movdqa
Talk Tennis Guru
I've seen those. You are right.
I see older women hitting ugly but most of them couldn't sustain the pain of hitting that long with bad technique. And most have arm braces too.
I've seen those. You are right.
I like drop shotting old guys. and I love seeing them run
Especially the guys with the knee braces.
Yea, I love seeing them crash into the net. or just not able to get to it all. if they do get it somehow ,, next shot I lob right over them
Read this entire thread even though I'm old and fall asleep easily. I also have knee braces and use an oversize racket. Lots of old people hating here. The thing that flames my tennis addiction most is playing young players who think I can't run down drop shots or move on any shot. Afterword's, I usually here remarks like he didn't play real tennis. Remember you will get old so go back to work and hope you live long enough to collect SS...
Nobody is old bashing. And it's funny older people think they can compete with younger fitter players. Maybe against younger players who cannot play. Part of getting old is accepting it. I'm not geriatric but I'm not playing tennis against college kids either.Read this entire thread even though I'm old and fall asleep easily. I also have knee braces and use an oversize racket. Lots of old people hating here. The thing that flames my tennis addiction most is playing young players who think I can't run down drop shots or move on any shot. Afterword's, I usually here remarks like he didn't play real tennis. Remember you will get old so go back to work and hope you live long enough to collect SS...
What is your main singles strategy?
Right. But if your ball is deep enough, you really don't need much power to have a ball your opponent can't attack. And remember, I'm also using quite a lot of spin. So I'm really not hitting that close to the baseline. My ball is bouncing high and "out". Ideally, I'm having my opponent take the ball higher than they like. Out of their preferred strike zone.OP,
"2. I use power very sparingly."
But it still has to have enough power that your opponents can't tee off the ball, right?
This is true and basically what my strategy relies on. I'm not really winning the match. I'm just betting that my opponent sucks worse than I do. At 5.0 tennis, you actually have to win matches. Anything below that, all you have to do is not lose / let your opponent beat himself. I've told people lots of times that "we aren't really playing tennis". But nobody really understands what I'm saying.Tennis below 5.0 is not really tennis. It's a bunch of lame players trying to maneuver dink shots around the court and waiting for the other guy to miss. Or people over hitting and missing every 3rd ball.
If you're playing guys that can consistently do this, you have to make adjustments. I play a junior that can attack my deep shots something like this. But even he makes a fair number of errors. And these errors increase as the match goes on.Re deep ball, like I said if he or I can run down the ball, ie not sufficient pace to outpace us, we can return it back. Even with a deep ball, he just take a massive topspin swing at it, place it well inside but it's pacey and with some angle it will be difficult for me to return.
And that's exactly what happens to me sometimes. Once I execute this for a set, I'll often try different things. Lower percentage patterns of play. There are guys I play that will actually ask me before the match "which r2473 am I going to see today". And I'll usually tell them exactly how I plan to play.Meta-Strategy Time: Do not grow bored of a winning pattern of play!
Generally speaking, I swing at about 65%. This is enough to produce the rally ball I need. And even much of this power is going toward spin as opposed to "pace" (if that makes sense).OP,
"2. I use power very sparingly."
But it still has to have enough power that your opponents can't tee off the ball, right?
So many of you guys said you can get away with lower power and only focus on placement, consistent, depth, etc. You guys must be really good (that you could make those skilled shots) and powerful enough, which you're not even aware of generating, that those shots cannot be attacked. No?
Generally speaking, I swing at about 65%. This is enough to produce the rally ball I need. And even much of this power is going toward spin as opposed to "pace" (if that makes sense).
I'd say that if you can't hit this ball and keep your opponent from attacking, you have something fundamentally wrong. You should feel like you can hit this type of ball 30 times in a row if needed. Basically feel like you'll never miss. If this doesn't describe you, I'd suggest working on this before even thinking of adding power.
Once you add power (say swinging at 80-85%), things get exponentially harder. Power is probably the very last thing you should be trying to add to your game. Only adding it after you have MASTERED the basic 65% swing.
I suppose it is a good enough philosophy for rec players who will never move ahead.
