Practice for Smarter Targets

[rosewall4ever]

Originally Posted by 5263

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,

i never did say it was better. i' did say it's horses for courses. it all preference to achieve a desired affect, which in your case, i gather, stems from margins and the preference to hit angles than deep. No system is really better than another, all have pros and cons and mine certainly has them. forgive me if i lead you to think otherwise or misinterpreted your case, nor was i meant to discredit your system. having an alternative view is good no?

in my case my logic is from a reactionary standpoint. an incoming attacking ball is simply 'countered' with a shift in the zone/ ball placement (attack zone -> counter zone , simple as that) . Its purpose is to give the OP a different look at the ball than returning it to the same place. Based on the angle it neutralizes a chance for the OP to gain control. its the middle zone/ triangle or whatever does the OP have a better chance at gaining momentum in the rally--simple as that

i was concerned in your case and i think some others have pointed out is the zone sizes. i understand your idea to 'pull in' the sides from the boundary and max depth limits set by their lengths.I think you smart targets are extremely effective in practices but I hope you can give us insight of these zones in match pressure scenarios. Psychologically if it was me i would like to feel that i'm hitting into a zone rather than aiming for one but hitting it elsewhere.

I feel that these both of our methods are really similar and we are debating on trivial things. As i said its horses for courses and they are only guides any way. Everyone has slightly different perspectives.

[5263]

Originally Posted by rosewall4ever

Psychologically if it was me i would like to feel that i'm hitting into a zone rather than aiming for one but hitting it elsewhere.

I feel that these both of our methods are really similar and we are debating on trivial things. As i said its horses for courses and they are only guides any way. Everyone has slightly different perspectives.

I don't follow that first sentence above about what you would feel like hitting elsewhere.

Surely some systems are better than others though.
I agree that what we are discussing is quite similar, but different in the critical
things. I believe your targets include too much that is not valuable targeting
(close to lines and near center T),
and at the same time are too vague to give much meaningful direction for shot intentions.
Yes they give a broad general area, but in my experience the aim smaller, miss smaller mentality
comes into play here.

I greatly appreciate positive discussion/debate as you offer. I put this up
here to be tested and shared by any who have the interest.

It has also just come to my attention that this is very much like the strategy
employed by the Great Santana. It is not lost on me upon learning this that he possessed one of incredible Fhs used by Oscar when developing Modern Tennis Methods. This is good evidence that maybe this style is best for those who have the vision and strokes to use Modern Tennis strokes, and may be
quite tough to see and employ for those who prefer flatter, more classic strokes.

[BU-Tennis]

^^^^I definitely agree with you about the style of stroke making a difference; more specfiically, the amount of topspin you place on the ball. A flat hitter will naturally hit deeper in the court because it takes longer for the ball to drop, while a topspin shot would cause the ball to drop must faster, but the resulting kick will still keep it out of the optimal strike zone (hopefully) of your opponent so they cannot step in and attack.

I myself haven't got to go on court to work with Smart Targets but will definitely update the thread when i have a chance.

[5263]

Originally Posted by BU-Tennis

^^^^I definitely agree with you about the style of stroke making a difference; more specfiically, the amount of topspin you place on the ball. A flat hitter will naturally hit deeper in the court because it takes longer for the ball to drop, while a topspin shot would cause the ball to drop must faster, but the resulting kick will still keep it out of the optimal strike zone (hopefully) of your opponent so they cannot step in and attack.

I myself haven't got to go on court to work with Smart Targets but will definitely update the thread when i have a chance.

Originally Posted by jmnk

here are Federer's shots.

Yes, modern strokes allow you to clear the net easily, then load up on power and spin without too much concern about the ball coming down too soon. Not only the kick, but using a shot line that makes them run will also protect against getting attacked since they cannot get there in time due your pace and direction.
Thanks for you diagram updates!

[5263]

I was motivated to go back thru some of my tennis books and review some of my sources related to this issue of depth;
Total Tennis, Think to Win, Maximum Tennis, Pressure Tennis, Tennis Handbook, and several others. I have to give these guys a little credit here, as during this research over the things related to the topic, I did find where Dr Fox and Burwash each make some vague references to other factors as they relate to attacking short balls. There is mention of ball height and pace I believe. I give some credit here, and it also supports the idea I'm focused on; that a ball is not attackable just cause it's a little short. It takes short and other factors as well, and/or short may not always be one of the factors when a ball is attacked. A weak shot that sits up may get crushed, even if the depth is better than avg.

