Does this violate wardlaw directionals?

tennisdad65 · Aug 30, 2010

Do these violate wardlaw directionals?

1) In a baseline rally, your opponent hits down the line to you, about 3-6 ft inside the sideline and very parallel to the sideline. Nice deep shot. You are on the run and you try to hit back in the same direction. You are not changing direction, but it seems like the safer shot is cross court. Does this violate wardlaw's?

2) In a baseline rally (both righties), your opponent hits from the baseline at his backhand corner. You are standing in the middle and the ball comes to your forehand. You attempt to hit to his backhand corner with an inside out forehand in the same direction. You are not changing direction, but it seems like the safer shot is cross court to his forehand corner. Does this violate wardlaw's?

LuckyR · Aug 30, 2010

tennisdad65 said:
Do these violate wardlaw directionals?

1) In a baseline rally, your opponent hits down the line to you, about 3-6 ft inside the sideline and very parallel to the sideline. Nice deep shot. You are on the run and you try to hit back in the same direction. You are not changing direction, but it seems like the safer shot is cross court. Does this violate wardlaw's?

2) In a baseline rally (both righties), your opponent hits from the baseline at his backhand corner. You are standing in the middle and the ball comes to your forehand. You attempt to hit to his backhand corner with an inside out forehand in the same direction. You are not changing direction, but it seems like the safer shot is cross court to his forehand corner. Does this violate wardlaw's?

Yes and yes, but so what? The Directionals are for the high percentage shot to set up a putaway two or three shots later. If you want to go for it on that shot, fine, just be aware that if the other guy can get to your shot and hit it with pace, you are at a disadvantage (according to the Directionals).

HunterST · Aug 30, 2010

I'm not really sure what, strictly, wardlaw's directional would say, but I think both of those shots are very makeable and if you feel comfortable hitting them it wouldn't be a bad idea.

In scenario 2 I think wardlaw actually calls for a DTL forehand. The way I learned you keep hitting cross court until you force them to give you a shot that you can "pull" down the line. That is, the direction of your swing allows you to more easily take it dtl.

SweetH2O · Aug 30, 2010

It sounds like both of those scenarios are "inside" shots. It is okay to change direction on inside shots more so than outside shots.

So hitting crosscourt in both scenarios is okay.

LeeD · Aug 30, 2010

Comes down to... if you can hit those shots, by all means go for it.
If you keep missing, maybe try something more conventional.
Not always the best idea to insist on hitting the short court with a high net.
Maybe if you like to do that, try playing tennis barefooted or with ski boots.

NoSkillzAndy · Aug 30, 2010

SweetH2O said:
It sounds like both of those scenarios are "inside" shots. It is okay to change direction on inside shots more so than outside shots.

So hitting crosscourt in both scenarios is okay.

Exactly. The shots in both scenarios are "inside" shots which you're supposed to take crosscourt (high percentage & puts your opponent on the run) but have the option of going inside-out/down-the-line if you want, especially if that side is your dominant groundstroke.

larry10s · Aug 30, 2010

if the ball crosses your body (outside ball)you sent from where it came ie cross court.
if the ball does not cross your body (inside ball) hit cross court.
outside short ball change direction parralel to sideline
forehand weapon deep ball backhand corner inside out forehand
short ball backhand corner inside in forehand.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aiV29i87aiA

larry10s · Aug 30, 2010

tennisdad65 said:
Do these violate wardlaw directionals?

1) In a baseline rally, your opponent hits down the line to you, about 3-6 ft inside the sideline and very parallel to the sideline. Nice deep shot. You are on the run and you try to hit back in the same direction. You are not changing direction, but it seems like the safer shot is cross court. Does this violate wardlaw's?

2) In a baseline rally (both righties), your opponent hits from the baseline at his backhand corner. You are standing in the middle and the ball comes to your forehand. You attempt to hit to his backhand corner with an inside out forehand in the same direction. You are not changing direction, but it seems like the safer shot is cross court to his forehand corner. Does this violate wardlaw's?

1) hitting cross cout uses the directionals in this scenario. plus gives you less distance to get to your optimum recovery position

2)technically if its deep inside out forehand is consistent with the directionals

tennisdad65 · Aug 30, 2010

thanks guys.

I have just started trying to follow wardlaws, for the milliseconds that I am at the baseline.

J011yroger · Aug 31, 2010

tennisdad65 said:
thanks guys.

I have just started trying to follow wardlaws, for the milliseconds that I am at the baseline.

Wardlaw doesn't strike me as something you would want to follow much if you are allways looking to come in.

If you are looking to attack at all times, and not just off clearly short balls, why care about instructions for high percentage baseline play?

J

larry10s · Aug 31, 2010

J011yroger said:
Wardlaw doesn't strike me as something you would want to follow much if you are allways looking to come in.

