Strategy Improvements for rec players

socallefty · Sep 12, 2020

I know that there are mostly technique improvement related threads in this section. I would agree that the biggest catalyst to progress from 3.0 to a 4.0 computer rating is technique related. <3.5s make too many errors, have low shot tolerance and weak serves due to bad technique and they need coaching lessons. 4.0s cannot sustain rallies against the pace/spin of players who were formerly top juniors/college players, cannot locate their serves and have poor net games and overheads - they need coaching or drills to improve these weaknesses. Also, footwork and fitness can be a weakness that needs to be worked on if you want to progress on the NTRP rating scale. But, enough adult rec players make technique improvements to progress to 4.0 and then hit a ceiling there.

I think that some of the 4.0 adult players with better fitness and technique can progress to 4.5 if they worked on strategy improvements in addition as it would help them to win more matches against good players who were formerly top juniors or college players when they were younger. Some issues to think about and improve are:

- Can you locate both 1st and 2nd serves accurately hopefully with at least a couple of spins (flat and slice for 1st, kick and top-slice for 2nd)? If so, do you change your serve locations and patterns to either setup favorable serve+1 shots or serve more to your opponent’s weaknesses? Do you serve to different locations and spins with new balls vs old balls or on hot days vs cold days? Do you think about these things?
- Do you return from different spots (close, further away, to the middle, wide) depending in your opponent‘s serve strengths and your favorite return+1 patterns? Do you change them as the match progresses and then balls get old? Do you spend much time thinking about adjustments to make on Return stance and patterns to disrupt the server‘s rhythm especially late in a set.
- Do you play with different tactics when you face counterpunchers, junkers/pushers, aggressive baseliners and serve-volleyers? Do you test if the opponent does well against slice, has good vertical up/down movement, can hit well on the run, can hit passes or lobs under pressure etc.
- Do you have good recovery footwork after wide shots, short-ball shots etc and have your ever done a lot of drills to improve this?
- If you play mostly doubles, do you play with the net guy signaling serve location and intentional poaches when your team serves? If the doubles opponents are returning well, are you comfortable playing Australian formation and I-formation using poach/stay signals? Do you serve-and-volley and chip/charge or at least come to the net as soon as you can?

Ex-college players with a lot of match experience as juniors think about all these things and then set up point patterns in their favor that leverage their strengths and maximize their opponent‘s weaknesses. They make the opponent run and play defense and look like they are having an easy time anticipating correctly every ball. They also have better footwork developed at a young age. When they play doubles, they can use signals and locate serves accurately and depend on their net partners a lot to help them hold serve with pre-planned intentional poaches. To beat these guys, an adult rec player has to work actively on improving their strategy and tactics during match play as they will never catch up on the 1000s of matches an advanced player might have played as a junior to develop situational awareness.

Something to think about if you’ve been stuck at 4.0 for a few years.

S&V-not_dead_yet · Sep 12, 2020

Technique is relatively easy to isolate and identify. It's also easier to measure.

Things like strategy, shot-tolerance, adaptability, etc. are more subtle and thus people tend to overlook them.

I'd go so far to say that anyone under 5.0 would gain more from working on foundational things like consistency and the 3Fs [footwork, focus <mental toughness>, fitness, and spacing] than just about any technique-related matter [unless they have a severe deficiency].

The problem is that these things aren't flashy and exciting. There also seems to be.a bias against developing these "behind the scenes" skills, as if they're somehow divorced from the overall game ["He didn't beat me. He's just more fit/mentally tough/patient/consistent/insert skill here."]

Juniors and collegiates do not have this bias or if they do, they either lose it quickly or take up another activity.

user92626 · Sep 12, 2020

hmm...it's not that simple, guys. You really CANNOT separate and quantify each piece so clearly like you suggest.

There are 3.5s that consist of 9 part fitness and 1 part hitting techniques. You guys tend to call those pushers.
Then you have 3.5s that are made up of 8 part technical hitting and 2 part fitness or running. Ball bashers?

Then, there are many shades in between.

These are just very crude, oversimplified examples to illustrate the point. Clearly there's no measurement for how many percents each area is. Or, do we know the lines that define the areas.

S&V-not_dead_yet · Sep 12, 2020

user92626 said:
hmm...it's not that simple, guys. You really CANNOT separate and quantify each piece so clearly like you suggest.

There are 3.5s that consist of 9 part fitness and 1 part hitting techniques. You guys tend to call those pushers.
Then you have 3.5s that are made up of 8 part technical hitting and 2 part fitness or running. Ball bashers?

Then, there are many shades in between.

These are just very crude, oversimplified examples to illustrate the point. Clearly there's no measurement for how many percents each area is. Or, do we know the lines that define the areas.

And yet we try anyway because that beats ignoring the information that's available to us even if we don't know exact percentages or conclude things imperfectly. You seem to be implying that because it's imprecise and not easily quantified, we shouldn't try; an "all or nothing" paradigm, one with which I disagree.

You've outlined why you think it won't work; so what is your approach? How do you attempt to get around the problems you've identified?

user92626 · Sep 12, 2020

S&V-not_dead_yet said:
And yet we try anyway because that beats ignoring the information that's available to us even if we don't know exact percentages or conclude things imperfectly. You seem to be implying that because it's imprecise and not easily quantified, we shouldn't try; an "all or nothing" paradigm, one with which I disagree.

You've outlined why you think it won't work; so what is your approach? How do you attempt to get around the problems you've identified?

It's not just imprecise but it's completely nonsensical -- the way you guys approach it -- imo. So nonsensical that it'll not be helpful at all which is my first suggestion. I'm not for "all or nothing" paradigm btw.

Take for example, what you said,

"Technique is relatively easy to isolate and identify. It's also easier to measure.
Things like strategy, shot-tolerance, adaptability, etc. are more subtle and thus people tend to overlook them. "

To me strategies, shot-tolerance go hand in hand with techniques. Say, you ain't gonna do S&V strategy/tactic even if it's 100% effective against opponent if you can't serve for craps (ie lack serving technique), no?

If your hitting technique is so awkward, or your movement technique is all craps, is it really subtle that shot-tolerance is in the toilet?

FiReFTW · Sep 13, 2020

True but its the hardest thing to work on also.

S&V-not_dead_yet · Sep 13, 2020

user92626 said:
To me strategies, shot-tolerance go hand in hand with techniques.

I think they are related but not as tightly as to be inseparable.

Strategy is the big picture; the "what".

