Are strategies relevant today in Modern Tennis?

[arche3]

Originally Posted by Cheetah

No they don't. You are just spewing out some junk you heard casual tennis fans or some nba announcer who was tasked to cover a tennis match say.

Sharapova vs Azarenka. Does this look like they are only bashing down the middle?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGmV6jxwVmk

Lol so true. I was just thinking the other day the gals are playing pretty angular these days.

[luvforty]

Originally Posted by Ash_Smith

Disrespectful much?

it's called less PC

both words are neutral in the dictionary.

[luvforty]

and that aza-pova clip just proves my point..

1) down the middle means for neutral ball, not put away balls, otherwise you never win any points.

2) in neutral balls, aza is the one more willing to change direction (she is faster), while pova mostly try not to change the direction... again, in a CC battle, the middle is not the middle!

3) due to this disadvantage (too much risk to change direction), pova has to take more risk in non-neutral situations - going for more on the return, or on the first ball coming back during her own serve game.

[Cheetah]

Originally Posted by luvforty

ok i will save you the trouble, no need to post youtube links... i know how they play.

aza is not a good example.... once a player creates angle, the middle is no longer the middle anymore!

and still... we are talking about 'TRENDS'.

You cited Sharapova. I posted a vid of her proving otherwise.
Sharapova doesn't just bash down the middle. She moves the ball around. So does azarenka stosur and aggie and Li Na and Shiavone and cibulkova and bartoli and kvitova. The list goes on so.

Can you name a WTA player who plays by consistently bashing down the middle?

[Cheetah]

Originally Posted by luvforty

and that aza-pova clip just proves my point..

1) down the middle means for neutral ball, not put away balls, otherwise you never win any points.

2) in neutral balls, aza is the one more willing to change direction (she is faster), while pova mostly try not to change the direction... again, in a CC battle, the middle is not the middle!

3) due to this disadvantage (too much risk to change direction), pova has to take more risk in non-neutral situations - going for more on the return, or on the first ball coming back during her own serve game.

This proves you don't watch wta tennis. What about sam stosur? Does she consistently bash down the middle? Does she not aggressively hit angled winners from both sides from all areas of the court on a regular basis?

[tennis_balla]

Geez, what the hell happened in here?

[Ash_Smith]

I think Luv's point is that over the last 10 or more years there has been a lack of variety on the WTA tour, and the general style of play since the end of the Graf and co era has been fairly generic baseliners trying to out hit each other (with the odd Hingis or Henin trying to mix things up).

Maybe now there is more variety returning to the womens game, with players like Azarenka, Schiavone, Bartoli etc prepared to try and do a little more with the ball.

[Ash_Smith]

Originally Posted by tennis_balla

Geez, what the hell happened in here?

It began with Sureshs...and went from there!

[luvforty]

internet debates often go on in circles due to disconnects like this.

i think they proper terms should be 'narrower' vs. 'wider'.... you can name a bunch who want to play wider, I can name a bunch who want to play narrower, and there are plenty of them in WTA.... and it only makes sense... player with good ball striking but slow speed, would rather play narrower.

but it's hard to find among the top ATP guys who want to play narrower. ball striking/ foot speed difference still exist, but not as noticeable as in the WTA... in the ATP, if you can only hit but can't run, there is no chance.

that is the difference.

[sureshs]

Originally Posted by arche3

Please kill me. Your saying its not happening now? I hear junior coaches trying to teach strategy against big huge pace and spin. You can bet fed and all the rest of atp is thinking about this and not just blastinf balls. Please some coach set this guy straight. Balla? Anyone? Yandel? I'm sure jy has strategy in his coaching.

Of course strategy is important. How important is the question. Big serve and forehand will take care of 99%, you agree? Even the great Nadal was wiped out by Rosol.

[Cheetah]

Originally Posted by luvforty

internet debates often go on in circles due to disconnects like this.

i think they proper terms should be 'narrower' vs. 'wider'.... you can name a bunch who want to play wider, I can name a bunch who want to play narrower, and there are plenty of them in WTA.... and it only makes sense... player with good ball striking but slow speed, would rather play narrower.

but it's hard to find among the top ATP guys who want to play narrower. ball striking/ foot speed difference still exist, but not as noticeable as in the WTA... in the ATP, if you can only hit but can't run, there is no chance.

that is the difference.

Ok but you haven't named any of them to support your position. Isn't that what your were accusing 5263 of over the last week?

Anyway, the original point in contention was that you stated ATP play today is narrower than in the past. We'll just have to agree to disagree on that as I believe it is wider due to evolving technique and equipment and less serve and volley play.

[tennis_balla]

I post once in a while and mostly just read and sometimes add my 2cents. Sometimes people like it, other times they don't. That's fine. I don't agree with everything such as with a lot of the MTM stuff but I still respect 5263 & Oscar as coaches because they know how to teach tennis and have been in the trenches so to speak (for lack of a better term which I can't think of right now).

What would open a lot of peoples eyes on here that aren't in the business is give them a racket, a bucket of balls, a bunch of players they have to work with individually for the next say 6 months and see how smart they will be then. I'm not talking a 1 hour lesson they can BS their way through, say some generic tips and thats its. I'm talking about developing a road map for each of those players, analyze the different playing levels and work with them to develop their game to the next level, and have to produce results. Maybe then they will realize what tennis is all about. Instead all I see on here is comments being made from what they think they see on tv, what they see other coaches doing, what they saw at a tournament, how taking lessons isn't necessary and so on. Outside looking in.

