Practice for Smarter Targets

Playnice · Feb 13, 2012

Interesting concept here.

I don't think the point is counting how many balls are in each given area - it is obvious from a cursory glance that balls are clustered in certain parts of the court - no need to count the balls in the triangles IMO...It would be interesting to compare diagrams of one player over several matches, and from one player to the next to see unique or mutual patterns of play.

I disagree that nobody can hit topspin like Nadal - not perhaps with his power and expertise, but even rec players can use heavy topspin to great advantage and that's being taught by some of us, with specific techniques and purpose.

I agree it is also interesting how few balls are right at or on the baseline. For those who believe that a high percentage of shots land deep when watching a match live or on TV they must be focusing more on where the player is standing and how far back from the bounce the contact point is, not where the ball actually touches the court (as this charting suggests), but the speed of the ball is so great that it's difficult to see that.

How would you suggest incorporating it into coaching at different levels? Tape, cones, line markers (as those used for quickstart?) Would you go for percentages (ie: practice 10 shots per area until you get a consistent percentage level)?

I would also like to see the opposite perspective - where the ball lands and what the targets look like from the hitter's POV.

My first reaction is to keep it simple, perhaps with larger triangles at first that could be reduced in size as the player reaches a certain percentage of consistency, on a gradient. I will try it out myself.

Good work, 5263.

Playnice · Feb 13, 2012

Interesting how some posters just come on and start arguing rather than going out on the court and working with the concept, then coming back and discussing results and findings...Opinions hold less significance than results, IMHO (LOL)

5263 · Feb 13, 2012

Playnice said:
Interesting concept here.

My first reaction is to keep it simple, perhaps with larger triangles at first that could be reduced in size as the player reaches a certain percentage of consistency, on a gradient. I will try it out myself.

Good work, 5263.

I get your point about bigger targets and that may be best for some ages and abilities.
On the other hand, the purpose of Smart Targets is to train to focus on a smaller area with your intent, but train our expectations to include a good result that is close enough to the target.
I think larger/expanded targets could be great for beginners and kids.

5263 · Feb 13, 2012

Playnice said:
Interesting concept here.

How would you suggest incorporating it into coaching at different levels? Tape, cones, line markers (as those used for quickstart?) Would you go for percentages (ie: practice 10 shots per area until you get a consistent percentage level)?

Good work, 5263.

Thanks, I like using cones and some type of lines. I can use rope or tape for movable lines on the court. Cones stick up and can use color codes as well.

I like to feed to parts of the court and have them hit to the targets from the various areas using their TS, Slices, and volleys. I also have the set up the cones to make sure they a familiar with the areas.

bhupaes · Feb 13, 2012

Great discussion, in this and other threads, which I have been silently following - thanks all.

I played a friendly set with a 4.5 USTA player and tried playing to smart targets. I lost 6-4. But this exposed some major weaknesses in my game that my opponent took advantage of, and pointed out areas where I need to do some work.

First of all, even though I landed my shots approximately right, I sent the balls straight into my opponent's power zone (he's 6'3"), and he was hitting them back DTL. The tactic was right, but I needed to hit with more zip, and I think that will come with practice - I was definitely being too mindful of the target and too cautious with my stroke as a result.

The second problem was my movement... I think I spent so much time looking at my handiwork that I didn't recover in time to respond to the DTL shots well, and couldn't take advantage of the open court.

The lesson here for me is that good technique, including movement and recovery, is essential for implementing the smart targets tactic well. We take this for granted in pros, and almost never notice how quickly they recover to a good position - of course, it takes a lot of effort to do this like clockwork after every shot!

A third problem was that the court was very fast, and the ball kept lower than usual - I like higher bouncing courts where I can get more power and spin. This was taking some zip out of my shots, I am sure. And my opponent clearly realized this, and he was slicing many of his shots really low, making it hard for me to change direction even on inside balls. Perhaps I should have hit the difficult ones back to where they came from... oh well, live and learn, I suppose.

