5.0 vs 4.5 [no video, just observations]

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

I [4.5] played against a 5.0 and made the following observations:

- He made very few errors: apart from a lazy service return on the 2nd point of the set, it wasn't until over halfway that he made his first UE
- He had most, if not all, of the shots [I didn't see him try a tweener] and could execute them consistently
- He could turn up the heat when I was at net and I could not volley well
- Above average TS so I was volleying everything below the net
- He never went big on his serve since he was clearly beating me easily so I didn't get a chance to see it

 

[Cashman]

Aside from the general "being worse" thing, the biggest challenge I have with playing against a player a full level above me is that they keep so much hidden in reserve

i.e. when I do occasionally get on top in a point or a game, they can shift to a gear I have barely seen - so that booming serve or ripping pass becomes even more destructive because I haven't had a chance to adapt to it

- Above average TS so I was volleying everything below the net

how happy were you with your approach shots during this match?

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

Aside from the general "being worse" thing, the biggest challenge I have with playing against a player a full level above me is that they keep so much hidden in reserve

i.e. when I do occasionally get on top in a point or a game, they can shift to a gear I have barely seen - so that booming serve or ripping pass becomes even more destructive because I haven't had a chance to adapt to it


how happy were you with your approach shots during this match?

In hindsight, "not very": what has a decent chance of working against many 4.5s was not working against the 5.0. However, I stood even less of a chance staying on the BL.

 

[FiddlerDog]

I find that 4.0 make almost zero UE's as well.
What are free points against 3.5 are returned in play by 4.0
No free points against 4.0 unless you bludgeon the ball or have them lunging at the ball.
No DF's either since they will dink, if need be. You gotta earn every point against a 4.0

 

[socallefty]

When you play against someone who is up a level, the shellacking you get is worth it if you come away with some lessons about your weaknesses that you can improve through practice. Better players are great at exposing weaknesses.

Any lessons learned that is going to prompt you to go practice and improve?

 

[Curious]

Did you serve and volley only?

 

[Stratotanker]

I feel like this thread could use 500 words on ‘shot tolerance’ but I don’t have the energy…

 

[ChaelAZ]

I feel like this thread could use 500 words on ‘shot tolerance’ but I don’t have the energy…

Been more than 500 in the past...

Shot Tolerance: The Elephant in Tennis Tips/Instruction
https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/shot-tolerance-the-elephant-in-tennis-tips-instruction.589470/

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

Did you serve and volley only?

Mostly. I'd rather lose that way than get crushed on the BL.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

When you play against someone who is up a level, the shellacking you get is worth it if you come away with some lessons about your weaknesses that you can improve through practice. Better players are great at exposing weaknesses.

Any lessons learned that is going to prompt you to go practice and improve?

It's still worth it if only to appreciate the skills as an in-person participant vs a passive viewer.

Good question. My serve, for one. It will have to be considerably better to trouble him, though.

 

[socallefty]

It's still worth it if only to appreciate the skills as an in-person participant vs a passive viewer.

Good question. My serve, for one. It will have to be considerably better to trouble him, though.

When I play up and get beaten, I usually come home and say I need to improve my 2nd serve. Or that I should lose a little bit of weight and get quicker with my feet so that I can hit more inside-FHs instead of BHs.

 

[Curious]

Mostly. I'd rather lose that way than get crushed on the BL.

What was the reason when you didn’t do it? Just a change up?

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

What was the reason when you didn’t do it? Just a change up?

Yeah; after 2 difficult volleys off of my shoelaces and a 3rd passer that came too fast for me to handle, I retreated. Then I lost that point on the BL.

 

[Curious]

Yeah; after 2 difficult volleys off of my shoelaces and a 3rd passer that came too fast for me to handle, I retreated. Then I lost that point on the BL.

That’s why I asked. When I lose a few points in a row with s&v I think to myself “maybe s&v is a bad idea”. But that’s me. You’re a very good s&v player so it’s different.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

That’s why I asked. When I lose a few points in a row with s&v I think to myself “maybe s&v is a bad idea”. But that’s me. You’re a very good s&v player so it’s different.

Not really different: "very good" is purely relative; obviously, against this guy, I was not "very good". You have to go with what you think will work.

What is not in doubt is my stubbornness and long years of practice so I give Plan A a lot of latitude before I switch to Plan B.

 

[MoxMonkey]

I've hit with a few 4.5 pros and one solid 5.0

The biggest difference by far that I noticed between the 5.0 and the 4.5s was the reaction time and what appeared like effortless court coverage.

The 5.0 was able to glide over to and return balls I hit that seem to have others on the run. I couldn't tell you about stroke quality or placement comparisons, because pros often intentionally give ya a solid hittable ball at a pace and location that you can handle.

But the split step/reaction to the incoming ball isn't dialed back for my benefit, and it was an absolute eye opener.

 

[jdawgg]

I've hit with a few 4.5 pros and one solid 5.0

The biggest difference by far that I noticed between the 5.0 and the 4.5s was the reaction time and what appeared like effortless court coverage.

The 5.0 was able to glide over to and return balls I hit that seem to have others on the run. I couldn't tell you about stroke quality or placement comparisons, because pros often intentionally give ya a solid hittable ball at a pace and location that you can handle.

But the split step/reaction to the incoming ball isn't dialed back for my benefit, and it was an absolute eye opener.

Foot speed is a really big deal in tennis. I know Rick Macci talked about that being the reason why he thought the William sisters would be stars when he first visited them in Compton.

Definitely helped me get to 5.0. My problem was/is mostly sustaining consistent practice.