For juniors, power often comes first and control later. Many well-known coaches like Nick follow this strategy. You must learn to swing fast, and later the control will come.
Those who play safe will never increase their power. This robs them of the excitement of hitting like the pros. When I hit very powerful 1 handed DTL backhands, life seems to be worth living. It is better than a lifetime of safe swings. As a rec player, no one cares about you and you only lose money, so live it up when you can.
"The Holy Grail for 99% of tennis players is “how can I win more matches?” And the most effective way to win more matches is....be more consistent. Whether you are playing Roger Federer, Venus Williams, or your nemesis at the club, you cannot be beaten if you hit the ball back into play! Here's what Bjorn Borg had to say on the subject: “I believe successful tennis is a game of consistency and taking advantage of the proper percentages”. Do you want to argue with a man who won 5 Wimbledons and 6 French Opens? I thought not..
All these statements mean nothing. Players like Borg often say these things later in life . Doesn't mean it applies to rec players who just want to have fun.
Tennis below 5.0 is not really tennis. It's a bunch of lame players trying to maneuver dink shots around the court and waiting for the other guy to miss. Or people over hitting and missing every 3rd ball.
Why bother. Just play video games. Or practice a lot and get to 5.0 plus. But I agree it's hard if you started tennis as an adult, probably over weight and basically have no athletic ability.
So yeah. Video games. Or pickle ball. Less running.
Basically, if you had a proper foundation as a junior and kind of kept in touch, you will automatically be better than most of the rec players when you play as an adult. The ones you won't beat are the others with a similar background or a very fit and determined pusher. That is about it. And these results will flow naturally without any special effort like not going for power or paying too much attention to this strategy or that.
That is basically how the pros play. Once the natural fluency is ingrained, everyone has a natural style with a certain ratio of offense to defense which suits their personality, and they just run with it. Among those, the successful ones will give concocted answers because they are expected to say something more profound than "I just play and I happen to win more than I lose."
Basically, if you had a proper foundation as a junior and kind of kept in touch, you will automatically be better than most of the rec players when you play as an adult. The ones you won't beat are the others with a similar background or a very fit and determined pusher. That is about it. And these results will flow naturally without any special effort like not going for power or paying too much attention to this strategy or that.
That is basically how the pros play. Once the natural fluency is ingrained, everyone has a natural style with a certain ratio of offense to defense which suits their personality, and they just run with it. Among those, the successful ones will give concocted answers because they are expected to say something more profound than "I just play and I happen to win more than I lose."
Pros are consistent too. Whether they developed power first or consistency first and then added power, it doesn't matter. They are incredibly consistent. So I don't see any 'concocted' answer when someone like Borg emphasizes consistency. Plus when Borg played it was a much more control oriented game than today's power game. Even in the relatively modern era, I've seen pros like Wilander talk about how pros play and how that's not necessarily the best way for rec players to play. Again, that's not a 'concocted answer' as much as more practical advice.
I agree that every one has their own personality and it's probably more fun to play to that personality. However, again, that's an individual choice. Some might have more 'fun' going against their natural personality to prioritize what helps them win, because winning might be more 'fun' for them than just 'living it up'. You don't know and can't answer for everyone. Djokovic said he had a ohbh but winning was a bigger priority and so he gave that up because he won more with a 2hbh.
So again, you are well within your rights to have your definition of what fun is for you when you play a Tennis match. Don't assume that holds true for others, and there's nothing wrong if that definition for others doesn't suit yours.
Yet the pros are consistent, the modern game has evolved from building a point rallying into game changer shots from defensive position, running banana forehands out wide back into the court and inside out forehands accross the service box out wide instead of just moving your opponent. And killing it by the next shot.
If we try the same at our apalling levels of rec play, there is a .01 probability to pull it out, but when we do, it really boosts selfesteem.
