A little experiment
- Thread starter raiden031
- Start date
C
chico9166
Guest
Me thinks a tennis player could spend the rest of their practice life trying to "increase the value/level" of their "rally ball".
Last edited by a moderator:
smoothtennis
Hall of Fame
Ripper - you took the bait - don't feed him.
You are probably right... I was too lazy to read the whole post. I guess I must have missed something.
xFullCourtTenniSx
Hall of Fame
If that were true, you shouldn't be losing to 4.0 players, period.
You're over-glorifying yourself with your own ego. Happens to everyone. Don't worry about it.
xFullCourtTenniSx
Hall of Fame
As for the rally ball issue, GET ONE! Federer and Nadal's rally balls are godly... THAT'S why they can win so easily without forcing themselves and usually don't produce nearly as many errors as their peers.
Ah, the philosophical decision whether to be the lamb or the lion !!
Ripper is a lamb with some thoughts on being a lion. Good, conservative strategy equals good match player for someone who is conservative and wants to win now, like all the up and coming USTA juniors.
MaratSafin would argue. As would any of the 6'6" guys. JohanKriek would laugh in your face. RoscoeTanner would smile knowing you know nothing.
History is made by the bold and brave. The meek and mild shall inherit the earth LATER ON !!!!!
Oh, Ripper man! I claim 4.0, you know that. I can easily win points off any 5.5 or 6.0 with a few good shots. ONE level above me is only 5.0, and I can easily win matches there when I"m on. I can also LOSE to a consistent 3.5 who's ******* me off, too...:shock::shock:
How do I know? I"ve played better than 5.5 levels, and currently hit with real Div1 and 5.5's.
Ripper is a lamb with some thoughts on being a lion. Good, conservative strategy equals good match player for someone who is conservative and wants to win now, like all the up and coming USTA juniors.
MaratSafin would argue. As would any of the 6'6" guys. JohanKriek would laugh in your face. RoscoeTanner would smile knowing you know nothing.
History is made by the bold and brave. The meek and mild shall inherit the earth LATER ON !!!!!
Oh, Ripper man! I claim 4.0, you know that. I can easily win points off any 5.5 or 6.0 with a few good shots. ONE level above me is only 5.0, and I can easily win matches there when I"m on. I can also LOSE to a consistent 3.5 who's ******* me off, too...:shock::shock:
How do I know? I"ve played better than 5.5 levels, and currently hit with real Div1 and 5.5's.
Hi LeeD: Fancy meeting you here:
I agree with you.
It is just common sense for me: at my level the longer the rally goes on the higher the chance that I will miss - probably something easy. When that probability is higher than the probability that I will miss a more agressive shot, go for it.
Cheers
Warren
You have no idea how I play... and I don't know anyone that would classify my play as that of a lamb.
You lost me when you said that you could beat a 5.0 and yet lose to a 3.5, sorry that does not happen. Anyone that has played at a relatively high level knows how to win, and anyone who has played to a 5.5 level is not going to lose to a 3.5 unless you have one foot in the grave. And if that is the case you are not going to beat a 5.0... if you like analogies... then I would say you seem to be a mouse with the belief you are a lion.
Cindysphinx
G.O.A.T.
I have to say, I am stunned to hear anyone thinks having a rally ball isn't important. My pro is constantly after me to find my rally ball and stop going for winners from impossible positions or when off balance. I do not listen, which is a big reason why I do so poorly in singles.
Really, if I could consistently rally (say, hit 6 balls over the net at 75% speed, with exacting placement and control), I would be a 4.0 by June.
Isn't the main reason a person lacks a rally ball because they lack the footwork and stroke mechanics to hit a high-quality ball most of the time?
Really, if I could consistently rally (say, hit 6 balls over the net at 75% speed, with exacting placement and control), I would be a 4.0 by June.
Isn't the main reason a person lacks a rally ball because they lack the footwork and stroke mechanics to hit a high-quality ball most of the time?
first paragraph........ going for winners from imposible positions.....2.0 -3.5 level play. . when in impossible positiom ie defensive you look for neutral.
NOT winners
yes if you could get 6 balls over the net you would bump up a level or 2,
no . many times a person lacks a rally ball is because they try to do too much
Cindysphinx
G.O.A.T.
xFullCourtTenniSx
Hall of Fame
I only go for such shots if 1) I'm on balance anyways, I'm not stretching to get a racket on the ball, AND there's open court for me to easily hit to (meaning I can practically just push the ball into that spot with a bit of spin for safety) or 2) I'm out of the point anyway, so might as well go out with style (still going crosscourt though, I know I personally can't make it down the line consistently if I'm stretched out). If I'm lucky, things will work out in my favor.