Anyway, I am quite excited since I have some new goals now... it's great to have something new to work on.

rosewall4ever · Feb 13, 2012

BU-Tennis said:
Rosewall I made a new image with your different target zones for attack and counter-attack. I also then highlighted the area in Green which is the zone which is shared by both attack and counter attack and highlighted the Smart Targets in Yellow.

The zones you speak of are the traditional type of thought which 5263 says are outdated, and not supported by actual play results. However, this is not meant to be accusery, since I thought the same as you before this thread started lol!

The biggest thing to take away from this diagram is to see that the shared zone is a triagnle, very similar in shape to the Smarter Targets. However, the big problem is that the zone leaves no margin for error. We are assuming you aim for a specific point within that one, so if you pick the line you can't miss that spot long at all without losing the point.

the Smart Zones provide an answer to this problem by providing a margin of error. If you aim for the deepest part of the zone then even if you miss it long by 3 feet, you're still one foot within the line!! (and Aim is improper when talking about tennis but no other word i can think of really captures the idea of trying to hit to a specific point...than aim?)

Sweet. You can see the similarities.Its horses for courses i guess. i also understand your main point for the margin for error, though i not sure whether its too rigid in a dynamic matchplay scenario. For myself the overlapping zones that you pointed depend on the court position of yourself relative to the incoming ball and position of the op.so if you have to move across then it would be incoming attacking ball.

i prob forgot to mention that the the two zones of attack and counter are reactionary to the incoming ball from the op. so the attack zone is an attacking ball coming to you and so a counter would be appropriate. Note they are only guidelines

it follows from the directionals but simply with zones so i know what to truly react at an instant. Given how the balls fly these days you don't have time to think whether a 'variable' depth is suitable for a certain type of play

i 'm in the belief in the axiom you can only deal with what you've been dealt with so what you do is always response to what the op has given you.

The dimension of space is accounted for in this thread but time isn't so much. A holistic scheme is the holy grail i guess, but that mystery is the reason for why the game is so fun

5263 · Feb 13, 2012

rosewall4ever said:
Sweet. You can see the similarities.Its horses for courses i guess. i also understand your main point for the margin for error, though i not sure whether its too rigid in a dynamic matchplay scenario.

This system is not rigid at all and has acknowledged early on that there are exceptions for any rules, including these. The targets are an there for a default on where to direct any ball where you don't have a better idea; like for example a drop shot or trying to jam a return right back at the server.

Maybe it would be more helpful for you to give a couple of examples of when hitting to one of your targets would be routinely better than to the smart targets and explain why?
I'd be interested in what you have, especially considering the triangles are within your targets, right?
thanks for your insights,

5263 · Feb 13, 2012

bhupaes said:
Great discussion, in this and other threads, which I have been silently following - thanks all.

I played a friendly set with a 4.5 USTA player and tried playing to smart targets. I lost 6-4. But this exposed some major weaknesses in my game that my opponent took advantage of, and pointed out areas where I need to do some work.

Anyway, I am quite excited since I have some new goals now... it's great to have something new to work on.

I know you are a pretty good player, but 6-4 to a solid 4.5 is not a bad score for you in that set is it?

Glad it exposed some areas for you to work on and that is definitely part of the plan here. Also remember that the margin of error on these targets is to help you to let loose the power and spin, so don't get carried away with hitting the targets. Tagging a ball well and flying the long cone target by inches is not a bad thing!

bhupaes · Feb 13, 2012

5263 said:
I know you are a pretty good player, but 6-4 to a solid 4.5 is not a bad score for you in that set is it?

Definitely not bad at all, 5263! I can hit serves/ground strokes better than him, but his movement is superior, and he has excellent volleying abilities. We push each other quite a bit in our efforts to get better.

Glad it exposed some areas for you to work on and that is definitely part of the plan here. Also remember that the margin of error on these targets is to help you to let loose the power and spin, so don't get carried away with hitting the targets. Tagging a ball well and flying the long cone target by inches is not a bad thing!

