Practice for Smarter Targets

[5263]

There as been a lot of discussion on here about depth vs angles, along with many aspects on this topic. The discussions have been difficult due to various definitions each individual seems to hold on their idea of great depth (extreme depth), so for this thread, we will use the definition found in a couple instructional books of "the back 3 ft of the court" up to the baseline, as well as often seen in instructions and diagrams. Hi Tech Tennis recommends to be at least inside 5ft of the baseline. If you think 4 feet is ideal, then I guess you are close enough to that extreme depth definition, but greater than 5ft away from the BL, then you will be in the group that agrees that less depth can be useful and even more desirable when it comes to depth for rally shots and mid ct ball attack attempts for this discussion.

Now please understand, I'm not agreeing with the idea of "great depth" defined above, but just providing a definition for a frame of reference on how this has been taught thru the years.

I'm in the camp that believes in hitting "well short of the BL".
The idea is that shots will land in or near the triangles of course, but more to the point, the deep cone marks your target line from where your shot is contacted, as well as the max depth we will hit for. We will often hit slightly deeper than the deep cone due to catching the ball strong and aggressive, but that is the purpose of the margins of error built into the triangle. The 2 short cones mark an area that we generally seek to exceed form a gate if you will, to hit into the triangle and are on the shorter side of things to account for times when we are in position to go for sharper angles. As a general idea, we should hit more for the deep cone when looking to work the court more vertically and hit closer to the shorter cone section of the triangle when looking to work our shots for more width.

Originally Posted by slowfox

Hey 5263: Based on your specs, this is a scale image I made. Look okay?

Blue = Smart Targets
Red = Avoid Area

[5263]

The basic idea of this using the proposed triangle target is to improve
consistency of shot making without giving up any ability to place a
challenge on our opponents. My charting has proved to me that even
in the pros, they rarely hit in the back 3ft or so of the court, and
when they do, it may quite well be unintended to an extent. Even
though they rarely hit this deep, they clearly find ways to put heavy
demands on their opponents.

What we have found using these targets was a small surprise for us.
I had expected that using more conservative depth and targets might
well let us hit stronger, but the extent of it was still surprising,
especially to some of the college players I shared this with. They found
this target system allowed them to swing much more freely, gaining
extra pace and spin. They also are surprised how quickly this style of
play tends to get them a short ball to attack. When attacking short balls,
they find they can execute aggressively at a much higher consistency,
which results in far few UEs and more attacks converted to points won.


I refer to hitting less than extreme depth as "hitting shorter" or "ideal target depth" opposed to saying hit short.
But, to hit short would mean to hit shorter than our target or "ideal depth". Ideal depth would be to hit shorter than "extreme depth", which has also been considered great depth.
Writing this gives me even more insight how confusing these definitions can be and hard for readers to keep it all straight.

For Smart Targets in my instruction,
I like to use 3 cones on each side of the court, that form a triangle on each the deuce and ad side. The 1st cone about 11 ft past the svc line which is 2 ft past the half way pt of svc line to BL. That puts the cones about 7 ft from the BL and about 18 inches from the sideline. This is our deep cone.

For the short cone I also use 18 inches from sideline, with this one being 2 feet inside the svc line.

For the cross ct cone I use a line from the deep cone which goes across the net to the deepest doubles corner cross ct. On that imaginary line the xct cone goes approximately 3ft past the svc line.

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.

[5263]

Originally Posted by jmnk

i've posted this before. This hitting close to the baseline thing is a myth.

Man, I need your skills. Not only does this make things clear that less than 10% are real deep, but you could move that line twice as far from the BL and still have a large majority of balls (80-85%) falling short of it.

But most will have you believe the pros hit so deep and you should too; and that
if you don't bang it deep the 4.0 and 4.5 will crush most of them for winners or the like.

Also realize this pic does not show the many misses long when they went for too much depth.