Tactics is how you go about achieving your strategy; the "how".

For me, technique falls under Tactics. I know I have a certain tool set and how it works under various scenarios. But deciding how to deploy which tools and when and for how long is Strategy.

Say, you ain't gonna do S&V strategy/tactic even if it's 100% effective against opponent if you can't serve for craps (ie lack serving technique), no?

That's binary thinking: "100% effective" and "lack serving technique".

I'd re-phrase the question to: "Given my serve technique [or lack thereof], how effective will S&V be against this opponent?" If I'm reasonably confident I'm going to win more than 50% of the points, I will give it a shot. If it doesn't work, I'll go to Plan B.

If your hitting technique is so awkward, or your movement technique is all craps, is it really subtle that shot-tolerance is in the toilet?

Awkward technique and bad movement are simply problems to be overcome.

One might argue that green shirt guy in another thread has "awkward" technique. And yet he's got a winning record at 4.5.

I've played against guys whose movement was poor and yet they were such good ballstrikers that they compensated.

Both of these are cherry-picked examples, of course, but they illustrate the point.

If you believe such a view is useless or nonsensical, fine.

I will continue to approach it my way because I believe it has value. Maybe I'm deluding myself. Maybe my results are just a placebo effect. So be it. It appears to work for me as a framework.

zaph · Sep 13, 2020

Don't miss, avoid forehand, the end. That will pretty much win you most rec matches.

zaph · Sep 13, 2020

user92626 said:
hmm...it's not that simple, guys. You really CANNOT separate and quantify each piece so clearly like you suggest.

There are 3.5s that consist of 9 part fitness and 1 part hitting techniques. You guys tend to call those pushers.
Then you have 3.5s that are made up of 8 part technical hitting and 2 part fitness or running. Ball bashers?

Then, there are many shades in between.

These are just very crude, oversimplified examples to illustrate the point. Clearly there's no measurement for how many percents each area is. Or, do we know the lines that define the areas.

A ball basher is someone who tries to hit a winner off every ball, however difficult the shot is. It isn't the same as an aggressive hitter.

socallefty · Sep 13, 2020

The better your technique, footwork and fitness, the more options you have tactically and strategically - that goes without saying. I was just making the point that at some point, high 4.0 and 4.5 players have to think a lot about strategy and make tactical adjustments during matches because the advanced opponents will have fewer weaknesses and will be making adjustments to beat you. At lower levels, I felt that most of my opponents had no idea what I was doing to make them play bad - they would just get frustrated and wonder out aloud why they were playing so much worse than normal. At higher levels, I can sense that many of my opponents are making adjustments to take advantages of my weaknesses or counter-adjusting to what I’m doing. So, every set can have different point patterns in a match as we are both employing different tactics to counter each other - what works early may not work later in a match.

The better players I play against expose the holes in my game or I sometimes figure out strategies that will work well against them, but am not good enough to execute them well during a match. These then let me know what my weaknesses are from a technique/footwork standpoint and I work with my coach to develop customized drills to correct them. My improvement rate has been faster once I started working with him in this fashion.

Clash Ah ah · Sep 13, 2020

socallefty said:
The better your technique, footwork and fitness, the more options you have tactically and strategically - that goes without saying. I was just making the point that at some point, high 4.0 and 4.5 players have to think a lot about strategy and make tactical adjustments during matches because the advanced opponents will have fewer weaknesses and will be making adjustments to beat you. At lower levels, I felt that most of my opponents had no idea what I was doing to make them play bad - they would just get frustrated and wonder out aloud why they were playing so much worse than normal. At higher levels, I can sense that many of my opponents are making adjustments to take advantages of my weaknesses or counter-adjusting to what I’m doing. So, every set can have different point patterns in a match as we are both employing different tactics to counter each other - what works early may not work later in a match.

The better players I play against expose the holes in my game or I sometimes figure out strategies that will work well against them, but am not good enough to execute them well during a match. These then let me know what my weaknesses are from a technique/footwork standpoint and I work with my coach to develop customized drills to correct them. My improvement rate has been faster once I started working with him in this fashion.

Do you have an example of customised drills you and your coach would do? Depending on what you needed?

socallefty · Sep 13, 2020

Clash Ah ah said:
Do you have an example of customised drills you and your coach would do? Depending on what you needed?

I used to struggle against low slice shots on the run, shot-tolerance on BHs against flat/slice shots etc. and improved by doing drills specifically to improve those skills. Also. I needed to improve my recovery footwork after returning wide balls. Drill examples with my coach are:

- Coach would stand close to the net while I was at the baseline and feed me slice shots - sometimes, I had to hit only DTL, sometimes only CC, sometimes I had to pass or lob him successfully and try to win the point.
- He would feed from the baseline and we would play out the point with him hitting a lot of slice shots to my BH.
- He would feed me deep balls to my BH while standing on his baseline and I had to keep hitting crosscourt till I forced a short ball and then I had to hit a DTL drive-winner or hit a BH-slice approach DTL and rush the net.
- Feed drills where my coach stands on my side of the court and gives me a wide FH and then a wide BH quickly so that I have to recover fast and hit only DTL - 5 sets of 10 shots each with no water break in-between, only a couple of seconds to recover between sets.
- Spanish X-drill off feeds - you can google this to find videos.

Also, I do regular drills to improve consistency and shot-tolerance with hitting partners. Drill examples are:

- 50-shot drills to anywhere on the court
- 15 or 20-shot drills where every shot has to be outside the service box
- 20-shot drills where my opponent hits only cross-court and I have to hit only DTL on every shot and then alternate so that I hit only CC and opponent hits DTL in every shot

Drills I really enjoy and do to encourage aggressive hitting with hitting partners are as follows:

- We play out points off feeds where the only way to win a point is to hit a winner. So, if you force an error or make unforced errors, they don’t count. Winner has to win five points (no breaks for water) and it might take us 30 minutes for one player to win 5 points. Without the advantage of serving and new balls, it can be difficult to hit 5 winners (baseline or volley/lob) against an athletic player who is at the same level.
- Lob/overhead drill where we take turns and have to win ten points. One player is at the baseline (BL) on one side (deuce or ad) of the court and feeds a lob. The other player is at the net and has to win the point by hitting only smashes into the Singles half of the court where the BL player is (deuce or ad) while the BL can hit lobs back to the entire singles court.

This year, I‘ve been trying to average 1 coaching lesson, 1 hitting session with a friend at same level, 1 hitting session teaching my wife, 2 doubles matches and 4 singles matches every week. On the days I play doubles in the evening. I take a lesson or hit with my wife in the morning.