——————————
No more on pain meds - all contributed matter and anti-matter are still subject to disclaimer
Pros are consistent too. Whether they developed power first or consistency first and then added power, it doesn't matter. They are incredibly consistent. So I don't see any 'concocted' answer when someone like Borg emphasizes consistency. Plus when Borg played it was a much more control oriented game than today's power game. Even in the relatively modern era, I've seen pros like Wilander talk about how pros play and how that's not necessarily the best way for rec players to play. Again, that's not a 'concocted answer' as much as more practical advice.
I agree that every one has their own personality and it's probably more fun to play to that personality. However, again, that's an individual choice. Some might have more 'fun' going against their natural personality to prioritize what helps them win, because winning might be more 'fun' for them than just 'living it up'. You don't know and can't answer for everyone. Djokovic said he had a ohbh but winning was a bigger priority and so he gave that up because he won more with a 2hbh.
So again, you are well within your rights to have your definition of what fun is for you when you play a Tennis match. Don't assume that holds true for others, and there's nothing wrong if that definition for others doesn't suit yours.
Exactly, my point. For sureshs that .01 probability is worth it because rec matches are meaningless in the large scheme of things anyway. While the meaningless part is true, maybe others get more fun out of the game by being more consistent and not trying dumb stuff with a low probability of success.
As for self-esteem, I personally don't tie it to a rec level sport. If so, my self-esteem would be very low. I guess you meant satisfaction. Again, satisfaction is also different for different people. I'm sure there are a lot of pushers who are extremely satisfied and happy winning by being consistent, while they watch their opponents self destruct trying high risk shots. Or maybe the high risk taker player is happy because win or lose he/she likes to play that way. To each his/her own when it comes to what they define fun as.
I think you should play as much as you have to play.
If someone is much weaker ur better off hitting 60% (if the ball troubles them) and placing it on a dime and run them all over and outhit them and get them off court.. easy as pie... instead of going for lower risk aggressive shots
But if someone is so good that your 60% shots are easy for him and he crushes them, then you might me forced to play more risk and more aggressive, otherwise you can't win
Too bad I can't find that good video I watched a few months ago on youtube when someone was telling this story of a junior kid who was beating everyone at the time and is now a high ranked ATP player, and a coach went to him after he won a tournament and asked him whats his secret.
And he said its simple
I start by hitting the ball deep down the middle and be consistent
If that doesn't work then I start to hit angles and get him moving around and off court
If that doesn't work then I start to step in and hit more aggresive shots and go for winners
The point is if someone can't handle your 60% serve why would you go for 90% or more? With 60% you have better consistency and placement and can ace him at will, so theres no point going for more because ur just going to miss more so its going to actually be slightly less effective, even if it looks better.
But the same goes for the other way around, if your 60% or 70% serve is a sitter for someone and hes crushing it back deep, then you are forced to go for more, sometimes you play someone where you are forced to risk more in your shots.
this is the key difference between juniors and diy-adults.Basically, if you had a proper foundation...
this is the key difference between juniors and diy-adults.
"juniors" have some parent paying for lessons, etc... develop a proper foundation under a watchful eye.... 3-4x a week, for years.
most adults try to diy it... only take a handful of lessons (if any)... so it takes longer to develop a proper foundation (i'm guilty of this).
on the flip side, i've seen adults, who do what the juniors do, take lessons regularly, practice daily... and they develop the same fluidity as a junior, in a short period of time.
(also presumes you're fiscally/temporally able to (a) practice regularly with good sparring partners (b) take lessons regularly)
I think you should play as much as you have to play.
If someone is much weaker ur better off hitting 60% (if the ball troubles them) and placing it on a dime and run them all over and outhit them and get them off court.. easy as pie... instead of going for lower risk aggressive shots
But if someone is so good that your 60% shots are easy for him and he crushes them, then you might me forced to play more risk and more aggressive, otherwise you can't win.
I'll use a golf analogy. You are standing on a 450 yard par 4 with a narrow fairway and out of bounds on both sides. Thick rough lines the fairway and you can't hit well out of rough. You are a bogey golfer. How should you play the hole?
1) Take out the driver, knowing that your best drive goes 250 yards and you have about a 30% chance of hitting it that far and straight. Then if you do, you still have 200 yards to the hole. You almost never hit a shot from the fairway 200 yards and straight. So your odds of making the green in 2 strokes is less than 10%.