Very good point. I will remember this next time, thanks.

5263 · Feb 14, 2012

jmnk said:
one more, so it does not look like we are picking on Djokovic. here are Federer's shots.

Here is another diagram about shot placement that also includes the clean winners in red.
Notice how this also is evidence (not proof) against the assumption that a ball landing closer to the BL would be a better shot. Notice only 2 winners near the BL, but several much shorter. More evidence would be there if 3-4+ misses were shown going long that would off set the risk incurred to elicit those 2 winners, leaving us with a net winner for that error in the neg zone.

maybe BU or jmnk can draw in the smart target triangles on this one as well,
along with the 7ft square avoid zone centered on the center T?
I think we can see how most of the shots not landing in the targets, likely have
been hit on the shot lines created bythe triangles, some shots just longer and
some just short of the targets.
thanks

rosewall4ever · Feb 14, 2012

5263 said:
This system is not rigid at all and has acknowledged early on that there are exceptions for any rules, including these. The targets are an there for a default on where to direct any ball where you don't have a better idea; like for example a drop shot or trying to jam a return right back at the server.

Maybe it would be more helpful for you to give a couple of examples of when hitting to one of your targets would be routinely better than to the smart targets and explain why?
I'd be interested in what you have, especially considering the triangles are within your targets, right?
thanks for your insights,

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

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

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

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

5263 · Feb 14, 2012

rosewall4ever said:
Psychologically if it was me i would like to feel that i'm hitting into a zone rather than aiming for one but hitting it elsewhere.

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

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

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

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

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

BU-Tennis · Feb 14, 2012

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

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

5263 · Feb 14, 2012

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

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

jmnk said:
here are Federer's shots.

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

5263 · Feb 16, 2012

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

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

5263 · Feb 16, 2012

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

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

5263 · Feb 17, 2012

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5mLlIwmukh4&feature=related

Same shot lines for saves in 2011 as well.

5263 · Feb 19, 2012

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

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

BU-Tennis · Feb 19, 2012

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

5263 · Feb 20, 2012

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

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

5263 · Feb 24, 2012

5263 said:
What do you mean by middle? Do you mean middle deep, because I can agree that is one of the best times to go different than the Smart Targets. When on defense, floating one back deep near center can buy you a chance to get back in the point.
If by middle you mean near the center T, I would be inclined to disagree.
The center T gives them a choice of hitting with their best side to their
favorite target, so I think leaving weak balls near the center T is bad.
That's the area I'm wanting you to add a box around as an avoid area for
singles play. I'm hoping you will be able to add that box to the diagram above
from Fed, along with adding the smart targets to that one too.
Think you will get a chance?

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

gindyo · Feb 24, 2012

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

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

5263 · Feb 24, 2012

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

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

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

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

gindyo · Feb 24, 2012

5263 said:
You will be glad to know I didn't. I've been developing the Smart Targets over the last several years using a customized charting I developed along with work with them for several Jr and college players.
In fact, these diagrams were mainly just used as a random background (provided by some talented posters) on which to place the targets. It just worked out nicely that they are evidence (not proof) in favor of how the targets can be effective at even the highest levels of the game where folks seem to think all players can and do routinely hit within inches of the lines/corners.
These diagrams show how many more balls do not land quite so near the BL and even often off the line a bit for the dtl.

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

5263 · Feb 24, 2012

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

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

gindyo · Feb 24, 2012

5263 said:
BU, I was hoping to get your explanation on part about middle along with a chance to add the boxes on the Fed diagram...

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

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

BU-Tennis · Feb 24, 2012

5263 said:
BU, I was hoping to get your explanation on part about middle along with a chance to add the boxes on the Fed diagram...

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

DavaiMarat · Feb 24, 2012

Dropping the hands on the 2HBH

whoops posted in the wrong place sorry.

5263 · Feb 24, 2012

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

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

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

I will look again as I said though, thanks.