Hmmm... What about 10 balls at 90% speed into corners?
There's the issue of footwork and stroke mechanics when producing a rally ball (I really don't see footwork as that big of an issue in this case, though perfect footwork should always be a goal to work towards), and there's also the possibility of the player simply not knowing the need of a rally ball, and and a result the player doesn't develop one. It's really not all that hard to develop either.
I don't know... Federer and Nadal seem to look for the impossible. Of course, they do this when they know it's likely to be their last shot in the rally anyway. Sometimes they get the winner, sometimes they make the error, and sometimes they get a second chance at the winner. But these are top pros who are monsters amongst even the tennis monsters known as top 10 ATP professionals. These guys can back up what they do with their incredible racket skills, which no amateur can do.
as you said at the pro level the point is over anyway so they have to go for something. just getting the ball back doesnt work. at the levels of mortals one difference in levels from 2.0 to 5.0 is not trying to do the impossible as a mainstay of your game.
i had a coach who used to say when i tried to do the impossible from an impossible position....."what were you thinking?"
high percentage tennis and better shot selection are traits of better players. jmho
If I strived for 6 rally balls, 70% efforts, maybe 75mph groundies, I'd lose every singles match I play straight sets. Every one I play in singles can just bash the first one or second of those sitters.
I tend to bash the first sitter of each point....anything I can hit sweetspot on from anywhere on my side of the court, especially when I'm caught near the sidelines.
You rally something 2' off my baseline, I'm going for the winner.
You rally something less than two feet off my baseline, I'm shorthopping a short angle CC forcing ball, or blocking it down the line. I don't consider than "going for a winner" at all.
I hate to retrieve, get, fetch, or run after the ball. I'm challenging YOU to run and fetch.
I tend to bash the first sitter of each point....anything I can hit sweetspot on from anywhere on my side of the court, especially when I'm caught near the sidelines.
You rally something 2' off my baseline, I'm going for the winner.
You rally something less than two feet off my baseline, I'm shorthopping a short angle CC forcing ball, or blocking it down the line. I don't consider than "going for a winner" at all.
I hate to retrieve, get, fetch, or run after the ball. I'm challenging YOU to run and fetch.
Who is saying it isn't important? Maybe LeeD? I think he's just saying that if you aren't that consistent, then you need to strike first, which is what I'm finding as well.
I feel like FullCourtX and others are assuming that I'm now losing because I went from being too aggressive to too conservative and my opponent was punishing my conservativeness.
Maybe I was too conversative in this exercise to play my best, but my whole point is that I still lose 80% of rallies at least because of my own UEs during a neutral rally, as opposed to losing by overhitting or by my opponent forcing errors on me. It just shows that there isn't a strategy out there to win every match, but sometimes it boils down to good old fashioned practice.
I tend to lose LOTS of points because my rally ball is too short, too up the middle, not enough height, not enough skid. I'd say, easily one in 5.
So rather than give my opponent a sitter, I'd rather take any chance HE has of crushing away a winner from him and put the onus on MY ability to hit a forcing shot into his court.
If HE hits the winner, he gets confident and more aggressive.
If I hit the winner, I get more confident and aggressive.
If he hits the forcing shot, he gets more consistent.
If I hit the forcing shot, I get more consistent
Now what style do you really want to play?
So rather than give my opponent a sitter, I'd rather take any chance HE has of crushing away a winner from him and put the onus on MY ability to hit a forcing shot into his court.
If HE hits the winner, he gets confident and more aggressive.
If I hit the winner, I get more confident and aggressive.
If he hits the forcing shot, he gets more consistent.
If I hit the forcing shot, I get more consistent
Now what style do you really want to play?
xFullCourtTenniSx
Hall of Fame
Well... You never know... Isner missed the easiest overhead putaway known to mankind. He's not alone either (just the easiest to remember).
And yes, in the normal levels of the game, trying to do the impossible won't get you anywhere. But in those levels, you will never be put in the position where you have no other option but the shoot and pray. At those levels, you can always find some sort of percentage shot that will save your ass.
