Thoughts on height over the net

[mhj202]

Originally Posted by rkelley

Hyperbole for humorus effect. The very specific number, "921" as opposed to "about 900" is supposed to intensify the effect.

Read a Dave Berry piece.

I've read a little bit in my day and, frankly, just missed the humorous part of your post- sorry. I actually thought I was watching the wrong clip.

It was a long rally but not "that" long-- if you had shown one of the Wilander French Open rallies from those years when he was making almost no unforced errors in matches, maybe I might have caught on.

[rkelley]

Originally Posted by mhj202

I've read a little bit in my day and, frankly, just missed the humorous part of your post- sorry. I actually thought I was watching the wrong clip.

It was a long rally but not "that" long-- if you had shown one of the Wilander French Open rallies from those years when he was making almost no unforced errors in matches, maybe I might have caught on.

How about Chris Evert and Andrea Jaeger at the French. Lots of 30 shot rallies there.

[mhj202]

Originally Posted by rkelley

How about Chris Evert and Andrea Jaeger at the French. Lots of 30 shot rallies there.

Totally agree-- if we were to look at women's tennis, especially from a generation back, there would definitely be some long, long rallies to choose from. Almost like watching a competitive Girls' 12's match where it takes 3 hours to play a set or two.

[5263]

Originally Posted by gindyo

Wow who said open stance forehand was a modern shot these guys were using it in 99% of the time, 30 years ago, when I was 2 y.o.

This whole modern term thing can be confusing.
"Modern" in this context comes from "modern instruction" which is modern due to
how different it teaches than classic instruction in the books for decades.

So when you hear modern Fh, you really need to understand that means modern instructed Fh,
because as you note, the best players have always used them to one
extent or another, but the instruction of them has only been by a few coaches over the
last few decades, even though it is becoming more normal each day.

[epiczeko]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ob-n9...feature=relmfu

Nadal v Federer London WTF, Federer won. But look how high they are hitting over the net. What would you estimate that to be? Looks like Nadal is hitting some topspin groundies 8-10' over the net, same with Fed.

[WildVolley]

Originally Posted by Susak

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ob-n9...feature=relmfu

Nadal v Federer London WTF, Federer won. But look how high they are hitting over the net. What would you estimate that to be? Looks like Nadal is hitting some topspin groundies 8-10' over the net, same with Fed.

There are some high loopy balls in that rally, but remember you are looking at Nadal, who is the guy most likely in the top 10 to hit high loopy forehands. I think that the court surface also plays a role. I'd expect to see many more loopy shots on clay than on a faster hard court.

In my experience watching hardcourt tennis, I'd say the rallies shown on this video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hp0cc-leZg8

are more representative of hard court play than the one rally you show from the WTF.

[SeriousSummer]

I read an article on the math of the flight of the ball, and what I remember is that a ball hit at a height of one meter from the baseline at 67 miles per hour needs to clear the net by 1.8 meters if hit flat and 2.2 meters with topspin to land on the opposite baseline.

Of course you want to hit somewhat inside the baseline, but that's a lot higher than I expected.

[WildVolley]

Originally Posted by SeriousSummer

I read an article on the math of the flight of the ball, and what I remember is that a ball hit at a height of one meter from the baseline at 67 miles per hour needs to clear the net by 1.8 meters if hit flat and 2.2 meters with topspin to land on the opposite baseline.

Of course you want to hit somewhat inside the baseline, but that's a lot higher than I expected.

Are you sure that calculation is correct? That's about 9 feet in the air if my rough estimation is right (I mean on the flat shot).

I can easily hit a ball within 2 feet of the net top and have it land out, I know this because I unfortunately do it too often.

[5263]

Originally Posted by gindyo

lol pace has to be the 5th most important ingredient in a rally shot after consistency, direction, depth and spin

I'd have to reconsider this info based on what we have learned.
I agree consistency is #1, but not sure it fits in as a shot quality here.
I think it is very hard to pick any one of the qualities alone, but would
consider them more in pairs. for ex.
I would go with pace & direction as my main pair if I can do that consistently.
If being more neutral to defensive, I would pick depth and direction.
I'm thinking spin is often a 3rd element like having pace/direction/spin.
Or getting depth/direction and spin.