On the downside, I didn't find anywhere that they developed this idea much and it was mentioned in a way that would be easily missed. While some may not feel this target depth needs more discussion, imo it is part of why we see so few who attack mid court balls well at all levels and also leads to more balls missed long than is necessary. It goes with another idea that I focus on, which is attacking the mid ct ball is the key to taking your game to the next level.

[5263]

Nice view of a drop point played out using these targets.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tkNJ110wbiI

[5263]

Most of us have heard about the fantastic shots DJ made to save 2 break pts against Fed in the semis at the Us Open 2010. I believe this is the vid below and shows the placement of the shots that received so much praise. Notice on the first saved point, there is a good chance that each shot would have been in the targets depicted in this thread. Same story for the second point, while the winner was slightly deeper, it would be an example of a well hit shot that just barely flew the deeper corner of the target (maybe even hitting the cone if one was there to mark that corner). Clearly none of the shot really even flirted with the lines.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5mLlI...eature=related

Same shot lines for saves in 2011 as well.

[5263]

Here are 5 points someone picked as the greatest they had seen.
If you care, you can notice what a large number of the rally and
attack shots are hit to the targets in this thread. Even the tweeners
are on the shot line for these targets. The one very deep shot near
a line is returned by Nadal, such that Nadal gets to hit one of the
Smart Targets for a clean winner on the very next shot.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0_hzRy9mTA

[BU-Tennis]

Something I saw of interest in the last video was the fact when a player had to hit a more defensive shot, they almost always played it right into the middle of the court and their opponent was unable to get a good attacking shot off of it because they were forced to generate their own power and the sharp angles were not available.

[5263]

Originally Posted by BU-Tennis

Something I saw of interest in the last video was the fact when a player had to hit a more defensive shot, they almost always played it right into the middle of the court and their opponent was unable to get a good attacking shot off of it because they were forced to generate their own power and the sharp angles were not available.

What do you mean by middle? Do you mean middle deep, because I can agree that is one of the best times to go different than the Smart Targets. When on defense, floating one back deep near center can buy you a chance to get back in the point.
If by middle you mean near the center T, I would be inclined to disagree.
The center T gives them a choice of hitting with their best side to their
favorite target, so I think leaving weak balls near the center T is bad.
That's the area I'm wanting you to add a box around as an avoid area for
singles play. I'm hoping you will be able to add that box to the diagram above
from Fed, along with adding the smart targets to that one too.
Think you will get a chance?

[5263]

Originally Posted by 5263

What do you mean by middle? Do you mean middle deep, because I can agree that is one of the best times to go different than the Smart Targets. When on defense, floating one back deep near center can buy you a chance to get back in the point.
If by middle you mean near the center T, I would be inclined to disagree.
The center T gives them a choice of hitting with their best side to their
favorite target, so I think leaving weak balls near the center T is bad.
That's the area I'm wanting you to add a box around as an avoid area for
singles play. I'm hoping you will be able to add that box to the diagram above
from Fed, along with adding the smart targets to that one too.
Think you will get a chance?

BU, I was hoping to get your explanation on part about middle along with a chance to add the boxes on the Fed diagram...

[gindyo]

This is a great discussion, but I think we should not make conclusions from these one or two diagrams we have from a couple of matches. To make any definitive conclusions different thinks must be considered:
1. Different players like to hit different type of balls. For example players who like to use the pace of the opponent don't mind deep ball and they will struggle with balls where they have to create their own pace.
2. What kind of CONSISTENT results a certain pattern produces (yes djocovic won that particular match using that pattern, but does he CONSISTENTLY use it against DIFFERENT players)

All I am saying is we need a larger sample space to make a conclusion on this one.
And here comes the beauty of this forum - every one of us could try and find diagrams like this, post them here and discuss.

[5263]

Originally Posted by gindyo

This is a great discussion, but I think we should not make conclusions from these one or two diagrams

All I am saying is we need a larger sample space to make a conclusion on this one.
And here comes the beauty of this forum - every one of us could try and find diagrams like this, post them here and discuss.