5263 · Feb 24, 2012

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

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

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

5263 · Feb 24, 2012

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

I looked at these again
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0_hzRy9mTA
and it seems to me anything weak near the center T gets
hammered pretty well and control of the points is taken.
There are quite a few well struck balls near the center T
that remain more neutral imo.

gindyo · Feb 24, 2012

5263 said:
so once I get the pic set up, how do I import to here.
It won't cut and paste but
instead appears to need an internet site link??
thanks

Create an account on a site like http://photobucket.com/ upload the pic there and then just copy and paste the link in the popup that "Insert Image" icon opens.

You could actually use any account that you already have (Facebook, Google, etc.) where you can upload images. Upload the image and grab the url from your browser address bar.

Hope this helps

Edit: Or you could use BU-tennis's secret http://tinypic.com

you dont even need an account there

5263 · Feb 27, 2012

gindyo said:
Create an account on a site like http://photobucket.com/ upload the pic there and then just copy and paste the link in the popup that "Insert Image" icon opens.

You could actually use any account that you already have (Facebook, Google, etc.) where you can upload images. Upload the image and grab the url from your browser address bar.

Hope this helps

Edit: Or you could use BU-tennis's secret http://tinypic.com you dont even need an account there

No account even required there, eh?
Thanks for the tips!

spreed · Feb 29, 2012

@ 5263

Here is my thoughts and experiences:

I worked with all of the three cones at a time at one court and made every student hit like 20 balls towards each cone. They adjusted smoothly and made only few mistakes and placed the ball better than normal.

On the other court were the players played alone I made the court about 3 feet shorter from baseline and sidelines towards the middle. Then they just played normal points and I asked them afterwards if they felt limited by the smaller court.

They all felt limited, but when I asked them on how the mistakes was made it became clear to me and them that it was almost only forced errors or balls inside of the normal court but outside of the "smaller" court. - So the "misses" was actually inside the normal court.

Then I made the adjustment that all court was playable like normal, but the lines was still there and in the normal point play they now got 3 points for a winner inside of the 3 feet line. It made it clear to them and to me, that almost all of the winners was inside of the "smaller" court. But maybe the most important thing was that they hit with higher pace and the players was making fewer mistakes.

To summarize I think you are leading us in the right direction 5263 and I would really like to know how you work with the smart targets in practice with talented juniors?

It's an awesome thread you have started and I will for sure follow it and write if I get any new experiences on using it in practice.

The best
Adam

5263 · Feb 29, 2012

spreed said:
@ 5263
But maybe the most important thing was that they hit with higher pace and the players was making fewer mistakes.

To summarize I think you are leading us in the right direction 5263 and I would really like to know how you work with the smart targets in practice with talented juniors?

It's an awesome thread you have started and I will for sure follow it and write if I get any new experiences on using it in practice.
Adam

Thanks Adam for your excellent post and the trials you ran relating to the Smart Targets. It seems your findings are very much in line with my experience and expectations with them.
Very good ideas in those drills and trials you are running.
Maybe you can try asking one player to focus on getting excellent depth and have his opponent focus on the Smart Targets and check those results without letting each know what the other is doing?

As for my findings-
I find my students also miss far less often; they especially miss fewer long and in the net, since the idea is to clear the net with very solid margin and employ biting spin to get the ball down as quick as possible. If you hit the shot strongly and well over the net, there will be very little chance of the ball coming down too soon. Your only concern in this case will be length, so having the intent to bring it down fast via TS should work well.
I find that they have much greater shot tolerance since they stay in points longer. This leads to them earning lots of free points due to this.
I also see them doing much better at being aggressive with shorter attackable balls, by using these targets, when the points go that long. Seems that often the opponents give up a UE before my players have to do much attacking though.

gindyo · Mar 1, 2012

5263, a question just popped out for you. Where does a flatter ball comes in in your teaching. I believe in being able to vary one's shots and one should not be limited to only heavy TS. We have all heard how Nadal is trying to incorporate flatter shots in his game. What are the situations where you would advice a flat shot?