[beernutz]

Originally Posted by 5263

Man, I need your skills. Not only does this make things clear that less than 10% are real deep, but you could move that line twice as far from the BL and still have a large majority of balls (80-85%) falling short of it.

But most will have you believe the pros hit so deep and you should too; and that
if you don't bang it deep the 4.0 and 4.5 will crush most of them for winners or the like.

Also realize this pic does not show the many misses long when they went for too much depth.

I think it is interesting how few of those balls actually hit a line.

[5263]

Originally Posted by beernutz

I think it is interesting how few of those balls actually hit a line.

Exactly beer,
I wish it showed the misses as well.
Things like that are what jumped out at me in my study and charting.
Commentators and coaches often give such compliments for line shots and
those that catch both lines as the "Perfect Placement" and such.
Can really lead you to believe that they are good targets and pros hit there
often.

Tricky part here is that a lot of folks say a lot of things. It all goes into the
brain and leads to certain ideas about the game. No coach or commentator
has it all right or wrong, so we are being critical of certain ideas, not coaches.
Coaches do their best, and here we are looking at some tools that might help
us do better. My experience is broad having raised two D1 college players and coached about 20 yrs. We delt with the top Jr academies and several local ones. My kids were also picked for USTA high performance as top players, so we have seen a lot of what's out there. I just look to address some of these things that IMO could use improvement. Clearly the old stuff is not cutting it anymore for US players.

[tlm]

Originally Posted by 5263

The basic idea of this using the proposed triangle target is to improve
consistency of shot making without giving up any ability to place a
challenge on our opponents. My charting has proved to me that even
in the pros, they rarely hit in the back 3ft or so of the court, and
when they do, it may quite well be unintended to an extent. Even
though they rarely hit this deep, they clearly find ways to put heavy
demands on their opponents.

What we have found using these targets was a small surprise for us.
I had expected that using more conservative depth and targets might
well let us hit stronger, but the extent of it was still surprising,
especially to some of the college players I shared this with. They found
this target system allowed them to swing much more freely, gaining
extra pace and spin. They also are surprised how quickly this style of
play tends to get them a short ball to attack. When attacking short balls,
they find they can execute aggressively at a much higher consistency,
which results in far few UEs and more attacks converted to points won.

Excellent points here 5263, this is to me is the bread and butter of the matter. By not hitting so deep it actually lets you swing faster and more freely, which in turn gives you more spin and pace. When you are not so concerned with your shot going to deep you can let it rip.

Also like you mention when they do get the ball to attack they will convert a much higher % into winners. That is something a lot of people don't understand when you get the attackable ball it is usually not necessary to hit it deep. Many times it is the exact opposite were it is better to hit a sharper angle for the winner as opposed to going deep.

And by practicing the way you are describing will get this ingrained into the player and really improve their game. I don't know how many times i have gotten the sitter i wanted and then made a error because i hit the ball just a little long when there was no reason to have put anywhere near that depth on that shot. Then you look at all the open court you had and think why in the hell did i even hit that ball even close to the baseline.

[5263]

Originally Posted by tlm

Excellent points here 5263, this is to me is the bread and butter of the matter. By not hitting so deep it actually lets you swing faster and more freely, which in turn gives you more spin and pace. When you are not so concerned with your shot going to deep you can let it rip.

Thanks tlm,


I appreciate how you understand the important points on this and are able to help me put into words to share with others who might have an interest here.

[tlm]

Originally Posted by 5263

Thanks tlm,
I've got a pic with the Smart Targets roughed in, but have not worked out how to get it inserted yet. I guess you have to have it stored to a url first?

But, I appreciate how you understand the important points on this and are able to help me put into words to share with others who might have an interest here.

Believe me i understand them, but i wish i could execute them as well as i understand them. I need to do some drilling with targets like you are doing, this seems like a great method of getting it to become second nature.

Sometimes i can get in the groove really well and other times i am either hitting to short or hitting to deep and making to many errors.

