Hitting Deep is Overrated.

[KenC]

Everyone says to hit deep with a lot of topspin. How many people can actually do this well without constantly hitting long? Do you try to hit every ball say within 3 ft of the baseline? I think depth really doesn't matter as much as we think it does, and a ball hit to 6ft. from the baseline can do just as much damage as a ball 6in. from the baseline.

[r2473]

Depth really means where your opponent has to stand to return. So if you hit with heavy-ish topspin, you can aim at the service line or perhaps just behind, but the spin will keep your opponent back.

Aiming just behind the service line also means that you can hit 15 feet "long" and be fine.

[AnotherTennisProdigy]

You are correct, hitting 3 feet below the baseline is a low percentage play. Usually a deep shot like that is considered an aggressive shot to push the opponent back. Just look at the pros, about only 25% of their shots are that deep.

[charliefedererer]

There was a recent review of where the balls actually landed by the male pros, including Djokovic.

Because of their "heavy ball" as r2473 explained above, most of their shots did just land past the service line, or midway between the service line and baseline.

It just emphasizes that not even the pros try to hit that incredibly close to the baseline on most shots.



Obviously there will be times to hit deeper like on an approach shot down the line - in part the higher net height and no cross court angle will mean this ball will land deeper.



Many develop an ability to really crack a course shot deeper than their usual rally ball when they get the right ball to hit - right in their strike zone.

By cross court, I include inside out forehands.

[Larrysümmers]

check out the thread smart targets lol

[goran_ace]

When watching the pros, don't pay so much attention to where their ball bounces, look at where there opponent is when they return that shot. Because they hit heavier their ball still carries through the court after the bounce.

Whether you do it with placement or with pace, you want to keep your opponent back. If you let him play a lot of balls inside the baseline you're asking for trouble.

[5263]

Originally Posted by KenC

Everyone says to hit deep with a lot of topspin. How many people can actually do this well without constantly hitting long? Do you try to hit every ball say within 3 ft of the baseline? I think depth really doesn't matter as much as we think it does, and a ball hit to 6ft. from the baseline can do just as much damage as a ball 6in. from the baseline.

I liked your TS was over rated topic and now this is even better.
Making some good points here.

I've been making the point for a while that for winners and aggressive shots, it is pace and line
of shot that matters most.

[sureshs]

The distribution shows most of the balls landing beyond the service line, and specifically the forehand and backhand winners being more closer to the baseline. So when the pros want to win by attacking, they go for depth most of the time.

[LeeD]

Also, that old "depth is everything" advice came out in the early '70''s.
Since then, TomOkker started getting good, as did JohanKriek, and topspin started to take over. Then some BB guy came around, and while depth is great, short angles and the chance of hitting short, but pinning the opponent behind his base line came into play.
You slice, you aim for depth. You hit flat, you aim for depth. You hit with HEAVY topspin, you can hit shorter and get a way with it, and also reap the benefits of sharper angles.

[user92626]

LOL...another "overrated" thread, KenC? hehe.

[tennisplayer1993]

hitting deep in my opinion throws off an opponent with enough power/spin to the deep corners.

[LeeD]

IF I can consistently hit deep, and into the corners, I will WIN every match and set I play.
But we know that's impossible, both me winning AND the idea of being able to hit deep with consistentcy.

[5263]

Originally Posted by sureshs

The distribution shows most of the balls landing beyond the service line, and specifically the forehand and backhand winners being more closer to the baseline. So when the pros want to win by attacking, they go for depth most of the time.

So what suresh would have you believe here,
is that anything past the svc line is GOOD depth, lol.
He is trying to insert this definition as misinfo on Depth terms and discussion.
Most everyone here has played a good amount of tennis, done some drills, and
had some lessons.
I don't expect anyone here believes that 1 ft beyond the svc line is considered
good or excellent depth in any form of traditional instruction, but sureshs will have
you believe it is.
Granted, it might be acceptable depth for a particular drill or game, but never
have I seen a coach or book teach it as good depth.
Even Oscar, who teaches you that you can get away with hitting shorter with
modern strokes...does not teach that anything past the svc line is good depth.
One more strawman he tries to create to confuse the issue on depth.

Even I, who agree totally the idea that depth is over rated, don't teach it as
good depth and treat it not as a depth issue, but an issue of pace and line of shot.

[LeeD]

Acceptable depth at my level is landing the topspin shot in NML.
Good depth is within 3' of the baseline.
Forcing/winner depth is within 18" of the baseline.

[5263]

Originally Posted by LeeD

Acceptable depth at my level is landing the topspin shot in NML.
Good depth is within 3' of the baseline.
Forcing/winner depth is within 18" of the baseline.

Pretty good definitions based on traditional books I've read and drills I've seen & done
with some of the top instructors in history.

[LeeD]

I never ever read a tennis strategy or instruction book, never had lessons, seldom talk strategy with my peers.
But I know what works at my bad level, and what doesn't.

[5263]

Originally Posted by LeeD

I never ever read a tennis strategy or instruction book, never had lessons, seldom talk strategy with my peers.
But I know what works at my bad level, and what doesn't.

I'm just agreeing those are pretty standard understandings of depth, but not
agreeing with that concept and think Ken is right. Depth is grossly overrated
and only matter in limited situations.
I think that for a solid 3.5+ player, line of shot and pace are far more important
to playing well.

[sureshs]

Originally Posted by 5263

So what suresh would have you believe here,
is that anything past the svc line is GOOD depth, lol.
He is trying to insert this definition as misinfo on Depth terms and discussion.
Most everyone here has played a good amount of tennis, done some drills, and
had some lessons.
I don't expect anyone here believes that 1 ft beyond the svc line is considered
good or excellent depth in any form of traditional instruction, but sureshs will have
you believe it is.
Granted, it might be acceptable depth for a particular drill or game, but never
have I seen a coach or book teach it as good depth.
Even Oscar, who teaches you that you can get away with hitting shorter with
modern strokes...does not teach that anything past the svc line is good depth.
One more strawman he tries to create to confuse the issue on depth.

Even I, who agree totally the idea that depth is over rated, don't teach it as
good depth and treat it not as a depth issue, but an issue of pace and line of shot.

Please don't post misleading stuff. Just behind the service line is not enough - when Nadal hits there it bounces up to the base line and beyond with spin.

Kindly stick to what you want to say rather than going after others with some commercial agenda in mind to repeatedly bring up the name of your leader.

[5263]

Originally Posted by sureshs

Please don't post misleading stuff. Just behind the service line is not enough - when Nadal hits there it bounces up to the base line and beyond with spin.

Kindly stick to what you want to say rather than going after others with some commercial agenda in mind to repeatedly bring up the name of your leader.

So you deny saying numerous times that anything beyond the svc line is good depth?
Another milestone in our progress of terms here on tt!
thanks

[KenC]

I tend to look at shot selection based on how much damage it will do vs. the risk of the shot. Hitting balls really hard and deep certainly does a lot of damage when they go in, and even more if they have a nice angle, but how often do they also go out? Losing the point because of hitting long or wide doesn't do a whole lot of damage to your opponent. But, hitting the ball really hard and 6ft in still does a lot of damage yet has a much better risk.