5263 · Mar 2, 2012

gindyo said:
5263, a question just popped out for you. Where does a flatter ball comes in in your teaching. I believe in being able to vary one's shots and one should not be limited to only heavy TS. We have all heard how Nadal is trying to incorporate flatter shots in his game. What are the situations where you would advice a flat shot?

It's a good question, as you are correct in that there are times to hit:
1. Flat trajectory with spin
2. Flat shot- not seeking a particular spin (will still get some)

For Flat Trajectory, -that would mostly be for aggressive shots when you get a high bouncing, short ball that is in your skill zone to attack.
For attackable return of serves.
For these you still hit up and across the contact, but way more across for these.

For Flat shot not seeking spin- half volleys, return of 1st serves, and return of strong overhead smash. Just find the ball smoothly with more of a push out and slight pull across.
That what you are asking about?

5263 · Mar 12, 2012

TM

Here is the diagram of the Smart Targets along with the square Avoid Area at the center T.

Important things about the Avoid Area that make it dangerous to hit into:
1. centrally located, which means that if it can be jumped for any weakness, it likely will be since it is so easy to get to from either corner or middle positions.
2. Returner can pick their best wing to attack it with
3. On a shot from this area, you can go anywhere you want and not have opened your court. No concerns about attacking and keeping the ball in front of you.
4. The returner of a ball from here can attack any weakness he perceives, such as limited coverage on a 2 hander.
5. And he can go with his favorite shot, like how Fed loves the IO attack.
* Don't forget the confidence he builds getting to work his attacks from here and the confidence you will lose.

Any one of the above is tough to defend, but in this case they can be stacked against you!
Ex..Returner caught in one of his corners, can get there to use his strong Fh, to go to your weak Bh and use his fav inside/out stroke, all the while not opening up his court for a counter attack.
Pretty hard to defend when it gets stacked against you like this.
On the other hand, if you can get it over to the better Smart Target, you have blocked him from stacking to near this extent, even with the same quality of shot.

gindyo · Mar 12, 2012

This makes so much sense.

gindyo · Mar 12, 2012

I had nothing better to do the other day so I decided to study the return patterns of both federer and murray during their final in dubai, dont know what value this could have accept to find out the the most used return is deep in the middle. I split the court in three areas deep middle ( anything that is past 4-5 feet from the service line), smart targets, and short middle, and then noted weather the returner won or lost the point. naturally when returning more points will be lost then won.
so here are the results

edit: the red sticks mean that the point really should have had the opposite outcome if it wasn't for a silly UE

5263 · Mar 12, 2012

gindyo said:
edit: the red sticks mean that the point really should have had the opposite outcome if it wasn't for a silly UE

Those red ones really tend to clear up the story. Glad you thought to include
that aspect.

5263 · Mar 14, 2012

gindyo said:
I had nothing better to do the other day so I decided to study the return patterns of both federer and murray during their final in dubai, dont know what value this could have accept to find out the the most used return is deep in the middle. I split the court in three areas deep middle ( anything that is past 4-5 feet from the service line), smart targets, and short middle, and then noted weather the returner won or lost the point. naturally when returning more points will be lost then won.
so here are the results

edit: the red sticks mean that the point really should have had the opposite outcome if it wasn't for a silly UE

I was looking at your work here a little more and found it very interesting and useful.

For all categories I counted the red marks for the opposing section
to account for how you said the outcome should have been according to your observations. Also we must remember that when returning in the pros, more points will be lost than won almost all the time.

Notice first- that returns to the Avoid Area in the Middle leads to where the player should be losing all but one point out of 19, confirming how much this area should be avoided. I don't think this is any big surprise and am pretty sure they don't want to hit there anyway, but it does show how poor that area can be.

Second and more surprising- notice how even though returning deep middle, back at the server is a pretty
good place to go, it only led to winning about 1/3 of those points.
Pros do hit here purposefully.