Clash Ah ah · Sep 13, 2020

socallefty said:
I used to struggle against low slice shots on the run, shot-tolerance on BHs against flat/slice shots etc. and improved by doing drills specifically to improve those skills. Also. I needed to improve my recovery footwork after returning wide balls. Drill examples with my coach are:

- Coach would stand close to the net while I was at the baseline and feed me slice shots - sometimes, I had to hit only DTL, sometimes only CC, sometimes I had to pass or lob him successfully and try to win the point.
- He would feed from the baseline and we would play out the point with him hitting a lot of slice shots to my BH.
- He would feed me deep balls to my BH while standing on his baseline and I had to keep hitting crosscourt till I forced a short ball and then I had to hit a DTL drive-winner or hit a BH-slice approach DTL and rush the net.
- Feed drills where my coach stands on my side of the court and gives me a wide FH and then a wide BH quickly so that I have to recover fast and hit only DTL - 5 sets of 10 shots each with no water break in-between, only a couple of seconds to recover between sets.
- Spanish X-drill off feeds - you can google this to find videos.

Also, I do regular drills to improve consistency and shot-tolerance with hitting partners. Drill examples are:

- 50-shot drills to anywhere on the court
- 15 or 20-shot drills where every shot has to be outside the service box
- 20-shot drills where my opponent hits only cross-court and I have to hit only DTL on every shot and then alternate so that I hit only CC and opponent hits DTL in every shot

Drills I really enjoy and do to encourage aggressive hitting with hitting partners are as follows:

- We play out points off feeds where the only way to win a point is to hit a winner. So, if you force an error or make unforced errors, they don’t count. Winner has to win five points (no breaks for water) and it might take us 30 minutes for one player to win 5 points. Without the advantage of serving and new balls, it can be difficult to hit 5 winners (baseline or volley/lob) against an athletic player who is at the same level.
- Lob/overhead drill where we take turns and have to win ten points. One player is at the baseline (BL) on one side (deuce or ad) of the court and feeds a lob. The other player is at the net and has to win the point by hitting only smashes into the Singles half of the court where the BL player is (deuce or ad) while the BL can hit lobs back to the entire singles court.

This year, I‘ve been trying to average 1 coaching lesson, 1 hitting session with a friend at same level, 1 hitting session teaching my wife, 2 doubles matches and 4 singles matches every week. On the days I play doubles in the evening. I take a lesson or hit with my wife in the morning.

Thank you for such a detailed response. Enjoyed reading that.

pencilcheck · Sep 13, 2020

Without developing proper response rec players will always get flustered then once they are flustered their opponent will win no matter what shot goes into them. This is clear in the TennisTroll green shirt guy most recent video the supposedly D3 player gotten destroyed mentally so much he just can’t hit like he usually hit. Doesn’t matter the strategy he still lost.

what we can learn from this is that throwing off your opponent playstyle will work if you can do it

GuyClinch · Sep 14, 2020

FWIW I think strategy is most important for winning at your level - and not really the main driver in moving up. I say this because as we see on places like TennisTroll channel some pretty accomplished players use pretty lousy strategy. This is because with rudimentary strategy and the ability to hit a better ball you will win quite often and thus move up.

So guys don't really think about strategy much outside of recovering to the correct position - hitting cross court to minimize recovery some and attacking DTL when the opportunity presents itself. This kind of generic strategy seems enough in singles. Guy uses generic strategy - moves up a level with superior athleticism/ball-striking and this repeats.

This plan falls apart when you play someone around your level who has a better strategy. But it works fine if you are the better all around ball striker/mover/server etc. An additional problem is not really knowing why you are losing. When you play a match it could see mostly that you are making errors and not making poor strategic/tactical decisions. Thus you are unaware of any strategic flaws.

Again you see this all the time if you watch some amateur matches. Some guys go for the lines for no real reason or resort to trick shots without any purpose..

ubercat · Sep 15, 2020

Most experienced players have a A and B game. I ve got a fit junk baller op who also has a good net game. If I just play him like a junk baller he LL net rush me. So my strategy goes keep it deep and then on a short ball alternate hammer to corners or middle with short angled slices.

user92626 · Sep 15, 2020

ubercat said:
Most experienced players have a A and B game. I ve got a fit junk baller op who also has a good net game. If I just play him like a junk baller he LL net rush me. So my strategy goes keep it deep and then on a short ball alternate hammer to corners or middle with short angled slices.

Did you watch the US Open final? Did Thiem and Zverev show different games as the match progress?

I'm leaning toward that the lower one's level is, the more "strategies" like you describe is applicable. Eg. hit to an opponent's total incompetent bh side; or do more slicing bc he cannot handle it. All "trademarks" of newbiews. LOL

r2473 · Sep 15, 2020

socallefty said:
I think that some of the 4.0 adult players with better fitness and technique can progress to 4.5 if they worked on strategy improvements in addition as it would help them to win more matches against good players who were formerly top juniors or college players when they were younger. Some issues to think about and improve are:

- Can you locate both 1st and 2nd serves accurately hopefully with at least a couple of spins (flat and slice for 1st, kick and top-slice for 2nd)? If so, do you change your serve locations and patterns to either setup favorable serve+1 shots or serve more to your opponent’s weaknesses? Do you serve to different locations and spins with new balls vs old balls or on hot days vs cold days? Do you think about these things?
- Do you return from different spots (close, further away, to the middle, wide) depending in your opponent‘s serve strengths and your favorite return+1 patterns? Do you change them as the match progresses and then balls get old? Do you spend much time thinking about adjustments to make on Return stance and patterns to disrupt the server‘s rhythm especially late in a set.
- Do you play with different tactics when you face counterpunchers, junkers/pushers, aggressive baseliners and serve-volleyers? Do you test if the opponent does well against slice, has good vertical up/down movement, can hit well on the run, can hit passes or lobs under pressure etc.
- Do you have good recovery footwork after wide shots, short-ball shots etc and have your ever done a lot of drills to improve this?
- If you play mostly doubles, do you play with the net guy signaling serve location and intentional poaches when your team serves? If the doubles opponents are returning well, are you comfortable playing Australian formation and I-formation using poach/stay signals? Do you serve-and-volley and chip/charge or at least come to the net as soon as you can?

From what I've seen, most players just mess themselves up when they try to change their games too much based on their opponent. They just aren't good enough to actually use any of these strategies without messing themselves up.