If you are looking to attack at all times, and not just off clearly short balls, why care about instructions for high percentage baseline play?

J

roddick seems to use wardlows directionals for his attacking game. he likes to come in cross court.LOL:shock:

5263 · Aug 31, 2010

LuckyR said:
Yes and yes, but so what? The Directionals are for the high percentage shot to set up a putaway two or three shots later. If you want to go for it on that shot, fine, just be aware that if the other guy can get to your shot and hit it with pace, you are at a disadvantage (according to the Directionals).

School me cause you have me feeling dumb here. I know you are up on this stuff, but I thought this was No and NO.

In both cases he is asking about hitting back where the ball comes from, which I thought was fine with the directionals. Each one is an inside ball, which also opens his options to hit pretty much as he chooses, right?

So wouldn't the answer for each be No, they do not Violate the directionals?

larry10s · Aug 31, 2010

5263 said:
School me cause you have me feeling dumb here. I know you are up on this stuff, but I thought this was No and NO.

In both cases he is asking about hitting back where the ball comes from, which I thought was fine with the directionals. Each one is an inside ball, which also opens his options to hit pretty much as he chooses, right?

So wouldn't the answer for each be No, they do not Violate the directionals?

the dierctionals advocate inside balls are hit crosscourt
http://hoskinsjohn.bizland.com/direc/

5263 · Aug 31, 2010

larry10s said:
the dierctionals advocate inside balls are hit crosscourt
http://hoskinsjohn.bizland.com/direc/

I must be losing my mind here....

A/. Guide One - The most natural and high percentage shot is to hit the ball back cross court and there is no change of direction of the ball, therefore the ball leaves the racquet strings at a right angle and thus fewer errors are made and your opponent has less opportunity to attack you. See figures 1 & 2 for no change of direction on forehands and backhands.

B/. Guide Two - It is more productive to change direction from an inside ground stroke and hit to the open court. By using inside shots to change direction give you the advantage on the offensive. Players should step into the court to take an inside ball on the rise.

In each of the examples the OP gave, he is asking to hit back where it came from, which is consistent A/ above.

Don't you always have the option to hit back where it came from?

Does not B/ differ from what you are saying, when it says inside shots are where you can change directions (or choose direction of your choice to open court)?

larry10s · Aug 31, 2010

5263 said:
I must be losing my mind here....

A/. Guide One - The most natural and high percentage shot is to hit the ball back cross court and there is no change of direction of the ball, therefore the ball leaves the racquet strings at a right angle and thus fewer errors are made and your opponent has less opportunity to attack you. See figures 1 & 2 for no change of direction on forehands and backhands.

B/. Guide Two - It is more productive to change direction from an inside ground stroke and hit to the open court. By using inside shots to change direction give you the advantage on the offensive. Players should step into the court to take an inside ball on the rise.

In each of the examples the OP gave, he is asking to hit back where it came from, which is consistent A/ above.

Don't you always have the option to hit back where it came from?

Does not B/ differ from what you are saying, when it says inside shots are where you can change directions (or choose direction of your choice to open court)?

inside balls are often dtl shots or minimal angle at you and they dont cross your body so you are taking a downt the line or ball travelling parrallel (or not much angle)to the sideline and changing its direction cross court.

will finish this ina few minutes gotta go

larry10s · Aug 31, 2010

a cross court ball is coming across your body (outsideball) on an angle so when you send it back cross court you are not changing the direction of the ball.
im not sure if technically with wardlow you can extrapolate that you can always hit the ball back from where it came ie not change direction regardless of whether its an inside or outside ball.
even tho not changing direction of the ball is always a higher percentage shot.
i have wardlows book and will look this up and report in am.

5263 · Aug 31, 2010

larry10s said:
a cross court ball is coming across your body (outsideball) on an angle so when you send it back cross court you are not changing the direction of the ball.
im not sure if technically with wardlow you can extrapolate that you can always hit the ball back from where it came ie not change direction regardless of whether its an inside or outside ball.
even tho not changing direction of the ball is always a higher percentage shot.
i have wardlows book and will look this up and report in am.

I guess it is a little in how you read it. I went back and read that section in Coaching Tennis by Kriese.

It states that the question is, "change directions or not"?

It says not to on outside balls except where you get a short sitter etc..., but
you will often change directions on inside balls to hit to open court, but.....

It also talks of how the inside out Fh is often hit back where it came from as an example of the choices for the inside ball,
so clearly no direction is required on inside balls.
The ladies often hit inside out Bhs on inside shots with no change of direction as well.
My reading of this says inside balls give you the choice, whereas outside balls dictate that the balls not change directions except with the exceptions like short balls.

