Practice for Smarter Targets

[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,

[5263]

Originally Posted by sureshs

Deep means beyond the service line. It is clear that Djokovic hits deep.

Looks like you missed the definitions in the OP!
That is incorrect for the purposes of this discussion.

I can add that no instructor would consider barely hitting past the svc line a deep shot,
but would instead be considered acceptable by some standards, but clearly not deep.
Dr Allen Fox refer to hitting AT Least half way between svc line & BL as a miniumum in "Think to Win", where in this discussion that is closer to "ideal depth".
Often the balls we see attacked for winners are well beyond the svc line though,
so you give further evidence that deep alone (by your definition) is not protection from getting attacked.
Your comment is also a good example of the confusions about depth and it's significance.
Deep is even often considered the correct call for an "out" ball that is long, so yes, DJ does hit some deep as well by that standard. This is why I started with some definitions to start the discussion.

[tlm]

Originally Posted by 5263

Looks like you missed the definitions in the OP!
That is incorrect for the purposes of this discussion.

I can add that no instructor would consider barely hitting past the svc line a deep shot,
but would instead be considered acceptable by some standards, but clearly not deep.
Often the balls we see attacked for winners are well beyond the svc line though,
so you give further evidence that deep alone (by your definition) is not protection from getting attacked.
Your comment is also a good example of the confusions about depth and it's significance.
Deep is even often considered the correct call for an "out" ball that is long, so yes, DJ does hit some deep as well by that standard. This is why I started with some definitions to start the discussion.

You are right sureshs missed the definition, but what is new? He always misses the definition and has a uncanny ability to switch and swap things around and mostly miss the point.

For him to say now that deep means beyond the service line is one of the bigger piles of BS he has ever come up with, and believe me that is not easy to top.

Just a few weeks ago he would have argued to death that just beyond the serve line would have been a short shot. But i guess now after seeing the shot charts that were shown and with no way to dispute that, he now claims that joker hits deep because most shots are past the serve line.

Is this just to hilarious or what, a lot of these guys should have been politicians.

[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.

[5263]

Originally Posted by tlm

Is this just to hilarious or what, a lot of these guys should have been politicians.

Whats interesting to me is they kept telling us that the best players hit extremely
deep, and close to the lines; and when that doesn't happen, the other pro
would put that ball away immediately.
Now we provide charting and diagrams that show that is often not the
case, so you would think they would at least consider rethinking things.
They are curious, which is why they keep asking for more and more info,
but tend to defend what they feel has always been a fact of tennis.
Seems they must continue to redefine and and obfuscate to try and
defend what their game is built on, in spite of the evidence.

[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.

[BU-Tennis]

^^^^Yeah the first picture I drew the triangles were a little larger which incorporated more shots. But the point isn't that shots necessarily land in the area, but that djokovic was probably aiming for a point within those triangles and missed by a few feet, which of course is usual when trying to hit with so much power.

I think people watch pros, see them hit a shot DTL which lands right on the line, and think they were aiming for that exact result, when in fact they were probably aiming a foot or so inside the line. If you watch pros at exhibition events and they try to hit targets you'll often see them missing by 2-4 feet on easily fed balls, so you can imagine the error margin when they're trying to run a tough shot down and then pass their opponent charging the net.

[rosewall4ever]

i've always thought of targets during a rally as a form of attack and counter attack



attack


counter. a counter to counter scenario would follow the directionals. Hitting to either middle triangles would allow the op to take control of the centre and thus the rally.

It helps me to figure out where to hit during play. I also found this to be subconscious strategy amongst the pros in the matches i've watched.

[bukaeast]

A minor request.

I admit that I am limited in my visualizing abilities.

These are wonderful illustrations, but they would be even better if they were filpped upside down, to see the other side of the net, where we see a view of where we are actually looking to hit.

[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?)

[sureshs]

Originally Posted by 5263

Looks like you missed the definitions in the OP!
That is incorrect for the purposes of this discussion.