Anytime I miss one of these shots, I know there's nothing else I could have done and accept it. Given enough space to run to, I would be given far more options and can do more with the ball consistently. Haha. But rarely do I play on such courts.
If anyone asked me what I was thinking if I missed a ball in such a situation, I'd simply say "the point was over, he won. So I decided to practice that shot." Haha.
Bull... sh*t.
If your 70% was 75 mph groundstrokes at 50+ years old, you should've been #1 in the world because your 70% in your prime would've been 85+! 75 is just under what Agassi hits in an aggressive rally! So now you hit harder than Agassi? Agassi's shots are sitters?! COME BACK DOWN TO REALITY! Agassi would **** your ass over 100 times over without dropping a game!
Time to work on that rally ball! For you to even try anything aggressive when you have no consistent shot is by itself going for the wrong shot and being too aggressive.
Are you saying my forehand and backhand topspins are slower than my second serve? Dont think so. About the same, maybe.
I don't hit the "accepted" normal rally ball. Even 5.5 level. I hit faster (not harder, faster with less spin), which is why I'm not as consistent and I don't care to rally with anyone in a match.
Agassi stands in right atop the baseline. Of course, he'd double bagel me. I don't think it's fair to compare a former #1's ability to a self confessed 4.0.
And I don't think Agassi would just rally ball with me.
I saw Sampras play Wilander a couple months back. Guess what? Sampras would double bagel me too.
MordredSJT
Rookie
I'd like to point out that the average groundstroke speed for division I male players is about 75mph. Hitting a 75mph ball to a 5.5 or 6.0 will not equal instant death, but it is nothing they haven't seen before...it is a neutral ball. If you hit that to a 4.0 player, you will most likely be putting them under quite a bit of pressure and will draw a great deal of errors.
If you can hit a 75mph rally ball (meaning a ball you can control and make with great consistency), then you should never, ever lose to a 4.0, much less a 3.5 player (unless you play incredibly stupidly).
If you can hit a 75mph rally ball (meaning a ball you can control and make with great consistency), then you should never, ever lose to a 4.0, much less a 3.5 player (unless you play incredibly stupidly).
Right...at that speed, the time from the point of contact to the bounce is generally less than a second, assuming a crosscourt ball hit from behind the baseline landing just inside the baseline. That's not a lot of time to react, particularly if you have to run very far...
Rally ball, 70%, maybe 75mph.
You know I don't advocate hitting a rally ball at all.
As a person ages, it DOES NOT mean they automatically hit slower than they used to. They DO automatically lose their physical fitness and skills, but that is not hitting a tennis ball slower.
I don't think I can lose to a 4.0 or lower player unless I'm disinterested or bored. That's why I claim 4.0 for myself. I've beaten, more than 20 out of 20 sets, a USTA #ONE ranked 4.0, him that 3 years before I played him 2 years ago. That's a 20-0 set advantage. That makes me a 4.0, you think?
You know I don't advocate hitting a rally ball at all.
As a person ages, it DOES NOT mean they automatically hit slower than they used to. They DO automatically lose their physical fitness and skills, but that is not hitting a tennis ball slower.
I don't think I can lose to a 4.0 or lower player unless I'm disinterested or bored. That's why I claim 4.0 for myself. I've beaten, more than 20 out of 20 sets, a USTA #ONE ranked 4.0, him that 3 years before I played him 2 years ago. That's a 20-0 set advantage. That makes me a 4.0, you think?
No. It clearly establishes you as better than a 4.0 player. Given your statement, I'd suspect you can probably beat about 50% of 4.5 players. There is a reasonable overlap between levels, so I'd say if when you play a given class of player, say 4.5 level, and you win 50% of the time, then you are a middle-level 4.5 player. If you lose 80% of the time at 4.5 level, you are a lower 4.5 player or a high 4.0 player. If no 4.0 players can beat you (as suggested by your statement that the best 4.0 in the nation couldn't manage a single win of you out of 20 attempts), then you are clearly somewhere close to 4.5 level.
At least that's the way I see it.
He is better than that... he unless I misread his post he is saying he won 20 out of 20 sets.
What confuses me is that he has beaten players all the way to a 5.5 level, yet can lose to someone as low as 3.5, there is a lot of skill difference between those levels. I play with people regularly that are a full level below me and there is little threat of losing... they just do not have the weapons. Their best shots are not equal to my mine, so my question is... how can someone who is potentially 2 levels higher capable of losing or if you are a 4.0 how do you compete with a 5.5?