2) Take out an iron that you can hit 150-170 yards, but you hit it straight enough to find the fairway almost every time. Then, hit the same club again. Now you are anywhere from 110-150 yards from the green. A shot you can make pretty often.
So, is it worth taking the risk with the aggressive play to try to make par? Or should you go for the safe bogey on this hole and try to avoid the big number on the scorecard?
Now that you've decided what the smart / percentage play is, what do you imagine most golfers will do?
that is a great analogy. will steal this oneI'll use a golf analogy. You are standing on a 450 yard par 4 with a narrow fairway and out of bounds on both sides. Thick rough lines the fairway and you can't hit well out of rough. You are a bogey golfer. How should you play the hole?
1) Take out the driver, knowing that your best drive goes 250 yards and you have about a 30% chance of hitting it that far and straight. Then if you do, you still have 200 yards to the hole. You almost never hit a shot from the fairway 200 yards and straight. So your odds of making the green in 2 strokes is less than 10%.
2) Take out an iron that you can hit 150-170 yards, but you hit it straight enough to find the fairway almost every time. Then, hit the same club again. Now you are anywhere from 110-150 yards from the green. A shot you can make pretty often.
So, is it worth taking the risk with the aggressive play to try to make par? Or should you go for the safe bogey on this hole and try to avoid the big number on the scorecard? Now that you've decided what the smart / percentage play is, what do you imagine most golfers will do?
Most tennis players are "bogey golfers" that are always trying to make birdie, but end up making triple bogey. They might get a birdie once every 36 holes. But to do it they get multiple double and triple bogey scores.
And even the 7 handicap tennis player needs to make his pars or even take his chance at birdie on the short par 5's. On those long par 4's, he's got to know that, only if he executes perfectly will he get a par (maybe 1 in 3 times). He has to know that this will often be a bogey hole. But that it can't be a double bogey or worse.
for me, pulling out the big dog, and making it... is analagous to me trying to pass the net man in doubles... making it once, missing 3 times.They pull out the big dog.
Most are really unaware their numbers and believe highly of themselves.
——————————
No more on pain meds - all contributed matter and anti-matter are still subject to disclaimer
They pull out the big dog.
I'll tell you what most golfers will do. They'll hit the driver OB at least once if not a few times (maybe a few times in the rough). Then they'll eventually hit a drive in the fairway and say they are laying 1. And even then, they won't hit their next shot on the green and end up making a "fake" bogey at best (probably getting a double bogey even not counting the OB strokes because they miss the short putt, but not counting that stroke either because it was a "gimmee").that is a great analogy. will steal this one
for me, i'm #2 perfectly!...
i've often pulled out the 1iron for most holes because i slice the crap out of the big dogs... a teaching buddy of mine mentioned i needed a fitted driver (i'm short), but i'm not gonna go through all that.
I'll tell you what most golfers will do. They'll hit the driver OB at least once if not a few times (maybe a few times in the rough). Then they'll eventually hit a drive in the fairway and say they are laying 1. And even then, they won't hit their next shot on the green and end up making a "fake" bogey at best (probably getting a double bogey even not counting the OB strokes because they miss the short putt, but not counting that stroke either because it was a "gimmee").
i don't understand the gimmmeee system.I'll tell you what most golfers will do. They'll hit the driver OB at least once if not a few times (maybe a few times in the rough). Then they'll eventually hit a drive in the fairway and say they are laying 1. And even then, they won't hit their next shot on the green and end up making a "fake" bogey at best (probably getting a double bogey even not counting the OB strokes because they miss the short putt, but not counting that stroke either because it was a "gimmee").
i don't understand the gimmmeee system.
but just like "easy" volleys and overheads... it's easy to get careless and miss a "gimmee". just make me putt it.It was initially from match play. Ot requiring your opponent to make any putt within the leather - length of the grip on your putter. But then it has become acustomed to give them ”short” putts every time.