Anyway, here are my ideas:

1) If you want to win more often, play a low risk game

2) Find a weakness in your opponents game that you can most easily exploit (without making errors yourself). It may be as simple as "hit soft, high, no pace balls deep". This gives you time to easily recover to cover the court and often times your opponent will try to hit these balls hard. They'll make a lot of errors. And even when they don't, you'll easily be able to defend and just give them another high, no pace deep ball.

3) A lot of times, you can just give your opponent mid-court "put away" balls. In other words, a great strategy is to try to get your opponent to play offense while you play defense. With a little trial / error, you'll figure out how to bait your opponent into over hitting "put away" balls and making errors. Or maybe just getting them into court positions you can exploit.

user92626 · Sep 15, 2020

r2473 said:
From what I've seen, most players just mess themselves up when they try to change their games too much based on their opponent. They just aren't good enough to actually use any of these strategies without messing themselves up.

Anyway, here are my ideas:

1) If you want to win more often, play a low risk game

2) Find a weakness in your opponents game that you can most easily exploit (without making errors yourself). It may be as simple as "hit soft, high, no pace balls deep". This gives you time to easily recover to cover the court and often times your opponent will try to hit these balls hard. They'll make a lot of errors. And even when they don't, you'll easily be able to defend and just give them another high, no pace deep ball.

I played exactly like you said, 1, 2 and consistently got destroyed by my friend with whom I've played for over 5 years.

1) When I hit well inside, he went for the side lines. It's just a matter of time, maybe 3, 4 shots, for me to fall behind. I feel like I'm only a cheap ball machine to him. He told me he just loved to run, hit, not much thinking.

Only time I get upper hand is when I turn aggressive, crank hard most of my shots and more angles. It's kinda like his own game, but it's unsustainable for me given my current fitness.

2) He does have weakness, his bh side, his poorer hitting from stationary position (he's great with running-hitting) but then BH is also my weaker side. He doesn't seem to care for my weak BH. He just crank the ball hard with most shots and seemingly follow good ball selection (no artificial forcing on bh).

r2473 · Sep 15, 2020

user92626 said:
I played exactly like you said, 1, 2 and consistently got destroyed by my friend with whom I've played for over 5 years.

1) When I hit well inside, he went for the side lines. It's just a matter of time, maybe 3, 4 shots, for me to fall behind. I feel like I'm only a cheap ball machine to him. He told me he just loved to run, hit, not much thinking.

Only time I get upper hand is when I turn aggressive, crank hard most of my shots and more angles. It's kinda like his own game, but it's unsustainable for me given my current fitness.

2) He does have weakness, his bh side, his poorer hitting from stationary position (he's great with running-hitting) but then BH is also my weaker side. He doesn't seem to care for my weak BH. He just crank the ball hard with most shots and seemingly follow good ball selection (no artificial forcing on bh).

I'd guess that part of the problem for you is, you don't really want to play pusher style. So when you do, you feel like a cheap, dirty tennis *****. The guys who think this is the be all end all of tennis have their heart in this type of play, so they're good at it.

socallefty · Sep 15, 2020

user92626 said:
Did you watch the US Open final? Did Thiem and Zverev show different games as the match progress?

I'm leaning toward that the lower one's level is, the more "strategies" like you describe is applicable. Eg. hit to an opponent's total incompetent bh side; or do more slicing bc he cannot handle it. All "trademarks" of newbiews. LOL

Pro players have fewer weaknesses and they do subtle strategy changes to beat specific opponents or to play to their preferred point patterns. Guys like Djokovic even hired a sports data analyst (CraigO) to provide him data about his opponent‘s tendencies for a few years. I‘ve heard commentators talk about players buying reports from data companies analyzing their opponent‘s tendencies so that their coaches can come up with a game plan. The Pro game plan will involve things like preferred serve locations, return position changes, best return types to hit, how to get a serve+1 shot to the FH, are FH-FH rallies preferred or BH-BH rallies, how much risk to take on neutral balls etc. If you watch offensive players like Isner, Federer and even Thiem, they may not make too many adjustments during a match - although an example of what Federer does to set up a serve+1 FH is his tendency to serve wide early in games. If you watch a Nadal-Djokovic match like the 2018 Wimbledon semi, you can seen adjustments being made during the match as they both counter the other’s adjustments to set up preferred patterns. Tactical adjustments are important for baseliners in particular at 4.5+ levels where opponents have high shot tolerance.

Zverev came to the net a lot more than usual against Thiem. He also forced a lot of FH-FH rallies in the first two sets and hit aggressive, flatter FHs DTL at the first chance to take control of the point. Thiem did not adjust till late in the second set when he tried to get into more BH-BH rallies where Zverev was more conservative. Thiem sliced his BH more late in the fifth set because he was cramping and could not drive his BH hard repeatedly in long rallies - he also sliced his BH way more than usual in the semi against Med to disrupt Med’s rhythm successfully. When he saw that Thiem was cramping, Zverev should have made Thiem move more and played long rallies - instead he kept coming to the net, shortened points to his detriment, gave Thiem a target and Thiem hit some great passes - this was crucial late in the fifth set. If you don’t spot these kind of adjustments on TV when the pros play, you probably are the type of player who doesn’t notice the adjustments that your opponents make either.

Morch Us · Sep 15, 2020

@r2473 What is your definision of a low risk game?

r2473 said:
play a low risk game

@user92626 What is your definision of a low risk game? The shots you hit, which were well inside, were they tentative pusher strokes?

user92626 said:
I hit well inside

----

It is unsustainable for everyone (not just you.. and no it is not just about fitness). If you think your friend sustained it, he is in a different level than you, and he is not pushing his aggressiveness to the point you think he is. Infact you need more fitness to play defensive style of play than offensive style of play.

user92626 said:
Only time I get upper hand is when I turn aggressive, crank hard most of my shots and more angles. It's kinda like his own game, but it's unsustainable for me given my current fitness.

On a typical day, when you play your own game style with this specific opponent.
What percentage of your shots are "defensive shots" ?
What percentage of your shots are "offensive shots" ?
What percentage of your shots are "neutral shots" ?

socallefty · Sep 15, 2020

r2473 said:
From what I've seen, most players just mess themselves up when they try to change their games too much based on their opponent. They just aren't good enough to actually use any of these strategies without messing themselves up.

