Golden Retriever
Hall of Fame
If you get a sitter and the opponent is at a neutral position, meaning that there is no opening for you to hit into, is DTL the best option?
If you get a sitter and the opponent is at a neutral position, meaning that there is no opening for you to hit into, is DTL the best option?
On approach shots, I tend to hit to my opponents weakness, 90% of the time is the BH. Today, I approached with my BH flat to the middle of the court and got 3-4 lobs and 2-3 volleys.
As long as you can anticipate what the next ball is going to be, you can't really make a mistake, perhaps poor tactical execution. It's all part of learning the tennis. Don't get mad or down on yourself, continue to do what feels right to develop your game.
Your question is sort of generic, there is no rule of thumb... every opponent is different. If you can rip a DTL forehand, then yes, do so. If you can create a wide cross court angle, then do.
Best thing is for you to figure out what you do best, and what your opponent does worst.
At lower levels, hitting approach shots to your opponent's weakness may be alright, but at higher levels players tend to have solid forehands and backhands and thus the best place to hit an approach shot is down the line since it cuts off the angles.
To the OP,
It depends. If your hitting an approach shot or a put away shot, yes, dtl is the best option. If your going to hit it cross then hit it deep with good pace, but try to stay in a neutral position.
Yeah... I've played high level tennis and every player has a weakness... most I've played it is the BH... that is what I said.
You can't really say DTL is the best option, what if he's playing a lefty and hits a ball into the opponents strength. Sometimes, maybe... again, there is no definitive answer to that. My best advice is to hit your strength to your opponents weakness... in the point you are playing.
strength or weakness. when yuo play a high level. there WEAKNESS can still be able to hit winners easily. what hes trying to get through your head is, the person is probably gonna get to EITHER ball you hit. so whats better for you. you hit cross court, he cranks one by you bc chances are the WHOLE court is open. or you hit it DTL and they have to come up with an imposible shot to hit a passing shot, or hit it right back to you for an easy volley.
On approach shots, I tend to hit to my opponents weakness, 90% of the time is the BH. Today, I approached with my BH flat to the middle of the court and got 3-4 lobs and 2-3 volleys.
As long as you can anticipate what the next ball is going to be, you can't really make a mistake, perhaps poor tactical execution. It's all part of learning the tennis. Don't get mad or down on yourself, continue to do what feels right to develop your game.
Your question is sort of generic, there is no rule of thumb... every opponent is different. If you can rip a DTL forehand, then yes, do so. If you can create a wide cross court angle, then do.
Best thing is for you to figure out what you do best, and what your opponent does worst.
Bud, after 4,200 odd posts, are you sure?
Do you want to qualify that statement? Like when you decide to STAY BACK, then go crosscourt the majority of the time?
Have you guys see how Roddick approach the net? Just do the opposite.
Sorry Bud, I'm not making myself clear....
SITTER... you move into position, put the ball away where you want
Basic tenet for approach shot..... go low and deep down the line, to cover than possible angles of his passing shots. When you approach crosscourt, you expose more open court for his passing shot, since you are now moving diagonally across the court, rather than moving almost straight towards the ball.
Your choice of course. Key is depth. Secondary is pace and spin.
Have you guys see how Roddick approach the net? Just do the opposite.
But picking Roddick as an approach shot example is just not fair. He's a bad net player, but worse trying to get there!
Why not pick Courier or Borg for an equally bad example? Those guys all hit the snot out of the "approach" shot and really want it to be a winner, they don't want it to set up the next volley.
Roddick, crosscourt approach....bad, dumb, not smart, losing strategy....
With Borg's heavy deep topspins, he often solicited short weak returns. He'd step in and pound a topspin shot to the open court, and actually volley the weak return pretty well. He'd go either cross or DTL.
Connors would hit deep sidespin, mostly down the line, move in and volley well even with his two handed backhand volley.
Best volleyers for his time was Nastase. He'd often, during the middle of a baseline rally, just slap a short backspin ball up the middle, approach to the service line, read the direction of the return, get there ahead of time, and volley away a winner.
After a few years of heavier alcohol, it worked less often and with less success, of course. And of course, he was an aberation player.
WRONG !!
If you read it, it must not be true.
Nastase played early '70's, got alcoholic by the late '70's. McEBoy was still in junior high when Nastase was #1. Whole different generation.
Nastase had great volleys. Sometimes, he'd swing tru with topspin on his volleys, backhand or forehand. He was known for his volleying. And he had a great first serve. Before the AA anyways:evil:
I watched Nastase demolish Tanner, Stockton, and Smith in 3 rounds. Just mesmerized them with nothing approaches followed by clean angled putaway volleys. Bad for me, I strung the Wilson team rackets except for Smiths.
I think most of us oldtimers still revere Nastase's knack for putaway volleys from untenable positions.
Maybe by '79, too much alcohol got to him, and partying of course. By then, he was easily 5 years past his top years.
Perhaps Wip wasn't invented back then, when he played tennis WELL. Remember, he played years and years as an alcoholic, too drunk and one cigarette in his left hand, partying till 4 the previous nights, and lived on his notoriety established in the early '70's. His career didn't last as long as others, not successful winning tennis anyways. He got the girls, he gots the flash, he's kinda like the pre Safin!
How can you believe what you read? Try the history of WW11 from France's perspective, or Germany's, or Austrias. Totally different from what we learned in Americanhistory.
OK, too old for you?
Read the history of the VietnamConflict from US and then from Vietnamese perspectives.