——————————
No more on pain meds - all contributed matter and anti-matter are still subject to disclaimer
but just like "easy" volleys and overheads... it's easy to get careless and miss a "gimmee". just make me putt it.
i don't understand the gimmmeee system.
i know well enough from practicing on the range, that i can't hit a driver.
i get teased for only playing the 1 iron from the tees.
That's basically it. Most golfers don't count it when they miss short putts. They say it was a "gimmee". It's a bit like an overhead you slam into the net. Except in golf, you write down your own scores. And playing partners only care about what you write down if there is money on line. Otherwise, pretty much everybody cheats on their golf score.but just like "easy" volleys and overheads... it's easy to get careless and miss a "gimmee". just make me putt it.
I really do pull out 6 iron on long par 4's sometimes. It just depends on how likely I am to hit OB on the drive. Any Par 5 that is 500+ yards, I'm never playing to make the green in 2 (unless the hole is just wide open so there's no downside). So that gives me a lot of options on how to play the hole to ensure I get par and have the best chance at birdie.i don't understand the gimmmeee system.
i know well enough from practicing on the range, that i can't hit a driver.
i get teased for only playing the 1 iron from the tees.
Anyway, back to the topic. IMO, its really NOT STRATEGIES when we talk about consistency, placement, power or directional laws. Those are just necessary basics to play tennis. You have more, you're a 5.0. You have less, you're a 3.0.
Strategies would be to use more drop shots, even if they are only half way familiar to you, against a fat opponent who fails to get them 90% of time.
Generally speaking, I swing at about 65%. This is enough to produce the rally ball I need. And even much of this power is going toward spin as opposed to "pace" (if that makes sense).
I'd say that if you can't hit this ball and keep your opponent from attacking, you have something fundamentally wrong. You should feel like you can hit this type of ball 30 times in a row if needed. Basically feel like you'll never miss. If this doesn't describe you, I'd suggest working on this before even thinking of adding power.
Once you add power (say swinging at 80-85%), things get exponentially harder. Power is probably the very last thing you should be trying to add to your game. Only adding it after you have MASTERED the basic 65% swing.
"The Holy Grail for 99% of tennis players is “how can I win more matches?” And the most effective way to win more matches is....be more consistent. Whether you are playing Roger Federer, Venus Williams, or your nemesis at the club, you cannot be beaten if you hit the ball back into play! Here's what Bjorn Borg had to say on the subject: “I believe successful tennis is a game of consistency and taking advantage of the proper percentages”. Do you want to argue with a man who won 5 Wimbledons and 6 French Opens? I thought not..
The challenge of playing consistent tennis tests all four aspects of your game: Technically do you have all the shots to stay in a long rally? Tactically can you select the correct `percentage shots` as the rally develops? Physically do you have the speed and endurance to get to every ball? Mentally do you have the concentration and mental toughness to triumph in long rallies?
Now that I have convinced you that consistency is the key, what are the keys to consistency? 1. Give yourself a margin for error. In baseline rallies aim 1 metre inside the side lines and 3 metres inside the baseline. If you are a little off target, the shot will still be in. Aim 1 to 2 metres over the net in baseline rallies for the same reason – only hit low if your opponent is moving to or is at the net. 2. Hit the ball only as hard as you can control it. Rafael Nadal's average groundstroke speed is 70 mph. But you are not Rafael Nadal..... "
https://www.tennisireland.ie/wp-con...00-10.-STRATEGY-AND-TACTICS-One-More_Time.pdf
Re what Borg said, that's double speaking! Or speaking out of both sides of the mouth.
If you constantly need to cater to so called proper percentages -- which is halfway controlled by your opponent -- you really have no/little say in your consistency. For example, against someone good at defense like Djokovic (recreational Djokovic's) you WILL BE FORCED to make very low percent shots. Where's your consistency now?
I know this. My friend who has very good work ethics, loves exercise and would try to run down as many shots as possible. Normally I can put away balls that land in my service box against other opponents, but against this friend, I really have to topspin it hard and closer to a side line, which greatly reduces my chance (consistency), but no choice or he will get his racket on it and likely win the point with a lob or passing.
% of your potential power.Again, we need a way to define 65% or whatever.