Anyway, here are my ideas:

1) If you want to win more often, play a low risk game

2) Find a weakness in your opponents game that you can most easily exploit (without making errors yourself). It may be as simple as "hit soft, high, no pace balls deep". This gives you time to easily recover to cover the court and often times your opponent will try to hit these balls hard. They'll make a lot of errors. And even when they don't, you'll easily be able to defend and just give them another high, no pace deep ball.

3) A lot of times, you can just give your opponent mid-court "put away" balls. In other words, a great strategy is to try to get your opponent to play offense while you play defense. With a little trial / error, you'll figure out how to bait your opponent into over hitting "put away" balls and making errors. Or maybe just getting them into court positions you can exploit.

At what level of play does this work? My OP was about how strategy is important at 4.5+ levels where you are going to play against many ex-college players. If you think hitting easy balls to the middle of the court is the way to beat them, I’m speechless. Pushing works well at low levels where opponents have very bad shot tolerance, make errors on the run and when trying to generate pace - the effectiveness starts decreasing the higher the level. Advanced players have to be forced to make errors and if you want to win a majority of points against a same-level player who has high shot-tolerance and movement, you have to find a way to play preferred point patterns that play to your strengths.

Morch Us · Sep 15, 2020

It is all relative. low level is a relative level to someone. And shot tolerance is also relative. For some hitting 3 aggressive shots IN the court from an easy feed is an achievement, but for some hitting 10 is an achievement. There is always a "shot tolerance" attached to ANY level. And yes pushing works at ALL levels.... but it may not be the "pushing" you define.... pushing relative to that level.

socallefty said:
Pushing works well at low levels where opponents have very bad shot tolerance

Again... just relative.... depends on game style.... and also "adanvaced" is "not that advanced" when you compare ...

socallefty said:
Advanced players have to be forced to make errors

In summary.....

yes.... hitting neutral balls (for the level) to the middle of the court WILL work at 4.5 level.... but you need to have the skill of higher shot tolerance than the opponent... or it fails.

yes... pushing ... low pace balls with high tolerance also works at 4.5 level.... as long as you have the associated skills for it. (yes it is a skill, not everyone can wake up one day and be a 4.5 level pusher).

Morch Us · Sep 15, 2020

The biggest issue is that you WILL and DOES see "pusher" at your level, and the levels below you. But it is hard to see the "pushing" shots at significant levels above you, since you may not consider them to be "pushing" shots.

Which leads the the constant claim you see .... "pushers does not exist beyond level X".

Or

the claim "Above level X you cannot play high shot tolerance game and win".

Or

the claim "Above level X you have to play aggressive game to win"

I bet level X is around 1.0 NTRP level higher than the guy whoever makes the claim.

How much of a difference can you observe between neutral rally shots of "David Ferrer" and "Alexander Zverev"?

r2473 · Sep 15, 2020

socallefty said:
At what level of play does this work? My OP was about how strategy is important at 4.5+ levels where you are going to play against many ex-college players. If you think hitting easy balls to the middle of the court is the way to beat them, I’m speechless. Pushing works well at low levels where opponents have very bad shot tolerance, make errors on the run and when trying to generate pace - the effectiveness starts decreasing the higher the level. Advanced players have to be forced to make errors and if you want to win a majority of points against a same-level player who has high shot-tolerance and movement, you have to find a way to play preferred point patterns that play to your strengths.

I used to hit with a 5.0 who came through the juniors and was in his mid-twenties at the time. He hurt his wrist in his hitting arm so bad, that he had to quit (I think he tore something). Anyway, I watched him play a 4.5 USTA tournament, just pushing in serves to spots and push / slicing everything back. A lot of times, he just hit slow, high, neutral balls deep. Just using his legs. Then he'd come in and put away volleys.

But he knew how to play tennis. He pushed like a 5.0 who was just better than his opponents. But he still just pushed, because he literally couldn't hit groundstrokes.

He won the tournament easily. The 4.5 guys could do nothing. But he didn't win with power. And their power did nothing.

Tennis is funny game.

user92626 · Sep 15, 2020

r2473 said:
I'd guess that part of the problem for you is, you don't really want to play pusher style. So when you do, you feel like a cheap, dirty tennis *****. The guys who think this is the be all end all of tennis have their heart in this type of play, so they're good at it.

You're speaking to the wrong person. I don't believe in "style tennis". I don't think any valid shot is dirty. I'm out there to win.

Like I said I tried pusher style, ie get as many balls back as I could. That was the main focus but all I did was feeding him good balls. It's only a matter of time before I ran out of breath.

Let me ask you all. Do you guys miss alot of shots hitting against a ball machine? I don't. If you don't, why do you expect an average guy would miss?

socallefty · Sep 15, 2020

socallefty said:
Pro players have fewer weaknesses and they do subtle strategy changes to beat specific opponents or to play to their preferred point patterns. Guys like Djokovic even hired a sports data analyst (CraigO) to provide him data about his opponent‘s tendencies for a few years. I‘ve heard commentators talk about players buying reports from data companies analyzing their opponent‘s tendencies so that their coaches can come up with a game plan. The Pro game plan will involve things like preferred serve locations, return position changes, best return types to hit, how to get a serve+1 shot to the FH, are FH-FH rallies preferred or BH-BH rallies, how much risk to take on neutral balls etc. If you watch offensive players like Isner, Federer and even Thiem, they may not make too many adjustments during a match - although an example of what Federer does to set up a serve+1 FH is his tendency to serve wide early in games. If you watch a Nadal-Djokovic match like the 2018 Wimbledon semi, you can seen adjustments being made during the match as they both counter the other’s adjustments to set up preferred patterns. Tactical adjustments are important for baseliners in particular at 4.5+ levels where opponents have high shot tolerance.

Zverev came to the net a lot more than usual against Thiem. He also forced a lot of FH-FH rallies in the first two sets and hit aggressive, flatter FHs DTL at the first chance to take control of the point. Thiem did not adjust till late in the second set when he tried to get into more BH-BH rallies where Zverev was more conservative. Thiem sliced his BH more late in the fifth set because he was cramping and could not drive his BH hard repeatedly in long rallies - he also sliced his BH way more than usual in the semi against Med to disrupt Med’s rhythm successfully. When he saw that Thiem was cramping, Zverev should have made Thiem move more and played long rallies - instead he kept coming to the net, shortened points to his detriment, gave Thiem a target and Thiem hit some great passes - this was crucial late in the fifth set. Rafa came to the net almost seventy times against Med in the 2019USO which was clearly his plan. Rafa also serves bigger to shorten points now that he is older. Novak has been doing that this season also.