I have been scratching my head about this since I started coming to this forum.
Either way... I would love to see LeeD play someday.
Gotta understand...
The 3.5 I lost to, 4 and 4, is my best windsurfing friend, I've got easily a singles record of 40-0 in sets won, I didn't take Ibu, I had played 4 sets of doubles on a hot day, and he just walked on and said..."let's play a set".
Worse, I"ve beaten him with my RIGHT hand, no 2hbh, but 1hbh and all serves!
So where's the motivation?
Next time we played, he got the first 2 games, me winning 2,1, and 1.
Following time, easy 1 and 1.
Last time we played 3 sets, about 2 weeks ago, 1, 0, and 0.
Remember, a big hitter who plays aggressively can beat a lot better players, but can also lose to much worse players. I don't play conservative tennis, I hit out on the first ball.
I play this guy because he's got the heaviest topspin I've seen including #2 for Harvard, but he doesn't hit with much pace. I need to get used to overhead backhand groundies.
The 3.5 I lost to, 4 and 4, is my best windsurfing friend, I've got easily a singles record of 40-0 in sets won, I didn't take Ibu, I had played 4 sets of doubles on a hot day, and he just walked on and said..."let's play a set".
Worse, I"ve beaten him with my RIGHT hand, no 2hbh, but 1hbh and all serves!
So where's the motivation?
Next time we played, he got the first 2 games, me winning 2,1, and 1.
Following time, easy 1 and 1.
Last time we played 3 sets, about 2 weeks ago, 1, 0, and 0.
Remember, a big hitter who plays aggressively can beat a lot better players, but can also lose to much worse players. I don't play conservative tennis, I hit out on the first ball.
I play this guy because he's got the heaviest topspin I've seen including #2 for Harvard, but he doesn't hit with much pace. I need to get used to overhead backhand groundies.
^^ I stand by my comments above. LeeD is not a 4.0 player. He's probably a 4.5 player, maybe mid to high level. As for him beating a 5.5, this seems astounding to me. Nevertheless, it just goes to show that the rating system does not accurately reflect the variance of life.
The probability of a monkey typing Shakespeare's MacBeth is greater than zero. The probability of a 3.5 player taking a game off of Federer is much higher than the monkey succeeding, and the probability of an alleged 3.5 player taking a game off an alleged 4.0 player who says he's beaten an alleged 5.5 player is much, much, much greater than the 3.5 player taking a game off Fed, even if Fed is in a particularly generous mood on match day.
-jrod
The probability of a monkey typing Shakespeare's MacBeth is greater than zero. The probability of a 3.5 player taking a game off of Federer is much higher than the monkey succeeding, and the probability of an alleged 3.5 player taking a game off an alleged 4.0 player who says he's beaten an alleged 5.5 player is much, much, much greater than the 3.5 player taking a game off Fed, even if Fed is in a particularly generous mood on match day.
-jrod
Remember the discussion on tactics, conservative smart vs dumb and big hitting?
I"m dumb and big hitting. I don't believe in rallying a few shots before starting to hit forcing shots. I don't care who I"m playing, the point is over within 3 shots, unless a miraculous get and defensively hitting a line is involved.
So when I'm missing by a foot, I suck, and can hit the nettape SEVEN times on my first serve alone, ONE game. Done it many times.
I've also hit "out" balls less than 6" easily 10 out of 15 shots. Pretty easy for a consistent, deep hitting 3.5 to win a few games when I'm off.
But that's also what gives me a chance to win a few games each set off a legitimate 5.5 or Div1 singles player. Taking chances means going for higher level shots, higher than my level anyways.
And stupid that I am, I can easily go CC deep, knowing the return is going to be smoked, and STILL get to service line for an approach volley. Of course, the price I play is losing the point. Heck of a lot better than falling off a motorcycle at speed, digging a rail at Pipeline, or missing the jump ramp by two feet at 60 mph.
Some of you play tennis like it's for bragging rights and the test of your manhood.
I don't, I play for art form, and art form doesn't include rally balls and conservative shotmaking.
I"m dumb and big hitting. I don't believe in rallying a few shots before starting to hit forcing shots. I don't care who I"m playing, the point is over within 3 shots, unless a miraculous get and defensively hitting a line is involved.
So when I'm missing by a foot, I suck, and can hit the nettape SEVEN times on my first serve alone, ONE game. Done it many times.