My point is picking the most important element I expect the first priority would
be direction, combined with several others as a strong second.
Depth is one that may not be as important as a pair, may be most important
if you can only get one element. Maybe that is how it became popular as
being most important.??

[xFullCourtTenniSx]

Originally Posted by rkelley

Here's Borg and Lendl in a 921 shot rally at the 1981 Masters. Judge the height of the ball over the net for yourself. Remember that 6 feet over the net means that one the players could stand on the net cord and the ball would graze the top of their heads.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jZmFMUGTTU

FWIW, I'd estimate most of their shots are around 3 feet over the net, or about 6 feet off the ground.

Here's Jimbo and John from the 1984 USO semi. Again, I'm seeing a couple of feet max. net clearance on balls that they're hitting offensively. Neither guy is Mr. topspin. There are defensive shots that are higher. Overall seems lower than Borg and Lendl.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OiDZQIE0uLE

Fast forward three decades to Fed and Djokovic at the USO semi. With the pace those two were hitting with there's no way the ball is more a foot or so over the net on most shots. I am still in awe of the pace and consistency that they generated.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXNc_iMkSIY

Federer hits like 2-3 times the spin of Lendl, Nadal 3-4 times. Some of these balls, maybe 1 foot over the net. But some of those winners, 2-3 feet. Most of these shots though, are 2-5 feet over the net.

[xFullCourtTenniSx]

Originally Posted by WildVolley

There are some high loopy balls in that rally, but remember you are looking at Nadal, who is the guy most likely in the top 10 to hit high loopy forehands. I think that the court surface also plays a role. I'd expect to see many more loopy shots on clay than on a faster hard court.

In my experience watching hardcourt tennis, I'd say the rallies shown on this video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hp0cc-leZg8

are more representative of hard court play than the one rally you show from the WTF.

Yeah, because you'd expect to see more loopy rallies on indoor courts than on hard courts. That makes perfect sense.

[WildVolley]

Originally Posted by xFullCourtTenniSx

Yeah, because you'd expect to see more loopy rallies on indoor courts than on hard courts. That makes perfect sense.

I just watched (not in person) Djokovic playing Berdych in London and they weren't hitting the loopy rallies like the one you showed in the clip you picked.

I have watched over twenty professional matches on hard courts from either court level or just above court level and the players were not hitting high loopy shots except on defensive points.

Is the rest of that Nadal/Federer match online? Hey, if I see more points from that match I'll believe you if you say Nadal normally hits that much net clearance. I've watched him play in person, but they were all practice sets, and he wasn't hitting that much clearance.

[dominikk1985]

most tour players are like 2-3 feet on average. defensive shots can be higher and winners and passing shots are lower so if you are a dubs player you might hit a little lower on average.

Doesn't murray hit with very little net clearance? he seems to hit much lower over the net than the other top guys (esp. nadal but also fed and nole)

[TennisCJC]

I saw statistics on a Djoko vs Nadal match and they averaged over 30" clearance - I think Djoko was about 33 and Nadal 32. Surprised Djoko was higher. I think this was a couple of years ago when Djoko beat Nadal on clay in Madrid. So, pros do average almost 3'.

I use 3 levels: 1. when inside the court roughly 5-6' or more, I strive for 1.5-2' of clearance, 2. when near the baseline, I strive for 3-4' clearance, and 3. when 5-6' behind baseline, I strive for 5-6' clearance.

When you are inside the court and hitting the ball more aggressively, I still think 1.5-2' clearance to reduce errors. I can hit it reasonably hard and still get it in the court with topspin.

[5263]

Originally Posted by TennisCJC

I saw statistics on a Djoko vs Nadal match and they averaged over 30" clearance - I think Djoko was about 33 and Nadal 32. Surprised Djoko was higher. I think this was a couple of years ago when Djoko beat Nadal on clay in Madrid. So, pros do average almost 3'.

I use 3 levels: 1. when inside the court roughly 5-6' or more, I strive for 1.5-2' of clearance, 2. when near the baseline, I strive for 3-4' clearance, and 3. when 5-6' behind baseline, I strive for 5-6' clearance.

When you are inside the court and hitting the ball more aggressively, I still think 1.5-2' clearance to reduce errors. I can hit it reasonably hard and still get it in the court with topspin.

This looks pretty good imo.