Thirdly- The big thing to notice is that with the returns to the Smart Target area,
the returner was in a position to win 11 of 19; over half the points and even about half the points if you took the actual results, not corrected for red marks! This is good evidence how much better this area is for a target, given that you would expect all targets to garner losing marks. Hitting to the target area probably didn't win too many outright, but at least put the returner in a position to fight for the point.

Nice info, thanks

gindyo · Mar 16, 2012

a snapshot form Istomin-Del Potro match at indian-wells

at this point of the match the score was 4-3 for Del Potro in he first set.

whenever I see one of these I will try to take a snapshot and post it here so we can collect a larger pool of data.

You can clearly see how Delpo was hitting his targets ( his balls are more concentrated in certain areas) and Istomin's shots are spread all over the place

5263 · Mar 18, 2012

Yes, these are excellent to see and how they look for different players.
I think there are certain predictions that could be made from looking at these.
Pretty clear Potro is not hitting for the back 3-4 feet.
I bet many are surprised how close the avg shot speed it between the two.

Power Player · Mar 18, 2012

Florian meyer has a new site and one video on consistency shows a similar target area. 3-4 feet inside the baseline and 2-3 feet inside the alleys. He says if you aim to these spots every time, you will win more matches.

5263 · Mar 18, 2012

Power Player said:
Florian meyer has a new site and one video on consistency shows a similar target area. 3-4 feet inside the baseline and 2-3 feet inside the alleys. He says if you aim to these spots every time, you will win more matches.

Thanks for the reference. Sounds alot like we are talking about here and
I'll ck it out.
Do you have the link?

Power Player · Mar 18, 2012

5263 said:
Thanks for the reference. Sounds alot like we are talking about here and
I'll ck it out.
Do you have the link?

It's a hidden video..u have to register to see it, but the videos are great..I need to find the link but maybe someone reading knows the site name.

5263 · Mar 18, 2012

Power Player said:
It's a hidden video..u have to register to see it, but the videos are great..I need to find the link but maybe someone reading knows the site name.

Pretty evident in his play below-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eZx-r7xXKc

odessa · Mar 19, 2012

wrong Meyer

5263 said:
Pretty evident in his play below-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eZx-r7xXKc

That is Florian Meyer. A fun player to watch. A lot of variations and check out how close he gets to the net when he comes to the net. Great play against Nadal in Shanghai :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0Y0W5JA9MY"
The other Florian Meier is also german but he is an tennis teacher with an instructional website : http://www.onlinetennisinstruction.com/

5263 · Mar 19, 2012

odessa said:
That is Florian Meyer. A fun player to watch. A lot of variations and check out how close he gets to the net when he comes to the net. Great play against Nadal in Shanghai :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0Y0W5JA9MY"
The other Florian Meier is also german but he is an tennis teacher with an instructional website : http://www.onlinetennisinstruction.com/

thank you for the correction on the names here and the link as well.
Interesting that Meyer was such a fantastic example for this thread!
What are the odds?

This Meier has some good stuff on his site. Seems very organized and
thought out overall. I couldn't find anything too close to what we are
saying here, but did find where talked of not hitting so close to any line,
which is clearly in the same vein. Maybe his targets in drills are similar.

Practice for Smarter Targets

Playnice

Guest

Playnice

Guest

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Professional

Semi-Pro

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Professional

G.O.A.T.

Semi-Pro

G.O.A.T.

Semi-Pro

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Semi-Pro

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Semi-Pro

G.O.A.T.

Semi-Pro

G.O.A.T.

Semi-Pro

Semi-Pro

Professional

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Semi-Pro

G.O.A.T.

New User

G.O.A.T.

Semi-Pro

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Semi-Pro

Semi-Pro

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Semi-Pro

G.O.A.T.

Bionic Poster

G.O.A.T.

Bionic Poster

G.O.A.T.

New User

G.O.A.T.

Similar threads