I've also hit "out" balls less than 6" easily 10 out of 15 shots. Pretty easy for a consistent, deep hitting 3.5 to win a few games when I'm off.
But that's also what gives me a chance to win a few games each set off a legitimate 5.5 or Div1 singles player. Taking chances means going for higher level shots, higher than my level anyways.
And stupid that I am, I can easily go CC deep, knowing the return is going to be smoked, and STILL get to service line for an approach volley. Of course, the price I play is losing the point. Heck of a lot better than falling off a motorcycle at speed, digging a rail at Pipeline, or missing the jump ramp by two feet at 60 mph.
Some of you play tennis like it's for bragging rights and the test of your manhood.
I don't, I play for art form, and art form doesn't include rally balls and conservative shotmaking.
Yaz
Rookie
Lee, I'm with ya man. For me ife is too short for long rallies and trying to "out-consistent" a consistent player. I could do that in my competitive junior days but now I'm just a middle-aged fart. Most of the time I'm just playing for fun and play my game regardless of the opponent. Like you I try to take control of a point early looking to end it within 6-8 shots. I know my body won't hold up for a long, grinding match so that's how I've chosen to play. Some days I'm on and I can beat some good players, but when I'm off...hoo boy it can get ugly. But hey at least I've burned off a few hundred calories and can feel good about scarfing down a big meal...lol
Yeah, yesterday hit for an hour and a half with a really big hitting 4.0, then relaxed with TWO large pizzas and a 3 liter bottle of rootbeer. Pep and cheese, NO veggies!
No wonder I don't have a g/f........
Oh, I couldn't polish both off (the pizzas). I saved 3 slices for today's breakfast !!
C
chico9166
Guest
I share the thoughts of many on this board, that you would be an interesting guy to have a beer with and talk tennis. And you come up with some interesting thoughts on the subject. However, at times, I can't even fathom your logic. This is one of those situations.
Are you really advocating a first strike mentality, for the general public? Are you really de-emphasising the importance of developing a rally ball. Which is nothing more, than finding a speed that one can control the ball with, play defense with, and execute basic shot patterns with? Come on.
Last edited by a moderator:
Chico, I don't know which era you learned your tennis from, but I learned in the mid '70's.
RoscoeTanner, StanSmith, JohanKriek, IlieNastase, JohnNewcombe were the good players. They didn't rally like girls or hit softy puff balls.
Of course, the KenRosewalls were still around, but would you rather play like a tiger or a lamb?
You practice your shots in practice. Practice means hitting hard, deep, angled, forcefully, and with a purpose in mind (win the point, NOT hang in there hoping for your opponent to miss).
You play your matches using only your forcing shots. Why practice rallying during a set? If you want to practice rallying, go find a weak hitting tiny person to hit with.
RoscoeTanner, StanSmith, JohanKriek, IlieNastase, JohnNewcombe were the good players. They didn't rally like girls or hit softy puff balls.
Of course, the KenRosewalls were still around, but would you rather play like a tiger or a lamb?
You practice your shots in practice. Practice means hitting hard, deep, angled, forcefully, and with a purpose in mind (win the point, NOT hang in there hoping for your opponent to miss).
You play your matches using only your forcing shots. Why practice rallying during a set? If you want to practice rallying, go find a weak hitting tiny person to hit with.
Not really a great experiment..
1) You as a power hitter (I have a buddy who hits like this) don't really have the knack of playing a more controlled style. This takes time to learn. Its about hitting nice rally balls (that are not that attackable) but still be able to turn it on hit out on easier balls. Your kind of striving for the best of both worlds. And BTW (this isn't directed to the OP) James Blake can and does rally. Being a bit more aggressive with your shot selection doesn't mean your like some amateur that shanks half their shots and hits winners with other half..
2) You are playing your buddy and this is a red flag. When you play one particular person alot you each go accustomed to their games. You learn to handle the normal balls then hit and sit on them. So as a power hitter you learn to safely wail away at balls and get predictable repeatable results. However against "new" opponents the variety of different shots then hit can throw your game off.
Again i can see this with my buddy who has game like yours (albeit at a lower level I suspect). The guy hits some amazing winners that even impress coaches. But when you play with this guy in doubles if he gets some balls that are bit different he goes into a terrible funk and looks worse then many rank amateurs. This is because he hits a terrificially hard flat ball. Even a slight error results in disaster..