I can understand where this can be misunderstood, but am pretty sure it was not intended that you HAD to change directions on inside balls and have discussed this with Ed Krass as well.

larry10s · Aug 31, 2010

i need to read it again myself. in one of the links above (not the book) it seemed the inside out shot was a scenario unto itself. the link mentioned for a deep ball that you have run around to make it an inside ball go back cross court(no change of direction) as a better play and take the shorter one inside in.(change direction)

larry10s · Aug 31, 2010

i agree taking an inside ball and not changing direction is a high percentage play and often will "wrong foot" the opponent trying to recover .ie they hit down the line and instaed of going crosscourt to the open court you go back up the line behind them

chico9166 · Aug 31, 2010

tennisdad65 said:
Do these violate wardlaw directionals?

1) In a baseline rally, your opponent hits down the line to you, about 3-6 ft inside the sideline and very parallel to the sideline. Nice deep shot. You are on the run and you try to hit back in the same direction. You are not changing direction, but it seems like the safer shot is cross court. Does this violate wardlaw's?

2) In a baseline rally (both righties), your opponent hits from the baseline at his backhand corner. You are standing in the middle and the ball comes to your forehand. You attempt to hit to his backhand corner with an inside out forehand in the same direction. You are not changing direction, but it seems like the safer shot is cross court to his forehand corner. Does this violate wardlaw's?

Gotta run, but in the first situation, your opponent has violated the directionals, if the ball he chose was anything but attackable.

5263 · Aug 31, 2010

chico9166 said:
Gotta run, but in the first situation, your opponent has violated the directionals, if the ball he chose was anything but attackable.

How can you say the opp has violated the directionals? There is not enough info.
They could have been facing a shorter ball and followed the 90 degr Wardlaw directional. I suppose you figure that this short ball would be considered attackable, which is reasonable I guess, but it is important to remember that all shorter balls are not attackable, but the 90 degree rule would still apply IMO.

chico9166 · Aug 31, 2010

5263 said:
How can you say the opp has violated the directionals? There is not enough info.
They could have been facing a shorter ball and followed the 90 degr Wardlaw directional. I suppose you figure that this short ball would be considered attackable, which is reasonable I guess, but it is important to remember that all shorter balls are not attackable, but the 90 degree rule would still apply IMO.

Your right probably assuming too much. But it would seem that if the ball hit to you was running parallel to the sideline, one could assume he played the the shot from the same side. (down the line/no angle). And because you have to move to this ball hit down the line, it would seem that the ball you sent him was crosscourt. So if the ball was not attackable, he violated basic directionals. No?

5263 · Aug 31, 2010

chico9166 said:
Your right probably assuming too much. But it would seem that if the ball hit to you was running parallel to the sideline, one could assume he played the the shot from the same side. (down the line/no angle). And because you have to move to this ball hit down the line, it would seem that the ball you sent him was crosscourt. So if the ball was not attackable, he violated basic directionals. No?

I think you are basicly correct, but I think that it is important to note that all short balls are not attackable, but any short ball can use the Wardlaw 90 degr rule and therefore not violate.
I think the idea that any short ball is attackable tends to get many less experienced players into unnecessary UEs.

But in general I'd have to go with what you are saying.

Limpinhitter · Aug 31, 2010

tennisdad65 said:
Do these violate wardlaw directionals?

1) In a baseline rally, your opponent hits down the line to you, about 3-6 ft inside the sideline and very parallel to the sideline. Nice deep shot. You are on the run and you try to hit back in the same direction. You are not changing direction, but it seems like the safer shot is cross court. Does this violate wardlaw's?

2) In a baseline rally (both righties), your opponent hits from the baseline at his backhand corner. You are standing in the middle and the ball comes to your forehand. You attempt to hit to his backhand corner with an inside out forehand in the same direction. You are not changing direction, but it seems like the safer shot is cross court to his forehand corner. Does this violate wardlaw's?

The two issues are directionals and court positioning.

As for directionals, in my experience, they are most important on hard hit shots that tend to amplify the direction they ricochet off of the racquet face. Moonballs, short shots, angles, are not as affected by the ricochet, so you're not taking much risk by going against the directional rule.

As for down the line hypo, with few exceptions, hitting down the line when both players are in the backcourt is a tactical error. It's a lower percentage shot, and it leaves the down the line hitter's cross court wide open. So, if your opponent hits a DTL groundie to you, why would you go anywhere else but cross court. It's wide open, it's the high percentage shot, your opponent will be on the run, there's a good chance it will draw a weak response. If, after running it down, he hits down the line again, he's in trouble. If he manages to pull it cross court, you're still in good position.