You mentioned that against many rec players that they don't attack even short weak balls very well, which can be true. But against some of my opponents they attack them pretty good and i will pay for those shots.

But some of these player are definitely above my level, so i guess it should be no surprise. I think because they are better than me that they force more weak short balls out of me because they take my time away with their shots.

Which in turn lets them take over the point and does not work out good for me. But you are right against many players i can get away with some weak short balls because they can't attack them very well anyway, but it can let a net rusher into the court to allow a good approach shot.

[5263]

Originally Posted by tlm

Excellent points here 5263, this is to me is the bread and butter of the matter. By not hitting so deep it actually lets you swing faster and more freely, which in turn gives you more spin and pace. When you are not so concerned with your shot going to deep you can let it rip.

Also like you mention when they do get the ball to attack they will convert a much higher % into winners. That is something a lot of people don't understand when you get the attackable ball it is usually not necessary to hit it deep. Many times it is the exact opposite were it is better to hit a sharper angle for the winner as opposed to going deep.

And by practicing the way you are describing will get this ingrained into the player and really improve their game. I don't know how many times i have gotten the sitter i wanted and then made a error because i hit the ball just a little long when there was no reason to have put anywhere near that depth on that shot. Then you look at all the open court you had and think why in the hell did i even hit that ball even close to the baseline.

Really good post!

[BU-Tennis]

Ok, redrew it, you can see the triangles


I definitely understand more after the clarificaiton, and interesting enough, the vast majority of djokovics shots are in those two triangles. It definitely is more interesting to think about than the old adage of "hit deep"

I think a major problem i have struggled with myself is I haven't focused on hitting to zones, or smart targets as you refer to them (which I like). And the next time i'm on the court I will definitely be thinking about these and focusing on hitting into these zones when i am in an attacking position.

[5263]

Originally Posted by BU-Tennis

the green zones would be the optimum place to hit crosscourt shots.

Hopefully I understood the instructions correctly.

Man you did a bang up job and I sure wish I was better with these kinds of skills.

thanks

[5263]

Originally Posted by BU-Tennis

Ok, redrew it, you can see the triangles, but i still left the cross bars connecting the short and deep balls just to facilitate the viewer to help see the proper depths you described.


I definitely understand more after the clarificaiton, and interesting enough, the vast majority of djokovics shots are in those two triangles. It definitely is more interesting to think about than the old adage of "hit deep"

I think a major problem i have struggled with myself is I haven't focused on hitting to zones, or smart targets as you refer to them (which I like). And the next time i'm on the court I will definitely be thinking about these and focusing on hitting into these zones when i am in an attacking position.

What a super job there BU! Thanks, I really appreciate the work.

I bet you can see while most shots do fall in the target zone, that most of the rest could be seen as the result of going for the targets and just missing. The idea with these targets is to give a reference more than to actually hit them. They provide a reference that helps to guide your intent in a way that allows you to be aggressive, but not reckless.

One question. How did you figure the scale? Do you think the side of the triangle by the doubles ally should be a bit closer? Not complaining, but just wondering cause that side margin on the target looks just a little to big, about like the line for the back 3ft. Really is not important due to explanation above about how to use the target though.

[5263]

Originally Posted by BU-Tennis

Ok, redrew it, you can see the triangles, but i still left the cross bars connecting the short and deep balls just to facilitate the viewer to help see the proper depths you described.

Hey BU, I guess I'm getting to be high maintenance, but going over this with a college player this morning I realized the deep cone was set a little too deep.
The deep cone should be about 4ft short of the extreme depth line, which will improve the triangle and make it a bit fatter looking I expect,
especially if we move it and the short cone a bit closer to the wide line to enable us to be a little closer to the line when hitting the dtl.
If you can make these 2 changes it would be greatly appreciated.
Also would you want to try one without the 2 extra lines connecting the 2 cones to see how that would look in comparison?
thanks a ton,

[trenzterra]

Hmm how do you aim for these in practise anyway? I always tend to hit near the lines, going long or wide a little sometimes. But somehow I can't seem to dial it in without screwing up my mechanics or stroke. How do you guys revise your technique to fit the smart targets?