3. Sorry Lee - I find your rants pretty hard to believe. You can play with 5.5 but lose to 3.5. That's just impossible. My teaching pro is a legit 5.5 and those guys just toy with 3.5s. They can beat them with the wrong hand easily. They could beat em with frying pans. Just with movement alone they don't stand a chance.. (Though it might have to be an aluminum frying pan - and not a cast iron one..haha.)
1) You as a power hitter (I have a buddy who hits like this) don't really have the knack of playing a more controlled style. This takes time to learn. Its about hitting nice rally balls (that are not that attackable) but still be able to turn it on hit out on easier balls. Your kind of striving for the best of both worlds. And BTW (this isn't directed to the OP) James Blake can and does rally. Being a bit more aggressive with your shot selection doesn't mean your like some amateur that shanks half their shots and hits winners with other half..
2) You are playing your buddy and this is a red flag. When you play one particular person alot you each go accustomed to their games. You learn to handle the normal balls then hit and sit on them. So as a power hitter you learn to safely wail away at balls and get predictable repeatable results. However against "new" opponents the variety of different shots then hit can throw your game off.
Again i can see this with my buddy who has game like yours (albeit at a lower level I suspect). The guy hits some amazing winners that even impress coaches. But when you play with this guy in doubles if he gets some balls that are bit different he goes into a terrible funk and looks worse then many rank amateurs. This is because he hits a terrificially hard flat ball. Even a slight error results in disaster..
3. Sorry Lee - I find your rants pretty hard to believe. You can play with 5.5 but lose to 3.5. That's just impossible. My teaching pro is a legit 5.5 and those guys just toy with 3.5s. They can beat them with the wrong hand easily. They could beat em with frying pans. Just with movement alone they don't stand a chance.. (Though it might have to be an aluminum frying pan - and not a cast iron one..haha.)
Cindysphinx
G.O.A.T.
Back on topic . . .
Yes, it all does boil down to good old fashioned practice. I have a theory, so bear with me on it.
Raiden, it sounds like you can hit winners and win matches by playing aggressively, but it sounds like you cough up the first error in neutral rallies. Why would this be?
Well, I do the same thing (I mean the part about making errors in neutral rallies, not the part about winning). I might decide to see if I can just outlast my opponent in a neutral rally, and it never happens. I miss first, or I cough up the short ball first.
I think the reason is that I am more serious about my preparation and footwork when I am trying to do something spectacular than when I am just hanging around in a rally. That's a mistake, obviously. You need good footwork/preparation/technique on all balls, not just the ones you plan on killing.
Also, why would we miss on a neutral rally ball anyway? We aren't being challenged, yet we miss when we aren't trying to do much with the ball. The reason is not poor technique, necessarily, but inconsistent technique. If we aren't doing each piece of the stroke the same way every time, we will miss on easy balls.
I think you've already identified the fix for all of this (practice), but I thought it might be useful to figure out the reason for the misses on easy balls. One thing I have tried to really get a handle on this past year is not missing easy balls. And the thing that has helped me most is taking care to use proper and consistent technique every time. It seems counterintuitive to me to use a whole lot of footwork, concentration and energy simply to return a rally ball that has little chance of winning me the point against a consistent player. Yet that belief was a big part of my problem. A rally ball is not the time to try to see how little you have to do to return the ball.
GuyClinch...
I've already explained my one lost to a 3.5, someone I normally beat with my RIGHT hand. He's my best windsurfing friend, I'm tired, he's sharp that day. After beating him 40 odd to ZERO in sets, it's hard to find motivation unless he get's ahead 4-1, then I try. Sometimes, my shots go out.
I can beat your 5.5 pro if he's using a frying pan, me tennis racket. Actually, I might beat your 5.5 if we both use frying pans. I've come close in table tennis using a clipboard, to the junior regional champ in SF. A clipboard, in case you don't know, is about 9" x 12" made of particle board.......
I'm pretty adaptable. I windsurf with completely different boards and sail combinations constantly or I get bored.
I normally own and use up to 10 surfboards when I was surfing.
I currently own and used to rotate thru 5 completely different styles of snowboards, and can ride about the same with each.
I can bore most 4.0's to death by hitting rally balls. Who cares? I'd rather play my Jekyll and Hyde game staying close to 5.0's, sometimes having a bit of a bother with strong 3.5's.
Winning in tennis means little to me. Playing MY game is what counts.
