video. I assume the first is loopier than the second..?

Relinquis 02-28-2013 08:41 PM

^^ yeah... obviously the flattest and hardest is the Lansdorp ball.... ;)

He's the only one who uses these terms. Other coaches will say hit looper, or higher with more topspin or shorter or flatter or more angled, or such...

In reality, as i see it, pros hit varying heights depending on what they want to achieve and their court positioning, hit an inside out winner, passing shot, regular rally ball, defensive ball on the run, etc...

I think the points Lansdorp was trying to make was that you should be able to hit at varying heights over the net, i.e. balls with varying amounts of spin and pace depending on your strategy/situation.

Mahboob Khan 02-28-2013 08:47 PM

Well, "the clearance over the net" is dictated by the hitting situations whether the player is away from the baseline or inside it, whether the player is in a defensive rally situation or offensive rally situation or whether the player is attempting a winner.

It will be absurd on my part to give you the actual measurement (because we can't contol it to exact inches) but it works like this:

Defensive rally situation: More net clearance
Offensive rally situation: Less net clearance
Winners: Less net clearance
Away from the Baseline: More net clearance
Inside the Baseline: Less net clearance
First flat serve: Less net clearance
2nd kick serve: More net clearance
Cross Court: Less net clearance
Down the Line: More net clearance
Slice approach shots: Less net clearance
Volleys: Less net clearance

I hope the above works.

Relinquis 02-28-2013 09:02 PM

is net clearance a by product of time?
- taking time away from your opponent with faster, low net clearance shots
- giving yourself time with slower, high net clearance shots

slowfox 02-28-2013 09:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Relinquis (Post 7243102)
This is Federer Vs. Blake court level at the US Open:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hp0cc-leZg8

What do you think of the net clearance on these points? Watch the whole thing please (only a few minutes long).

Nice video. Enjoyed it. And to me 9+ minutes is more than "a few minutes"... I was thinking 3 would do...

SystemicAnomaly 02-28-2013 09:12 PM

Have we forgotten about Rafa already? He often hits more than 5 or 6 feet over the net. The following link speaks of a match with Tommy Haas where Rafa averaged a 6-foot net clearance.

http://tennisbythebook.blogspot.com/...r-victory.html

rkelley 02-28-2013 09:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Relinquis (Post 7243102)
in court level videos online federer has high (ish) net clearance when practicing rally balls, but when practicing points it seems he hits closer to the net...

his backhand slices are barely over the net during practice.

This is Federer Vs. Blake court level at the US Open:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hp0cc-leZg8

What do you think of the net clearance on these points? Watch the whole thing please (only a few minutes long).

Love this video. Two great players hitting big and clean.

2ndServe 02-28-2013 10:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greg G (Post 7243229)
Can anyone define what "academy ball" and "ATP ball" are? Came across it in a Lansdorp video. I assume the first is loopier than the second..?

I think the atp ball is roughly 1.5 ft over the net (give or take 6 inches, this is the base shot). He feels the academy and usta ball can be useful at times but it severely limits the player if that non penetrating shot is their base shot. And rightfully so, the loopier it is the more time it gives the opponent and with time comes comfort and options. A loopier shot is neutral in the 14's, that same shot is slightly more attackable at the 16s, at the 18s it's a very attackable ball, on the futures it's a powderpuff, on the challenger tour it's a meatball, at the atp 300 - 100 rankings it's a joke, top 100 they shove it down your throat with their eyes closed 95% of the time.

It's a little degrading to the academy and usta but he is actually correct in a sense. He obviously feels that you need a penetrating ball and the academy ball is loopier (usta even loopier) and provides better consistency but it has a theoretical max plateau (and that isn't a pro with a chance at winning a grand slam).

Can't argue with a guy who has produced tracy austin, davenport, sampras, sharapova, joyce and many others.

Ash_Smith 03-01-2013 04:40 AM

There were some stats from RG a couple of years ago that said Novak averaged around 3ft (or roughly 1m for those metrically minded) on a rally ball. Not that it really tells you anything, as we have no idea what his intent was in general or on any specific pattern.

Cheers

Relinquis 03-01-2013 04:52 AM

^^ pushing*?



* Just kidding guys... thought it would be fun. no offense to novak or his acolytes.

dominikk1985 03-02-2013 08:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2ndServe (Post 7243343)
I think the atp ball is roughly 1.5 ft over the net (give or take 6 inches, this is the base shot). He feels the academy and usta ball can be useful at times but it severely limits the player if that non penetrating shot is their base shot. And rightfully so, the loopier it is the more time it gives the opponent and with time comes comfort and options. A loopier shot is neutral in the 14's, that same shot is slightly more attackable at the 16s, at the 18s it's a very attackable ball, on the futures it's a powderpuff, on the challenger tour it's a meatball, at the atp 300 - 100 rankings it's a joke, top 100 they shove it down your throat with their eyes closed 95% of the time.

It's a little degrading to the academy and usta but he is actually correct in a sense. He obviously feels that you need a penetrating ball and the academy ball is loopier (usta even loopier) and provides better consistency but it has a theoretical max plateau (and that isn't a pro with a chance at winning a grand slam).

Can't argue with a guy who has produced tracy austin, davenport, sampras, sharapova, joyce and many others.

I would say landsdorp is more talking about womens tennis, after all he is known more as a womens coach.

girls like sharapova or williams might hit about 1 foot over the net but ATP players usually hit a neutral ball 2-3 feet over the net.

in the 90s his assesment that such a loopy ball is attackable might have been right but with poly you can hit massive shots with 3 feet net clearance. in fact when watching pros it seems that now flat bullets (WTA style) are more attackable than the loopier balls.

and the academies are all known for producing flat ballbashers like sharapova. if anything american players play less loopy than the best in the world. what they lack is not power but athleticism and movement.

boramiNYC 03-02-2013 09:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2ndServe (Post 7243343)
I think the atp ball is roughly 1.5 ft over the net (give or take 6 inches, this is the base shot). He feels the academy and usta ball can be useful at times but it severely limits the player if that non penetrating shot is their base shot. And rightfully so, the loopier it is the more time it gives the opponent and with time comes comfort and options. A loopier shot is neutral in the 14's, that same shot is slightly more attackable at the 16s, at the 18s it's a very attackable ball, on the futures it's a powderpuff, on the challenger tour it's a meatball, at the atp 300 - 100 rankings it's a joke, top 100 they shove it down your throat with their eyes closed 95% of the time.

It's a little degrading to the academy and usta but he is actually correct in a sense. He obviously feels that you need a penetrating ball and the academy ball is loopier (usta even loopier) and provides better consistency but it has a theoretical max plateau (and that isn't a pro with a chance at winning a grand slam).

Can't argue with a guy who has produced tracy austin, davenport, sampras, sharapova, joyce and many others.

I think this is pretty accurate assessment. poly string changed the game somewhat but the net clearance hasn't changed that much. instead the rally speed and accuracy went up compared to 10 or 20 yrs ago.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:46 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2006 - Tennis Warehouse