Practice for Smarter Targets

[5263]

Originally Posted by Power Player

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.

For a guy like you who hits well deep and pretty consistently already,
I would recommend more of a focus on the deeper cone, which is pretty
deep, but still provides some extra margin. When you catch one strong
and fly it, you will still have a great shot and some variety. Working the
shorter aspects of the target have more specific intents such as working
an angle off a nice short sitter from near the middle of the court (center T).

[Power Player]

I definitely have been doing that. Especially pushed wide. I can get a lot of spin with the 6.1 to hit winners that bounce off the allay side near the T of the service line/alley.

I think the main thing is the ralley balls. Setting up those winners. That is what I have to work on a little. I will work on the deeper cone you are talking about.

[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

[5263]

Originally Posted by 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.

Thanks for posting this and I'm familiar with this perspective, but see some flaws that need to be addressed. I think my Smart Targets address them.

1st is they are very broad and lack more specific guidance that helps shots to be more accurate.
2ond is the obvious lack of margin for error since the target is includes the lines and corners.
3rd is their use may be just backwards. Notice how the counter attack includes area near the center T. We have not posted it yet, but the next diagram I intend to get posted will show an "avoid zone" near the center T for singles play.
Also on the attack aspect it includes the middle area that is deep to BL. That would be better on the counter attack chart and why hit there when on the attack? (yes there are some reasons, but they would be exceptions to the rule, not in the rule)
Hitting a ball (even deep) gives the opponent a chance to reclaim center control and put you on the move to a weakness.
Make sense?

[5263]

Originally Posted by sureshs

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.

And you don't see how for that drill passing the svc line was just the min acceptable
in that drill? Not the ideal for her.
I expect if you were doing the drill with her on court it would be more clear for
you about that. Also that is just a drill. Sometimes they drill using only half the court including the doubles ally. That does not mean they want you to use the doubles all in singles play though.

BTW, the point of that drill is to have players learn to target within the boundaries consistently, NOT to hit at the boundaries -Svc line are. On court they make it very clear you are to greatly exceed that min acceptable svc line, often with comments like missing long is far more acceptable than being short of the svc line.

I ask you-In a match, had you rather hit a solid shot 1" into the svc box or monster shot 1" pasts the BL?

[5263]

Originally Posted by sureshs

Too many triangles in too many colors.

Please give me the final answer in a fresh diagram.

Feel free to refer to post #24 for the final targets.

I hope that soon I can ask BU to add red box at the center T as an "Avoid Area" to the diagram shown in post #24. This square box should be about 7ft on the sides and centered on the center T (hint, hint BU)

[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.

[andry16]

pros of hitting your shots deep:

-gives less time for your opponent to react

-doesnt allow your opponent to step in to the court
-makes your opponent return short/without pace balls so you can easily step in and hit an approach

-as your opponent is far behind the court you can easily have the court open to hit an angle or a drop shot which will turn into a winner

-doesnt allow oponent to attack or dictate

-cons of hittinh your shots deep: NONE

seriously guys its better to hit soft but deep balls than hard but short balls thats the key to win, the deeper you hit the shorter your opponent will hit then you step inner to the court and do whatever you want

if you want an example watch federer play in those years where he played with absolute dominance, watch those guys running from side to side screaming those short return they hit while federer easily doesnt have to move to win the point

and if you dont want to spend hours looking for a federer video then just watch the 2011 us open semi against djokovic, i assure you the 90% of the time that any of them hit a short ball the other ended up winning the point with a winner

[5263]

Originally Posted by andry16

pros of hitting your shots deep:
-gives less time for your opponent to react
-doesnt allow your opponent to step in to the court
-makes your opponent return short/without pace balls so you can easily step in and hit an approach
-as your opponent is far behind the court you can easily have the court open to hit an angle or a drop shot which will turn into a winner
-if dropshot is so easy, why do we see so few and many missed?
-doesnt allow oponent to attack or dictate
-cons of hittinh your shots deep: NONE

if you want an example watch federer play in those years where he played with absolute dominance, watch those guys running from side to side screaming those short return they hit while federer easily doesnt have to move to win the point

and if you dont want to spend hours looking for a federer video then just watch the 2011 us open semi against djokovic, i assure you the 90% of the time that any of them hit a short ball the other ended up winning the point with a winner

-deep alone gives more reaction time, not less
-deep does not keep them from stepping into the court. they can step in and volley
-notice you had to add the "no pace" to try and make this true, not just depth and you forget the importance in shot line on this
-opponents can attack and dictate from deep balls
-cons of hitting very deep none?? guess you never missed long?
Con is lots of deep misses giving up free points

Fed didn't hit as deep back in the days of his best. He didn't hit as deep to beat Del Potro as he did in his AO loss. Joker didn't hit so deep to win the AO.
You can be assured they hit winners on far less than 20% of the shorter balls and probably less than 10%.
Sorry, but little of your comments holds water.

Interesting concept here.

I don't think the point is counting how many balls are in each given area - it is obvious from a cursory glance that balls are clustered in certain parts of the court - no need to count the balls in the triangles IMO...It would be interesting to compare diagrams of one player over several matches, and from one player to the next to see unique or mutual patterns of play.

I disagree that nobody can hit topspin like Nadal - not perhaps with his power and expertise, but even rec players can use heavy topspin to great advantage and that's being taught by some of us, with specific techniques and purpose.

I agree it is also interesting how few balls are right at or on the baseline. For those who believe that a high percentage of shots land deep when watching a match live or on TV they must be focusing more on where the player is standing and how far back from the bounce the contact point is, not where the ball actually touches the court (as this charting suggests), but the speed of the ball is so great that it's difficult to see that.