You wanna know also what counts? Try driving a night taxi in SanFrancisco for 8 years, getting stabbed twice and shot at THREE different times, and still racing motocross every weekend. That tells you why I don't care about the winning or losing it tennis, tennis is a GAME.
I've already explained my one lost to a 3.5, someone I normally beat with my RIGHT hand. He's my best windsurfing friend, I'm tired, he's sharp that day. After beating him 40 odd to ZERO in sets, it's hard to find motivation unless he get's ahead 4-1, then I try. Sometimes, my shots go out.
I can beat your 5.5 pro if he's using a frying pan, me tennis racket. Actually, I might beat your 5.5 if we both use frying pans. I've come close in table tennis using a clipboard, to the junior regional champ in SF. A clipboard, in case you don't know, is about 9" x 12" made of particle board.......
I'm pretty adaptable. I windsurf with completely different boards and sail combinations constantly or I get bored.
I normally own and use up to 10 surfboards when I was surfing.
I currently own and used to rotate thru 5 completely different styles of snowboards, and can ride about the same with each.
I can bore most 4.0's to death by hitting rally balls. Who cares? I'd rather play my Jekyll and Hyde game staying close to 5.0's, sometimes having a bit of a bother with strong 3.5's.
Winning in tennis means little to me. Playing MY game is what counts.
You wanna know also what counts? Try driving a night taxi in SanFrancisco for 8 years, getting stabbed twice and shot at THREE different times, and still racing motocross every weekend. That tells you why I don't care about the winning or losing it tennis, tennis is a GAME.
C
chico9166
Guest
GuyClinch...
I've already explained my one lost to a 3.5, someone I normally beat with my RIGHT hand. He's my best windsurfing friend, I'm tired, he's sharp that day. After beating him 40 odd to ZERO in sets, it's hard to find motivation unless he get's ahead 4-1, then I try. Sometimes, my shots go out.
I can beat your 5.5 pro if he's using a frying pan, me tennis racket. Actually, I might beat your 5.5 if we both use frying pans. I've come close in table tennis using a clipboard, to the junior regional champ in SF. A clipboard, in case you don't know, is about 9" x 12" made of particle board.......
I'm pretty adaptable. I windsurf with completely different boards and sail combinations constantly or I get bored.
I normally own and use up to 10 surfboards when I was surfing.
I currently own and used to rotate thru 5 completely different styles of snowboards, and can ride about the same with each.
I can bore most 4.0's to death by hitting rally balls. Who cares? I'd rather play my Jekyll and Hyde game staying close to 5.0's, sometimes having a bit of a bother with strong 3.5's.
Winning in tennis means little to me. Playing MY game is what counts.
You wanna know also what counts? Try driving a night taxi in SanFrancisco for 8 years, getting stabbed twice and shot at THREE different times, and still racing motocross every weekend. That tells you why I don't care about the winning or losing it tennis, tennis is a GAME.
This is exactly why I'd love to talk with you sometime over a few drinks. You are something else. But it still has little to do with the OP's problem. Most on this board are, interested in getting better, and winning more matches. BTW, rallying and developing a rally ball are not synonomous.
Last edited by a moderator:
In practice, we all have to develop and use a rally ball, or we'd never get practice partners.
In matches, we don't need to rally with our opponents. Our goal should be to win the point, rather than mindlessly boop (my new word) the ball over and over again to see who misses first.
In matches, we don't need to rally with our opponents. Our goal should be to win the point, rather than mindlessly boop (my new word) the ball over and over again to see who misses first.
Well I think for me I'm just much better at attacking weak shots because I have more time to prep for my shot and am moving forward. During a more neutral rally, the ball might have more pace, land deeper, and bounce higher. I might hit the ball late or have my weight leaning back, causing errors.
Then it comes down to probability. Lets say that overall there is an 80% chance of me returning a neutral ball. The probability of me staying in the rally for N shots is higher (.8^N) than for N+1 (.8^(N+1)) shots. I think the difference in rate of success from me hitting a neutral shot to me hitting a hard shot is not as different as it might be for a pusher, who might hit significantly more errors as they increase their pace.
I think the biggest thing lacking for me has always been solid practice time. Even when I play alot, I never exceed 40 hours in a month, or 10 hours per week across maybe 4-5 sessions. Most of that will be sets instead of drills. So even if I hit with the correct technique, I still don't have the repetitions to execute it repeatedly. There's a reason the pros spend thousands of hours working on their strokes.