You will be glad to know I didn't. I've been developing the Smart Targets over the last several years using a customized charting I developed along with work with them for several Jr and college players.
These targets were already developed and in use well before these diagrams.

In fact, these diagrams were mainly just used as a random background (provided by some talented posters) on which to place the targets. It just worked out nicely that they are evidence (not proof) in favor of how the targets can be effective at even the highest levels of the game where folks seem to think all players can and do routinely hit within inches of the lines/corners.
These diagrams ALSO show how many more balls do not land quite so near the BL and even often off the line a bit for the dtl.

[gindyo]

Originally Posted by 5263

You will be glad to know I didn't. I've been developing the Smart Targets over the last several years using a customized charting I developed along with work with them for several Jr and college players.
In fact, these diagrams were mainly just used as a random background (provided by some talented posters) on which to place the targets. It just worked out nicely that they are evidence (not proof) in favor of how the targets can be effective at even the highest levels of the game where folks seem to think all players can and do routinely hit within inches of the lines/corners.
These diagrams show how many more balls do not land quite so near the BL and even often off the line a bit for the dtl.

If you have been using this to coach your players, I am interested to know what are the before and after results. Do they use these patterns all the time or they pick and choose which opponents to use them against? And do you discourage hitting deep (as in 1-2 feet from BL)?

[5263]

Originally Posted by gindyo

If you have been using this to coach your players, I am interested to know what are the before and after results. Do they use these patterns all the time or they pick and choose which opponents to use them against?

One quick and good example was a skeptical gal who plays D1 tennis, but in one of the smaller conferences. She finally bought into the idea of how it works and started this year 7-1 so far and called after a couple of matches saying they were the key to the 2 tough wins she had to dig deep for. She said it also worked well in the one loss too, but the girl was too strong, so she could not get to the smart targets consistently enough and left too many in the "avoid zone" as well.
more later..

[gindyo]

Originally Posted by 5263

BU, I was hoping to get your explanation on part about middle along with a chance to add the boxes on the Fed diagram...

Here is a great free software you could use to do it yourself http://inkscape.org/download/?lang=en
let me know if you need help with it

Edit: I just realised that if you are on Windows you dont even need this, you could use "Paint" it comes with windows. just drag and drop the image into Paint and draw on it.

[BU-Tennis]

Originally Posted by 5263

BU, I was hoping to get your explanation on part about middle along with a chance to add the boxes on the Fed diagram...

By middle, I do mean of course a ball hit with a certain amount of depth, although many of them were bouncing just past the service line, and even a few a foot or so before the service line. The ones which were shorter and not deep, the opponent was recovering so they weren't able to step in and around to hit with their best side (forehand).

[DavaiMarat]

whoops posted in the wrong place sorry.

[5263]

Originally Posted by BU-Tennis

By middle, I do mean of course a ball hit with a certain amount of depth, although many of them were bouncing just past the service line, and even a few a foot or so before the service line. The ones which were shorter and not deep, the opponent was recovering so they weren't able to step in and around to hit with their best side (forehand).

I went back and watched them before with your comments in mind and just didn't really see it. From my point of view, the soft ones that landed near the center T were the ones that gave the best opportunity to take control of the point if not the chance to just stroke a winner. I will look again, as maybe I had discounted situations where they were not able to recover fast enough to take advantage of the weak shots to the Avoid Area. My guess is that you are thinking of shots there which have been struck reasonably well, which goes to show that even to the Avoid Area, it is tough to attack a well hit ball.

The center T Avoid Area allows the attacker to get there from all but the worst positions and usually lets them use their stronger wing to attack. It also lets them choose which corner to assault. This huge advantage is often too much for the defender to overcome imo.

I will look again as I said though, thanks.

[5263]

Originally Posted by gindyo

Here is a great free software you could use to do it yourself http://inkscape.org/download/?lang=en
let me know if you need help with it

Edit: I just realised that if you are on Windows you dont even need this, you could use "Paint" it comes with windows. just drag and drop the image into Paint and draw on it.

so once I get the pic set up, how do I import to here.
It won't cut and paste but
instead appears to need an internet site link??
thanks