Originally Posted by BU-Tennis
Rosewall I made a new image with your different target zones for attack and counter-attack. I also then highlighted the area in Green which is the zone which is shared by both attack and counter attack
and highlighted the Smart Targets in Yellow.
The zones you speak of are the traditional type of thought which 5263 says are outdated, and not supported by actual play results. However, this is not meant to be accusery, since I thought the same as you before this thread started lol!
The biggest thing to take away from this diagram is to see that the shared zone is a triagnle, very similar in shape to the Smarter Targets. However, the big problem is that the zone leaves no margin for error. We are assuming you aim for a specific point within that one, so if you pick the line you can't miss that spot long at all without losing the point.
the Smart Zones provide an answer to this problem by providing a margin of error. If you aim for the deepest part of the zone then even if you miss it long by 3 feet, you're still one foot within the line!! (and Aim is improper when talking about tennis but no other word i can think of really captures the idea of trying to hit to a specific point...than aim?)
Sweet. You can see the similarities.Its horses for courses i guess. i also understand your main point for the margin for error, though i not sure whether its too rigid in a dynamic matchplay scenario. For myself the overlapping zones that you pointed depend on the court position of yourself relative to the incoming ball and position of the op.so if you have to move across then it would be incoming attacking ball.
i prob forgot to mention that the the two zones of attack and counter are reactionary to the incoming ball from the op. so the attack zone is an attacking ball coming to you and so a counter would be appropriate. Note they are only guidelines
it follows from the directionals but simply with zones so i know what to truly react at an instant. Given how the balls fly these days you don't have time to think whether a 'variable' depth is suitable for a certain type of play
i 'm in the belief in the axiom you can only deal with what you've been dealt with so what you do is always response to what the op has given you.
The dimension of space is accounted for in this thread but time isn't so much. A holistic scheme is the holy grail i guess, but that mystery is the reason for why the game is so fun