As for your inside out forehand hypo, I don't think it goes against directionals to hit a crosscourt backhand with an inside out forehand, but why do that? I Personally wouldn't run around my backhand to hit an inside out forehand on an opponent's cross court backhand. It puts me too far out of position. Nor does it make tactical sense. Why run around your backhand, just to hit an inside out crosscourt forehand. Wouldn't it be a lot easier to just hit a crosscourt backhand? However, if the opponent's crosscourt backhand landed short ie: near the middle of the court, I might run around my backhand to hit a crosscourt forehand winner. In that case, I don't have to worry about being out of position, the point is over. Further, although it would go against the directional, if I'm hitting from the middle cross court, I'm talking about a sitter than lands short, and I have much more margin for error than say trying to redirect an incoming hard deep crosscourt, down the line.

larry10s · Aug 31, 2010

Limpinhitter said:
The two issues are directionals and court positioning.

As for directionals, in my experience, they are most important on hard hit shots that tend to amplify the direction they ricochet off of the racquet face. Moonballs, short shots, angles, are not as affected by the ricochet, so you're not taking much risk by going against the directional rule.

As for down the line hypo, with few exceptions, hitting down the line when both players are in the backcourt is a tactical error. It's a lower percentage shot, and it leaves the down the line hitter's cross court wide open. So, if your opponent hits a DTL groundie to you, why would you go anywhere else but cross court. It's wide open, it's the high percentage shot, your opponent will be on the run, there's a good chance it will draw a weak response. If, after running it down, he hits down the line again, he's in trouble. If he manages to pull it cross court, you're still in good position.

As for your inside out forehand hypo, I don't think it goes against directionals to hit a crosscourt backhand with an inside out forehand, but why do that? I Personally wouldn't run around my backhand to hit an inside out forehand on an opponent's cross court backhand. It puts me too far out of position. Nor does it make tactical sense. Why run around your backhand, just to hit an inside out crosscourt forehand. Wouldn't it be a lot easier to just hit a crosscourt backhand? However, if the opponent's crosscourt backhand landed short ie: near the middle of the court, I might run around my backhand to hit a crosscourt forehand winner. In that case, I don't have to worry about being out of position, the point is over. Further, although it would go against the directional, if I'm hitting from the middle cross court, I'm talking about a sitter than lands short, and I have much more margin for error than say trying to redirect an incoming hard deep crosscourt, down the line.

this is anl answer to some of your comments above
you see the pros run around thier backhand to hit an inside out forehand .why??
to me the answer is they are hitting their more powerful and accurate stroke (fh vs bh) to your "weaker" stroke your bh. like a lefty would do.
when they have the right ball they go inside in for the forcing/winner shot.

if a player beleives he has the advantage with one diagonal rally vs another ie duece court to deuce court vs ad to ad you see the pros use the 90 degree rule and change direction to change the diagonal and also i assume to get the opponent moving.

chico9166 · Aug 31, 2010

5263 said:
I think you are basicly correct, but I think that it is important to note that all short balls are not attackable, but any short ball can use the Wardlaw 90 degr rule and therefore not violate.

I think the idea that any short ball is attackable tends to get many less experienced players into unnecessary UEs.

Click to expand...

But in general I'd have to go with what you are saying.

Spoken for truth. And this decision requires a keen awareness of what constitutes an attackable ball based on incoming ball characteristics, opponents court position, and one's own skill set. Something many fail miserably at.

In the scenerio above though, if I get to the ball with enough time (didn't hurt me enough), to run him outside the court(crosscourt reply) or wrong foot him (behind him, down the line), i.e.options. It basically means one of two things. The shot he played down the line, was not attackable enough to hurt me, and thus warrant changing the direction. Or two, poor execution. Essentially, he's opened up the court. Which violates one of the basic tenants of the directionals.

prattle128 · Aug 31, 2010

larry10s said:
roddick seems to use wardlows directionals for his attacking game. he likes to come in cross court.LOL:shock:

made me laugh lol

salsainglesa · Aug 31, 2010

both case shots are my favorites, because you retunr the ball from where its coming, so it isnot actually a violation of the laws, you are still hiting a high percentage shot, and if your opponent is hurrying to the other side you will force them big time...
this shot is specially useful when the opponent comes t the net, wth a down te line shot, that is parallel to the sideline, and its close to it, by about a foot, since he has to cover the cross court passing shot, his momentum is away, se he has to make a bigger effort to reach that shot... one word of advice, if his approach shot is going away from the court by all means your best shot is the low cross court shot, you dont have to hit a great shot just low and you will be making an inside shot. first priority is to make him pop the ball up.

Does this violate wardlaw directionals?

Hall of Fame

Legend

Hall of Fame

Rookie

Bionic Poster

Rookie

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Talk Tennis Guru

Hall of Fame

G.O.A.T.

Hall of Fame

G.O.A.T.

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

G.O.A.T.

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

chico9166

Guest

G.O.A.T.

chico9166

Guest

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Hall of Fame

chico9166

Guest

Semi-Pro

Semi-Pro

Similar threads