If you don’t spot these kind of adjustments on TV when the pros play, you probably are the type of player who doesn’t notice the adjustments that your opponents make either.

r2473 · Sep 15, 2020

Morch Us said:
@r2473 What is your definision of a low risk game?

It's relative to the person who's playing. If you start making lots of UE's, that's probably not a low risk game for you.

socallefty · Sep 15, 2020

r2473 said:
I used to hit with a 5.0 who came through the juniors and was in his mid-twenties at the time. He hurt his wrist in his hitting arm so bad, that he had to quit (I think he tore something). Anyway, I watched him play a 4.5 USTA tournament, just pushing in serves to spots and push / slicing everything back. A lot of times, he just hit slow, high, neutral balls deep. Just using his legs. Then he'd come in and put away volleys.

But he knew how to play tennis. He pushed like a 5.0 who was just better than his opponents. But he still just pushed, because he literally couldn't hit groundstrokes.

He won the tournament easily. The 4.5 guys could do nothing. But he didn't win with power. And their power did nothing.

Tennis is funny game.

Strategy is needed to beat same-level players. Easy to beat someone a level below you doing whatever you want and similarly someone a level above you will beat you with their base game. A 5.0 playing a 4.5 tournament can take a low-risk approach that is based on conservative shots/serves and can win. He may also have been forced to do this due to his injury. If he wanted to win a 5.0 tournament, I bet he would have had to make some adjustments against different players.

user92626 · Sep 15, 2020

Morch Us said:
@r2473 What is your definision of a low risk game?

@user92626 What is your definision of a low risk game? The shots you hit, which were well inside, were they tentative pusher strokes?

----

It is unsustainable for everyone (not just you.. and no it is not just about fitness). If you think your friend sustained it, he is in a different level than you, and he is not pushing his aggressiveness to the point you think he is. Infact you need more fitness to play defensive style of play than offensive style of play.

On a typical day, when you play your own game style with this specific opponent.
What percentage of your shots are "defensive shots" ?
What percentage of your shots are "offensive shots" ?
What percentage of your shots are "neutral shots" ?

My idea of a low risk game is simply hitting most balls back well within my comfort ability. So it's usually be 3 or more feet inside the line or the middle, smooth stroking that's really not penetrating. Basically, avoid errors. Is my definition around right along with everyone else's?

I don't know the percentage of different shots for me. I don't have a way to track it in the heat of a match.

However, my regular goto mode is I try to hit good shots and outpace the other guy plus keep in mind my opponent's weaknesses (bh, low slice if available) but low priority. I believe in grinding until I find an open window to hit a shot that outpaces or wrong foots my opponent. What else can I do?

Morch Us · Sep 15, 2020

Here is the funny part....
You can make 100 balls against the ball machine, and miss the 101th ball, and you may feel good. But if it was a real rally, only the last shot missed really count for the point

(I am not claiming that it is a problem... or it is usual to have 100 ball rallies in matches.... but just wanted to point out that what you missed and how you missed it may actually matter).

user92626 said:
Let me ask you all. Do you guys miss alot of shots hitting against a ball machine?

EP1998 · Sep 15, 2020

socallefty said:
This year, I‘ve been trying to average 1 coaching lesson, 1 hitting session with a friend at same level, 1 hitting session teaching my wife, 2 doubles matches and 4 singles matches every week. On the days I play doubles in the evening. I take a lesson or hit with my wife in the morning.

Four singles matches and two doubles matches in a week is impressive. Do you organize all of this on your own each week?

user92626 · Sep 15, 2020

Morch Us said:
Here is the funny part....
You can make 100 balls against the ball machine, and miss the 101th ball, and you may feel good. But if it was a real rally, only the last shot missed really count for the point

(I am not claiming that it is a problem... or it is usual to have 100 ball rallies in matches.... but just wanted to point out that what you missed and how you missed it may actually matter).

Well, I absolutely don't mind missing the 101th ball. Everybody, including Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Thiem, eventually has to miss a shot against a machine or retire. Or they would be hitting forever. LOL. That's a no brainer.

Nobody needs perfection in tennis. Winners only need higher percentage.

The part that escapes your comprehension is that if most people don't miss a lot of shots against an easy feeding machine -- meaning their valid shot percentage is extremely high which is all that matters, Not absolute perfect like you suggest -- it's strange to advise players to become a machine.

Morch Us · Sep 15, 2020

So maybe you are already playing a low risk game (as per definision of the other poster). The game you described below does not look like "turn aggressive, crank hard most of my shots and more angles" like you explained in one previous post.

So what happens if you don't do the second part... and just keep "grinding" ? I am not saying that will work for you... but just something you should be aware of. If you keep grinding, does your opponent have the skills to finish the point on his favor most of the time.

user92626 said:
I believe in grinding until I find an open window to hit a shot that outpaces or wrong foots my opponent.

user92626 · Sep 15, 2020

Morch Us said:
So maybe you are already playing a low risk game (as per definision of the other poster). The game you described below does not look like "turn aggressive, crank hard most of my shots and more angles" like you explained in one previous post.

So what happens if you don't do the second part... and just keep "grinding" ? I am not saying that will work for you... but you should probably aware of it.

I see. I guess I was influenced by watching too much ATP matches.

So, do you think before the last shot to close the point, Thiem and Zverez were not playing aggressively or trying for angles enough?
I thought they were doing that, consistently, until the last shot which just happens to be the straw that breaks the camel back. That's all.

socallefty · Sep 15, 2020

EP1998 said:
Four singles matches and two doubles matches in a week is impressive. Do you organize all of this on your own each week?

Yes. I have about 10 guys on my singles list and 20 guys on my doubles list. Since I have been the USTA league captain at multiple levels, I know a lot of players. It is a private club with more than a thousand players including many 4.5+ adults. I just finished a 131-day non-stop playing streak where I played about 180 times. Ran into a fence, bruised my hip and ended the streak this weekend - I’m bummed.

Morch Us · Sep 15, 2020

Again you missed the point I made. Everyone has a shot tolerance number. All that matters is whether the opponent can be a good enough ball machine higher than that number. I could be 3 ... it could be 100...

