View Single Post
Old 01-28-2013, 10:32 PM   #50
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 957

Originally Posted by JW10S View Post
I went back and read the first page in his original thread on the subject--there it does not seem he is talking about a 'default' strategy. So apparently he has backed way off of his original concepts.
I thought that 5263 was saying that one can and should it to areas other than the smart targets - specifically, in post #2:

"These 3 cones form a triangle shaped target zone, one on the deuce then another on the ad side. These 2 triangle targets will work well for most all shots from dtl to well cross court. There will definitely be several exceptions we can use from using these targets, but these 2 targets will work well for a vast majority of rally and mid-short ball attacks. Defining smart exceptions will be great to discuss in this thread."

Also, the above language implies they are defaults and not absolutes, IMO.

Some things good players have in their bag are what I refer to as 'automatic' shots--their default shots. Since there is not always time to decide and set up to hit where you want or how you want everytime players will have an automatic go to shot that will keep them in the point but not put them on the defensive. Then when they have time, opened up the court, acheived good court position, whatever, they pull the trigger. But these automatic shots are situational and not always to the same places.

I've seen point-by-point chartings of patterns of shots of Djokovic, Federer, Murray and Nadal and they each have their own unique patterns of play incorporating automatic shots to ultimately allow them to take control of the point based on their particular strengths and favorite shots. They don't use the same targets, their automatic shots differ. And their automatic forehands differ from their automatic backhands. They will hit deeper to one side of the court and shorter to the other, or wider to one side and more centered to the other based on their strengths and weaknesses and the strengths and weaknesses of their opponents. In many ways it's like chess--how many shots will it take me to get my opponent over there, or to make him hit to me here. It's fascinating when you study it.
This makes sense, of course. The top players have no doubt refined their strategies to a very fine degree, and execute a number of variations based on their opponent and situation. And they will have to do so almost automatically, because of the speed of the game. High speed grandmaster chess at its best! However, we have to start somewhere...

I'm surprised someone would need a reference to tell them that dropping the ball into the middle of your opponent's court is something you'd probably wouldn't want to do all that often. When I was 12 yrs old (long time ago) my coach would use tape to mark out a square in the middle of the court, if you hit the ball in it you lost the point. He didn't use a fancy term like 'avoid zone'. But it was a good tool, one I use in my coaching now, hit in the square in the middle of the court, lose the point, but it's certainly nothing groundbreaking.
IMO, what seems obvious to you and other established coaches/players definitely needs to be spelled out clearly to those not in the know! I am just now, after so many years of hitting, beginning to understand why hitting in the middle - even fairly hard - is geometrically disadvantageous compared to hitting to one of the smart targets. It is a point well worth stating on a board such as this, again IMO.
bhupaes is offline   Reply With Quote