I'm not trying to come across as a smart ***, and I don't mean to suggest coaches know it all (far from it) and everyone else should shut up. Its fun to debate, but sometimes this gets way out of hand with ridiculous comments being made. Yea I get it, you follow the game and are passionate about it. The internet has given you an anonymous voice to express yourself. Do us all a favour and use it wisely. Instead of trying to tell others your opinions all the time, just sit back, relax, have a Coke and a smile, read more instead and you might actually learn something worthwhile.

[luvforty]

Originally Posted by Cheetah

Ok but you haven't named any of them to support your position. Isn't that what your were accusing 5263 of over the last week?

Anyway, the original point in contention was that you stated ATP play today is narrower than in the past. We'll just have to agree to disagree on that as I believe it is wider due to evolving technique and equipment and less serve and volley play.

in absolute terms, wider for sure, more spin = wider, that's a gimmie... i am saying in relative terms, relative to faster players, it's arguable whether it's wider or not.

but the north - south element is certainly taken away, no doubt, so in my view the court is smaller today than 50 or even 20 years ago.

it's like in hockey you do 4 on 4 there is more strategy involved, because in 5v5 you often waste time trying to digging the puck jammed by the boards. the rink is 'bigger' 4v4.

smaller court limits the influence of strategy on the outcome.

[sureshs]

Any comments on the side issue I brought up about WTA serves in the OP?

Should rec players adopt the WTA approach? If they cannot serve (except for the Williams, Stosur), what is the issue? (I would also argue that Stosur has 2 second serves, not a real first serve.) Why can't the best coaches in the world make their serve happen? There was this woman yesterday who was falling to the right as she desperately lunged at one far toss after another. So bad even my wife noticed it. But she somehow came across the ball from the right and managed to hit decent serves, like many club players do.

What about Ivanovic's serve? How unreliable is that?

What is the lesson for rec players here?

[tennis_balla]

Originally Posted by sureshs

Of course strategy is important. How important is the question. Big serve and forehand will take care of 99%, you agree? Even the great Nadal was wiped out by Rosol.

Exhibit: A

[arche3]

Originally Posted by sureshs

Of course strategy is important. How important is the question. Big serve and forehand will take care of 99%, you agree? Even the great Nadal was wiped out by Rosol.

I don't agree. Rosol won one match. Played great beat rafa. Every ATP pro has a great fh and a big serve just about. Its the rest that matters. So how come Rosol doesnt beat everyone 99% of the time then. Or isner. Or roddick.

You posted strategy is irrelevant. Not needed. Your so wrong it is not even funny. Do you not realise it matters more the better you get?

[Cheetah]

Originally Posted by luvforty

in absolute terms, wider for sure, more spin = wider, that's a gimmie... i am saying in relative terms, relative to faster players, it's arguable whether it's wider or not.

but the north - south element is certainly taken away, no doubt, so in my view the court is smaller today than 50 or even 20 years ago.

it's like in hockey you do 4 on 4 there is more strategy involved, because in 5v5 you often waste time trying to digging the puck jammed by the boards. the rink is 'bigger' 4v4.

smaller court limits the influence of strategy on the outcome.

fair enough. thanks

[sureshs]

Originally Posted by arche3

I don't agree. Rosol won one match. Played great beat rafa. Every ATP pro has a great fh and a big serve just about. Its the rest that matters. So how come Rosol doesnt beat everyone 99% of the time then. Or isner. Or roddick.

You posted strategy is irrelevant. Not needed. Your so wrong it is not even funny. Do you not realise it matters more the better you get?

Yeah but you got to get there first. Nadal without the legs and the muscles and the strokes is nothing. With one simple strategy (to go to Fed's FH), which is basically nothing but a CC forehand for him, he is able to maintain an absurd H2H against Mr. Intelligent.

Rosol's performance is not the issue. It was an example to show the importance of hitting heavy shots. If he can't do that all the time, it just means he can't keep up his level.

I read tennis magazine and so many other sites and coaches and experts are analyzing this or that strategy. But I don't think the players themselves employ them. I get a good laugh when a commentator will talk about a particular strategy being used by a player, and the next shot proves the opposite! Then he fine tunes his commentary, and then is proved wrong again! They read too much into small random stuff and think there is a strategy underneath, when in reality it is not there!

You know where strategy really works? In doubles.

[arche3]

Originally Posted by sureshs

Yeah but you got to get there first. Nadal without the legs and the muscles and the strokes is nothing. With one simple strategy (to go to Fed's FH), which is basically nothing but a CC forehand for him, he is able to maintain an absurd H2H against Mr. Intelligent.

Rosol's performance is not the issue. It was an example to show the importance of hitting heavy shots. If he can't do that all the time, it just means he can't keep up his level.

I read tennis magazine and so many other sites and coaches and experts are analyzing this or that strategy. But I don't think the players themselves employ them. I get a good laugh when a commentator will talk about a particular strategy being used by a player, and the next shot proves the opposite! Then he fine tunes his commentary, and then is proved wrong again! They read too much into small random stuff and think there is a strategy underneath, when in reality it is not there!

You know where strategy really works? In doubles.

I give up. You win. Top ATP just bash fhs. And serve big. 99% brainless.

Perhaps if you ever actually improved as a tennis player you will see things differently.

[Ash_Smith]

.............next post