The scoring system does not count how many good shots you made...

user92626 said:
The part that escapes your comprehension is that if most people don't miss a lot of shots against an easy feeding machine -- meaning their valid shot percentage is extremely high which is all that matters, Not absolute perfect like you suggest -- it's strange to advise players to become a machine.

r2473 · Sep 15, 2020

socallefty said:
Strategy is needed to beat same-level players. Easy to beat someone a level below you doing whatever you want and similarly someone a level above you will beat you with their base game. A 5.0 playing a 4.5 tournament can take a low-risk approach that is based on conservative shots/serves and can win. He may also have been forced to do this due to his injury. If he wanted to win a 5.0 tournament, I bet he would have had to make some adjustments against different players.

I guess the idea is, something in your game has to make the other player feel uncomfortable. With the 5.0 pushing against the 4.5's, you could just see that where and how he hit the ball, his court positioning, his anticipation, his defense and his ability to come to net overwhelmed his opponents. And he wasn't even using the "biggest" tools in his toolbox.

If you ever read Tilden's book "Spin of the ball", he talks at length about making your opponent uncomfortable with all sorts of things. He talks about how winning tennis matches is fundamentally about breaking down your opponent mentally. So they get down on themselves. So they play with a negative attitude. They don't think clearly. They basically give up. He said that was his main objective when he played. And he said he could see it and sense it when it happened. And that's when he knew he won. Brad Gilbert brought that philosophy to modern tennis. It's the same idea.

So when you say that pushing against 4.5's doesn't work, what you're saying is, it doesn't make them uncomfortable. But it can. 4.5's make a lot of UE's. They almost always have pretty big weaknesses. Their game is almost always very unbalanced. Your job is to make them beat you with their worst strokes, not their best ones.

EP1998 · Sep 15, 2020

socallefty said:
Yes. I have about 10 guys on my singles list and 20 guys on my doubles list. Since I have been the USTA league captain at multiple levels, I know a lot of players. It is a private club with more than a thousand players including many 4.5+ adults. I just finished a 131-day non-stop playing streak where I played about 180 times. Ran into a fence, bruised my hip and ended the streak this weekend - I’m bummed.

Unfortunate about the hip but hopefully you wont be off the courts too long.

socallefty · Sep 15, 2020

EP1998 said:
Unfortunate about the hip but hopefully you wont be off the courts too long.

Thanks. Rested it for two days and tried playing singles yesterday - but, movement was an issue and we decided to play only crosscourt half-court points after four games. I’m planning to play doubles for the rest of the week (5 days) and then try singles again on Sunday. This is the 3rd time I’ve run into the fence this year and I have to tell myself to be less stupidly competitive.

socallefty · Sep 15, 2020

r2473 said:
I guess the idea is, something in your game has to make the other player feel uncomfortable. With the 5.0 pushing against the 4.5's, you could just see that where and how he hit the ball, his court positioning, his anticipation, his defense and his ability to come to net overwhelmed his opponents. And he wasn't even using the "biggest" tools in his toolbox.

If you ever read Tilden's book "Spin of the ball", he talks at length about making your opponent uncomfortable with all sorts of things. He talks about how winning tennis matches is fundamentally about breaking down your opponent mentally. So they get down on themselves. So they play with a negative attitude. They don't think clearly. They basically give up. He said that was his main objective when he played. And he said he could see it and sense it when it happened. And that's when he knew he won. Brad Gilbert brought that philosophy to modern tennis. It's the same idea.

So when you say that pushing against 4.5's doesn't work, what you're saying is, it doesn't make them uncomfortable. But it can. 4.5's make a lot of UE's. They almost always have pretty big weaknesses. Their game is almost always very unbalanced. Your job is to make them beat you with their worst strokes, not their best ones.

I agree. I often hit and serve to the opponent’s strength (FH) in many cases early to see if they have enough of a weapon to beat me. If they don’t, it is going to be a quick victory as opponents get dejected more easily if they cannot beat you with their strength and have no adjustment they can make after that. On the other hand, if I play a tough player, I am going to try to leverage my strengths against their weaknesses if possible. If someone cannot out-hit me off the court and force errors, I’ll play a more conservative game as it’s the surest way to beat them. But, if someone is a tough player, I have to take more risks, keep looking for holes in their game and they are probably doing the same.

In terms of shot tolerance, I can give you some examples of how it can be different based on the risk level my opponent and I are taking.

- At the start of a cooperative drilling season with my hitting partners, we will do at least two rallies at the beginning where we try to hit 50 baseline shots to each other without missing. Usually, we are hitting slower balls not too close to the sidelines and there might be some mishits that end up as short balls that the other player just pushes back to keep the rally going. Once one player yells out 50, it is OK to try to win the point and we start hitting harder to construct a favorable point pattern. As soon as we start hitting our normal match shots, the point invariably ends within 5-7 shots.
- In another drill, we hit baseline shots only outside the service box and try to keep the rally going as long as possible. Here we struggle to get to 20 shots as invariably there is a mishit or forced short shot that lands in the service box. Probably the average number of shots for this drill is about 15 shots.
- In another drill, one player can hit only crosscourt on each ball and the other player can hit only DTL - so, we are changing the angle on each shot and we are hitting at match pace. The rallies last only about 10-12 shots and invariably it is the guy hitting DTL on each shot who makes an error as he has the more difficult task and also has to run more to recover.

These drills above are all done with old balls (previously used in a match) and start with a hand-feed from the baseline - there is no serving and so it is easier than a match situation. During an actual match against the same opponent, we will play with a new can of balls and points average less than 4-5 shots off first serves and 5-7 shots off second serves with very few rallies going longer than 10 shots. If it is a long 2nd set, we may have longer rallies at the end more often as we are both too tired to hit the usual shots with old balls and might be moonballing at a higher trajectory than normal to have more time to recover. If it gets to a third set, we open a new can and the serve again becomes more of a weapon and the points will shorten again at the start of the set. So, the risk level that my opponent and I decide to take at different points of a match or a drill have a lot to do with point length and shot tolerance.

Nishikori used to practice at my old club with his coach Michael Chang and when they started cooperative hitting, they would hit one ball for 15-20 minutes minimum without a single error. Then, Nishikori would start hitting bigger and the errors would start happening and he would practice specific point patterns. The most fun to watch was when he practiced first serves.

J011yroger · Sep 15, 2020

Strategy is overrated, it's something you talk about when you can't hit the ball well or can't coach people to have better strokes.

Note, I did not say strategy had no value, just that it was overrated.

J

pencilcheck · Sep 15, 2020

@socallefty Which club? That's really cool to see.

Drills are always useful because to me it is a simple demonstration to gauge one's consistency and technique.

To add on the conversation, most of the responses here are all right, but at the same time all wrong depending on the type of opponent.