[5263]

Originally Posted by trenzterra

Hmm how do you aim for these in practise anyway? I always tend to hit near the lines, going long or wide a little sometimes. But somehow I can't seem to dial it in without screwing up my mechanics or stroke. How do you guys revise your technique to fit the smart targets?

I put the cones out to mark the triangles, then feed balls for students to work on hitting to those areas from receiving different balls to different parts of the court. I usually start with the I/O Fh rally, then move to a shorter I/O near the
T.

[5263]

Originally Posted by BU-Tennis

Ok, redrew it, you can see the triangles


I definitely understand more after the clarificaiton, and interesting enough, the vast majority of djokovics shots are in those two triangles. It definitely is more interesting to think about than the old adage of "hit deep"

I think a major problem i have struggled with myself is I haven't focused on hitting to zones, or smart targets as you refer to them (which I like). And the next time i'm on the court I will definitely be thinking about these and focusing on hitting into these zones when i am in an attacking position.

I want to thank you again for the adjustments to the pic!
Very nice. It was subtle, but I think clears up the picture some.

[5263]

Now that we have a good visual on the Smart Targets, we
can look at how they can help our game. In most instances
one of these targets will be an excellent choice. Sure there
are several exceptions like with any general rule, but for the
most part, these are a great starting point or default target.
You can see these are not about extreme angles or hitting
short on purpose. They are more about not hitting so long.
The shorter area of the target is there for when you do want
to increase the angle, and are something to hit past when going
for the deeper area of the the target on most normal shots.

By keeping the ball out of the center, you tend to limit your
opponents options. Sampras was known to speak of how the
one who controls the center of the court will control the points.
Using these targets, we can keep the opponent from controlling
the center.

These targets have a good safety margin built in, so it frees up
your swing. Because you are not targeting extreme depth, you
can really let your natural power flow. I'm not suggesting to over
swing, but more to let your shots go and not have to hold back.
I think modern TS strokes work best in this regard, but this will
help with traditional as well.

One note on this is -the idea on these triangles is to give a target
reference for the shots, and NOT so much to hit the target. That
may seem a little odd, but using them it begins to make more
sense. They serve as a great reference, but slightly flying the deep
cone a little is not a bad thing when you decide to rip into one hard.
There is a margin built in to accommodate that.

[Avles]

Originally Posted by BU-Tennis

Ok, redrew it, you can see the triangles


I definitely understand more after the clarificaiton, and interesting enough, the vast majority of djokovics shots are in those two triangles.

Are you sure about that? I tried counting the shots, and it looks to me like a large majority of the shots were outside the two triangles.

[5263]

Originally Posted by Avles

Are you sure about that? I tried counting the shots, and it looks to me like a large majority of the shots were outside the two triangles.

Sure about what?

This diagram of hit placement shows that DJ does not hit as deep and close to lines as many would have you believe.
There is no intent to say he uses these targets or ends up in them the majority of the time. I think many will see a relevance between what his shots show and how these targets work.

It may be misleading to some for us to use this overlay, so I'm glad you asked this question. Thanks

[Chillaxer]

Originally Posted by BU-Tennis

Ok, redrew it, you can see the triangles


I definitely understand more after the clarificaiton, and interesting enough, the vast majority of djokovics shots are in those two triangles. It definitely is more interesting to think about than the old adage of "hit deep"

I think a major problem i have struggled with myself is I haven't focused on hitting to zones, or smart targets as you refer to them (which I like). And the next time i'm on the court I will definitely be thinking about these and focusing on hitting into these zones when i am in an attacking position.

Have you got any comparisons with other players?