I can add that no instructor would consider barely hitting past the svc line a deep shot,
but would instead be considered acceptable by some standards, but clearly not deep.
Often the balls we see attacked for winners are well beyond the svc line though,
so you give further evidence that deep alone (by your definition) is not protection from getting attacked.
Your comment is also a good example of the confusions about depth and it's significance.
Deep is even often considered the correct call for an "out" ball that is long, so yes, DJ does hit some deep as well by that standard. This is why I started with some definitions to start the discussion.

I don't know. Mary Jo Fernandez said once that her coach uses to do a 1000 ball drill when if you did not hit one deep, you would have to start all over again - and deep meant at least beyond the service line.

[sureshs]

Too many triangles in too many colors.

Please give me the final answer in a fresh diagram.

[sp1derman]

Varying your shots and keeping your opponent(s) off balance still trumps one or the other.

[Power Player]

Originally Posted by sureshs

Too many triangles in too many colors.

Please give me the final answer in a fresh diagram.

Damn you never stop trolling do you?

Or are you that easily confused?

[5263]

Originally Posted by bukaeast

A minor request.

I admit that I am limited in my visualizing abilities.

These are wonderful illustrations, but they would be even better if they were filpped upside down, to see the other side of the net, where we see a view of where we are actually looking to hit.

I love your suggestion here. It probably won't contain the shot spots that way, but we can still get a view from the other side. It might be best with cones that stick up though as the triangle might be hard to see. I guess it depends on the angle we see it at.
Maybe our talented friends can do something with your request?

We don't want to give up the current view though!

[5263]

Originally Posted by Power Player

Damn you never stop trolling do you?

Or are you that easily confused?

Glad to see you made it over and very interested in how things go with
some practice using the Smart Targets. Let us know.

[5263]

Originally Posted by BU-Tennis

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?)

BU, you really get it. Aim may not be the best word, and I try to remember to say target an area, but aim is fine I expect as well.

An important thing related to Aim or targeting. I've found for myself and working with many students that having a specific target is much more effective than going for a large area. An example with golf/putting. When I putt to make the hole, I make it or miss quite close, but when I just try to get close to lay up, I tend to miss by a far greater margin which makes the final putt tougher. I now putt to make the ball stop in the hole, but not past it. This gives a nice layup when I miss. Like you mention, those larger areas have no margin for area and also less specific target/aim points. The Smart Target Triangles give us more specific targets and have a nice margin for safety.

[Power Player]

Originally Posted by 5263

Glad to see you made it over and very interested in how things go with
some practice using the Smart Targets. Let us know.

I hit pretty deep with the Wilson 6.1., and that is with heavy top on the ball.

It's not easy to break that habit, but I also have a lighter Pro Open that should help a little with angles. Usually I can drop the ball in a little shorter and with more angle when I use a little bit of a lighter racquet.

[5263]

Originally Posted by BU-Tennis

^^^^Yeah the first picture I drew the triangles were a little larger which incorporated more shots. But the point isn't that shots necessarily land in the area, but that djokovic was probably aiming for a point within those triangles and missed by a few feet, which of course is usual when trying to hit with so much power.

I think people watch pros, see them hit a shot DTL which lands right on the line, and think they were aiming for that exact result, when in fact they were probably aiming a foot or so inside the line. If you watch pros at exhibition events and they try to hit targets you'll often see them missing by 2-4 feet on easily fed balls, so you can imagine the error margin when they're trying to run a tough shot down and then pass their opponent charging the net.

Again, Excellent points.
As you discuss, these targets are not about seeing how many hits from any one shot spot diagram that we can have in the target as much as being a smart reference. Also as you point out, many of the hits outside the targets could be seen as close misses. It is also important to note that the ones missing to the inside are not as well placed for the most part! Sure there are exceptions why they are not in the targets, but generally the central ones would be better if closer to the targets we have.