The core strategy of as long as there is no "weapon", exploit it as much as you can has a catch. The catch depends greatly on how you define "weapon".

If you cannot understand what this weapon is all about, then you will still lose even if the opponent has no perceivable "weapon" even if you follow that rule rigorously.

This led to people like the one above me thinking strategy is overrated because just like in a battle field, deception is everywhere, if you cannot see through those deception you will lose even if you have all the information you think you need.

I would urge people to understand what those deceptions were and see through those lies that your opponent want you to think.

Morch Us · Sep 15, 2020

Are you asking were they playing more pusher style ? I did not see the match, but the average rally length in the fifth set (6.29 shots) says it all.
My teaching expertise stops well before teaching ATP10

user92626 said:
So, do you think before the last shot to close the point, Thiem and Zverez were not playing aggressively or trying for angles enough?

r2473 · Sep 15, 2020

J011yroger said:
Strategy is overrated, it's something you talk about when you can't hit the ball well or can't coach people to have better strokes.

So what you're saying is, it's pretty important, given what we know about rec tennis players and their actual abilities.

user92626 · Sep 15, 2020

Morch Us said:
Again you missed the point I made. Everyone has a shot tolerance number. All that matters is whether the opponent can be a good enough ball machine higher than that number. I could be 3 ... it could be 100...

The scoring system does not count how many good shots you made...

What you're pointing out is complete trivial. Nonsense. Of course a point ends on the last shot for the scoring system to count!!!!!!

What I'm asking you and r2473 is why are you suggesting a playing mode, an easy ball machine feeding mode, where most players have a very high percentage against? It seems stupid to me. It's ok for a ball machine to be like that bc it's a dumb ball machine, but you, a human, acting like a ball machine would suck bc you'd be draining your energy hard. You'd be miserable retrieving all the shots hit back. Oh yeah, ball machines don't retrieve balls.

user92626 · Sep 15, 2020

J011yroger said:
Strategy is overrated, it's something you talk about when you can't hit the ball well or can't coach people to have better strokes.

Note, I did not say strategy had no value, just that it was overrated.

J

I know that long ago. At low levels like 4.0, 4.5 or below, strategy is pointless. It's execution that players need to focus on.

"Strategies" at low levels are like ...hit to that guy's bh. Lobs high bc they can't OH! That kind of sh@#$@$%#s

user92626 · Sep 15, 2020

Morch Us said:
Are you asking were they playing more pusher style ? I did not see the match, but the average rally length in the fifth set (6.29 shots) says it all.
My teaching expertise stops well before teaching ATP10

No, I'm asking what style were they playing before the last ball? My question was in plain language.

Of course we don't play at their intensity and speed, but shouldn't the same concept or philosophy apply ?

I only know that I need to play aggressively as to keep control of the point, protect against my opponent from taking offensive shots. If a ball happens to be a winner or a point ender, so be it. This don't mean that when I receive an offensive ball from opponent, I simply quit and stop playing. I'd try to get it back as best as I can, and then go on offense again.

Can you and r2473 or anyone tell me if there's anything wrong with my strategy or mindset of playing?

r2473 · Sep 15, 2020

user92626 said:
What I'm asking you and r2473 is why are you suggesting a playing mode, an easy ball machine feeding mode, where most players have a very high percentage against?

I'm not?

r2473 said:
I guess the idea is, something in your game has to make the other player feel uncomfortable. With the 5.0 pushing against the 4.5's, you could just see that where and how he hit the ball, his court positioning, his anticipation, his defense and his ability to come to net overwhelmed his opponents. And he wasn't even using the "biggest" tools in his toolbox.

If you ever read Tilden's book "Spin of the ball", he talks at length about making your opponent uncomfortable with all sorts of things. He talks about how winning tennis matches is fundamentally about breaking down your opponent mentally. So they get down on themselves. So they play with a negative attitude. They don't think clearly. They basically give up. He said that was his main objective when he played. And he said he could see it and sense it when it happened. And that's when he knew he won. Brad Gilbert brought that philosophy to modern tennis. It's the same idea.

So when you say that pushing against 4.5's doesn't work, what you're saying is, it doesn't make them uncomfortable. But it can. 4.5's make a lot of UE's. They almost always have pretty big weaknesses. Their game is almost always very unbalanced. Your job is to make them beat you with their worst strokes, not their best ones.

You're probably wondering about this:

r2473 said:
From what I've seen, most players just mess themselves up when they try to change their games too much based on their opponent. They just aren't good enough to actually use any of these strategies without messing themselves up.

Anyway, here are my ideas:

1) If you want to win more often, play a low risk game

2) Find a weakness in your opponents game that you can most easily exploit (without making errors yourself). It may be as simple as "hit soft, high, no pace balls deep". This gives you time to easily recover to cover the court and often times your opponent will try to hit these balls hard. They'll make a lot of errors. And even when they don't, you'll easily be able to defend and just give them another high, no pace deep ball.

3) A lot of times, you can just give your opponent mid-court "put away" balls. In other words, a great strategy is to try to get your opponent to play offense while you play defense. With a little trial / error, you'll figure out how to bait your opponent into over hitting "put away" balls and making errors. Or maybe just getting them into court positions you can exploit.

The idea behind this is, FORCE your opponent to play offense. See if they can do it. Most players can't. Not without making too many UE's. What you are really trying to do here is make the opponent believe that you are just feeding him sitters and that he can easily take the offense and beat you. What you are actually doing is, making him just uncomfortable enough. He doesn't quite get his feet set under him. So he "just misses". Also, you're positioning yourself on court and showing him small windows. You're getting a lot of balls back. You're letting him know he's going to have to hit several good shots to beat your defense. And you're also able to take advantage of his poor court position at times.

Explaining this stuff doesn't quite work. Just remember, you're trying to make your opponent uncomfortable. That's job #1. And how you do it will depend on your game and his.

Strategy Improvements for rec players

G.O.A.T.

Talk Tennis Guru

G.O.A.T.

Talk Tennis Guru

G.O.A.T.

Legend

Talk Tennis Guru

Professional

Professional

G.O.A.T.

Rookie

G.O.A.T.

Rookie

Hall of Fame

Legend

Hall of Fame

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Hall of Fame

G.O.A.T.

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Hall of Fame

Semi-Pro

G.O.A.T.

Hall of Fame

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Hall of Fame

G.O.A.T.

Semi-Pro

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Talk Tennis Guru

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Similar threads