 

[mcs1970]

Foot speed is important but that by itself will only get you so far. There have to be many pros who would beat the big 3 if just sheer speed was the measure. They would not have won in their 30s if that was as important as it is made out to be.

When I see very good players at all levels and even compare pros across generations, the thing that always stands out is that their legs and racquet move as one unit. Throw aside the squash shots when they are scrambling. For the most part these guys are not just running, setting up and then figuring out what shot to hit as many lower level players do. As they are running they already know what they are trying to do and subtle changes to the grip are being made for the shot. That combination of racquet and legs in harmony is what makes them look so fluid.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

Foot speed is a really big deal in tennis. I know Rick Macci talked about that being the reason why he thought the William sisters would be stars when he first visited them in Compton.

Definitely helped me get to 5.0. My problem was/is mostly sustaining consistent practice.

I think it's more foot work rather than pure foot speed. Yes, I need a certain minimum quickness and speed to get into position but I can screw up even when I have enough time to get there because my fine-tuned footwork isn't quite good enough and I end up at a non-optimal distance at the time of contact.

 

[jdawgg]

I think it's more foot work rather than pure foot speed. Yes, I need a certain minimum quickness and speed to get into position but I can screw up even when I have enough time to get there because my fine-tuned footwork isn't quite good enough and I end up at a non-optimal distance at the time of contact.

Definitely spacing errors are easy to observe. What about the ball you took on the run because you didn’t get to it quick enough? A different player might be waiting for the ball and able to setup really well for it. Not an error so not obvious.

What about the drop shot that you took lower than the net but another, quicker player, hits it as a sitter?

I think recovery is something some 4.5s and 5.0s don’t take seriously enough. If you use a ton of foot speed and the correct footwork you will shrink the court for your opponent. Suddenly all that open court slower players give you is closed up. The court starts to shrink…

Foot speed just helps so much. It does go a bit hand in hand with footwork.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

Definitely spacing errors are easy to observe. What about the ball you took on the run because you didn’t get to it quick enough? A different player might be waiting for the ball and able to setup really well for it. Not an error so not obvious.

What about the drop shot that you took lower than the net but another, quicker player, hits it as a sitter?

I think recovery is something some 4.5s and 5.0s don’t take seriously enough. If you use a ton of foot speed and the correct footwork you will shrink the court for your opponent. Suddenly all that open court slower players give you is closed up. The court starts to shrink…

Foot speed just helps so much. It does go a bit hand in hand with footwork.

I don't disagree with anything you wrote. But I tend to separate foot speed from foot work. Also, there's only so much I can do to improve raw speed but I feel I have a lot more room for improvement with foot work.

 

[jdawgg]

I don't disagree with anything you wrote. But I tend to separate foot speed from foot work. Also, there's only so much I can do to improve raw speed but I feel I have a lot more room for improvement with foot work.

Being quick with my feet and having good footwork seem to go hand in hand for me, something about the rhythm of movement and intensity.

There’s definitely people I’ve noticed at 4.5 that don’t seem to have much in the way of quick twitch explosiveness/speed. At our level no one is really going 100% with their speed capability, so it’s a moot point. Lots of people could play with that little extra 5-10% intensity with their movements. Recover quicker, move to the ball quicker to better setup, take more and quicker small steps. I think people give up on that because they feel they can’t sustain it (winded quickly).

Tennis is really a foot sport I could go on for ages about footwork/movement/foot speed. I also think foot speed can be easily improved just like footwork. Very few people want to do sprinting/conditioning drills however.

 

[jdawgg]

Foot speed is important but that by itself will only get you so far. There have to be many pros who would beat the big 3 if just sheer speed was the measure. They would not have won in their 30s if that was as important as it is made out to be.

When I see very good players at all levels and even compare pros across generations, the thing that always stands out is that their legs and racquet move as one unit. Throw aside the squash shots when they are scrambling. For the most part these guys are not just running, setting up and then figuring out what shot to hit as many lower level players do. As they are running they already know what they are trying to do and subtle changes to the grip are being made for the shot. That combination of racquet and legs in harmony is what makes them look so fluid.

Definitely foot speed will only get you so far otherwise elite sprinters would be the best tennis players lol.

You’re describing a unit turn. No one in the top 1000 doesn’t do that so I don’t see it as a differentiator. Foot speed alone won’t take you to the top, obviously, but without it you certainly will never get there.

What stands out about djokovic, Federer and Nadal is their insane footwork and foot speed combined with their elite technique and shot making capabilties. Someone like Alex de minaur stands out as having the foot speed but not the shots. Medvedev and Alcaraz have the foot speed and the shots. Guys like Berdych, Zverev and Isner have the shots but not the foot speed.

 

[mcs1970]

Definitely foot speed will only get you so far otherwise elite sprinters would be the best tennis players lol.

You’re describing a unit turn. No one in the top 1000 doesn’t do that so I don’t see it as a differentiator. Foot speed alone won’t take you to the top, obviously, but without it you certainly will never get there.

What stands out about djokovic, Federer and Nadal is their insane footwork and foot speed combined with their elite technique and shot making capabilties. Someone like Alex de minaur stands out as having the foot speed but not the shots. Medvedev and Alcaraz have the foot speed and the shots. Guys like Berdych, Zverev and Isner have the shots but not the foot speed.

I am not talking about unit turn. I am talking about the racquet and legs being in sync. It is difficult to describe Foot speed is required but as you said if that was all then even elite sprinters would pick up tennis fast.

Foot speed is not what has held Zverev back. Isner Is a serve bot. Not sure why he is even in the discussion.