How would you suggest incorporating it into coaching at different levels? Tape, cones, line markers (as those used for quickstart?) Would you go for percentages (ie: practice 10 shots per area until you get a consistent percentage level)?

I would also like to see the opposite perspective - where the ball lands and what the targets look like from the hitter's POV.

My first reaction is to keep it simple, perhaps with larger triangles at first that could be reduced in size as the player reaches a certain percentage of consistency, on a gradient. I will try it out myself.

Good work, 5263.

Interesting how some posters just come on and start arguing rather than going out on the court and working with the concept, then coming back and discussing results and findings...Opinions hold less significance than results, IMHO (LOL)

[5263]

Originally Posted by Playnice

Interesting concept here.

My first reaction is to keep it simple, perhaps with larger triangles at first that could be reduced in size as the player reaches a certain percentage of consistency, on a gradient. I will try it out myself.

Good work, 5263.

I get your point about bigger targets and that may be best for some ages and abilities.
On the other hand, the purpose of Smart Targets is to train to focus on a smaller area with your intent, but train our expectations to include a good result that is close enough to the target.
I think larger/expanded targets could be great for beginners and kids.

[5263]

Originally Posted by Playnice

Interesting concept here.

How would you suggest incorporating it into coaching at different levels? Tape, cones, line markers (as those used for quickstart?) Would you go for percentages (ie: practice 10 shots per area until you get a consistent percentage level)?

Good work, 5263.

Thanks, I like using cones and some type of lines. I can use rope or tape for movable lines on the court. Cones stick up and can use color codes as well.

I like to feed to parts of the court and have them hit to the targets from the various areas using their TS, Slices, and volleys. I also have the set up the cones to make sure they a familiar with the areas.

[bhupaes]

Great discussion, in this and other threads, which I have been silently following - thanks all.

I played a friendly set with a 4.5 USTA player and tried playing to smart targets. I lost 6-4. But this exposed some major weaknesses in my game that my opponent took advantage of, and pointed out areas where I need to do some work.

First of all, even though I landed my shots approximately right, I sent the balls straight into my opponent's power zone (he's 6'3"), and he was hitting them back DTL. The tactic was right, but I needed to hit with more zip, and I think that will come with practice - I was definitely being too mindful of the target and too cautious with my stroke as a result.

The second problem was my movement... I think I spent so much time looking at my handiwork that I didn't recover in time to respond to the DTL shots well, and couldn't take advantage of the open court. The lesson here for me is that good technique, including movement and recovery, is essential for implementing the smart targets tactic well. We take this for granted in pros, and almost never notice how quickly they recover to a good position - of course, it takes a lot of effort to do this like clockwork after every shot!

A third problem was that the court was very fast, and the ball kept lower than usual - I like higher bouncing courts where I can get more power and spin. This was taking some zip out of my shots, I am sure. And my opponent clearly realized this, and he was slicing many of his shots really low, making it hard for me to change direction even on inside balls. Perhaps I should have hit the difficult ones back to where they came from... oh well, live and learn, I suppose.

Anyway, I am quite excited since I have some new goals now... it's great to have something new to work on.

[rosewall4ever]

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

[5263]

Originally Posted by rosewall4ever

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.

This system is not rigid at all and has acknowledged early on that there are exceptions for any rules, including these. The targets are an there for a default on where to direct any ball where you don't have a better idea; like for example a drop shot or trying to jam a return right back at the server.

Maybe it would be more helpful for you to give a couple of examples of when hitting to one of your targets would be routinely better than to the smart targets and explain why?
I'd be interested in what you have, especially considering the triangles are within your targets, right?
thanks for your insights,

[5263]

Originally Posted by bhupaes

Great discussion, in this and other threads, which I have been silently following - thanks all.

I played a friendly set with a 4.5 USTA player and tried playing to smart targets. I lost 6-4. But this exposed some major weaknesses in my game that my opponent took advantage of, and pointed out areas where I need to do some work.

Anyway, I am quite excited since I have some new goals now... it's great to have something new to work on.

I know you are a pretty good player, but 6-4 to a solid 4.5 is not a bad score for you in that set is it?

Glad it exposed some areas for you to work on and that is definitely part of the plan here. Also remember that the margin of error on these targets is to help you to let loose the power and spin, so don't get carried away with hitting the targets. Tagging a ball well and flying the long cone target by inches is not a bad thing!

[bhupaes]

Originally Posted by 5263

I know you are a pretty good player, but 6-4 to a solid 4.5 is not a bad score for you in that set is it?

Definitely not bad at all, 5263! I can hit serves/ground strokes better than him, but his movement is superior, and he has excellent volleying abilities. We push each other quite a bit in our efforts to get better.

Glad it exposed some areas for you to work on and that is definitely part of the plan here. Also remember that the margin of error on these targets is to help you to let loose the power and spin, so don't get carried away with hitting the targets. Tagging a ball well and flying the long cone target by inches is not a bad thing!

Very good point. I will remember this next time, thanks.

[5263]

Originally Posted by jmnk

one more, so it does not look like we are picking on Djokovic. here are Federer's shots.

Here is another diagram about shot placement that also includes the clean winners in red.
Notice how this also is evidence (not proof) against the assumption that a ball landing closer to the BL would be a better shot. Notice only 2 winners near the BL, but several much shorter. More evidence would be there if 3-4+ misses were shown going long that would off set the risk incurred to elicit those 2 winners, leaving us with a net winner for that error in the neg zone.

maybe BU or jmnk can draw in the smart target triangles on this one as well,
along with the 7ft square avoid zone centered on the center T?
I think we can see how most of the shots not landing in the targets, likely have
been hit on the shot lines created bythe triangles, some shots just longer and
some just short of the targets.
thanks