Cindysphinx
G.O.A.T.
Well, yeah. I mean, I think this is true of a lot of players. It's easier to attack something weak than to handle something that is not weak.
The bold part is kind of what I'm talking about. You're late or off balance. The reason isn't the fierce incoming ball, right. It has more depth and pace than a short, weak sitter, but that is what a rally ball is. So the problem has to be consistent technique.
Of course the solution is practice. But to practice well, you have to understand the problem. Which, IMHO, is the need *not* to be late or off balance on rally balls. Which, IMHO, requires you to work harder to get in perfect position on rally balls, when there is less reward mentally than the thrill of punishing a weak shot for a winner.
Sorry, I can't help you. I don't speak Math.
Cindysphinx
G.O.A.T.
Lee, if my pro heard you telling me that, he would pull his hair out in clumps.
One of my biggest problems is going for big shots while in poor position, while late, while off balance. I am trying to learn to find my rally ball and then recognize when I am in good position to do more with the ball than rally.
I don't understand how you can possibly say that in matches we "don't need to rally with our opponents." Pros, both male and female, rally with their opponents. They don't mindlessly bloop the ball, but that is not what a rally ball is, IMHO. Pros do not hit the hardest ball they can hit on every shot. They pick their spots, and then they strike. And until they get the ball they want, they hit rally balls.
fruitytennis1
Professional
Lee has a point. In a match you should either hit a defencive shot..or go for offence.
Well, yeah. I mean, I think this is true of a lot of players. It's easier to attack something weak than to handle something that is not weak.
The bold part is kind of what I'm talking about. You're late or off balance. The reason isn't the fierce incoming ball, right. It has more depth and pace than a short, weak sitter, but that is what a rally ball is. So the problem has to be consistent technique.
Of course the solution is practice. But to practice well, you have to understand the problem. Which, IMHO, is the need *not* to be late or off balance on rally balls. Which, IMHO, requires you to work harder to get in perfect position on rally balls, when there is less reward mentally than the thrill of punishing a weak shot for a winner.
Sorry, I can't help you. I don't speak Math.
Well alot of people aren't good with timing the shot in response to sitters, but I am decent at it. The more time I get to prep my shot the better. My return of serve sucks really bad because I have too big of a backswing, so I'm almost always late. On the deuce side forehand return, I have a really hard time hitting return of serves cross-court because of this, so I end up getting poached alot even when the serve isn't all that good.
Yeah and the math thing boils down to me having a higher chance of winning a point by upping the pace and increasing the chances my opponent hits something weak, rather than trying to out-grind them.
LuckyR
Legend
The OP's "experiment" and a lot of the subsequent discussion seems to be dancing around a false choice. That is: your options are to try for low percentage winners or pattycake balls that allow your opponent to tee off on the ball.
I would have figured that given the popularity of the modern power baseliner game, that the experiment would be to try to win points by hitting high quality and high percentage balls within the reach of the opponent (but that that cause Forced Errors) as opposed to winners outside of the reach of the opponent.
I would have figured that given the popularity of the modern power baseliner game, that the experiment would be to try to win points by hitting high quality and high percentage balls within the reach of the opponent (but that that cause Forced Errors) as opposed to winners outside of the reach of the opponent.
Cindysphinx
G.O.A.T.
Exactly.
Exactly again.
I don't play much singles, but I played singles against a 4.0 singles player last summer. First set I couldn't win a game. I was basically just getting the ball back. She was dictating, yanking me all over, keeping me under constant pressure.
In the second set, I changed my approach. If I wasn't in trouble on a particular ball, I set up and tried to hurt her. Not hit a winner, just hit a high-quality shot that I knew she could probably reach and a shot I knew I wouldn't miss. I hit with purpose, but with control. And I started treating her serve as the short ball it was, as it was often the easiest ball I would get in a point. We were on serve when we had to stop playing.
A rally ball isn't a whiffle ball, IMHO. It is a high-quality ball struck with purpose and your very best technique, a ball you know you can make over and over *because* you are using your best footwork and technique.
My normal game is to do exactly what you said, but because I hit pressuring shots and occasionally miss in the process, people have told me I am going for too much. To prove that they are incorrect, I was able to demonstrate that I miss routine rally balls just as often as I miss aggressive shots.
I do not go for winners on every shot like many on this board are assuming because of a lack of reading comprehension skills...
LuckyR
Legend
LuckyR
Legend
Do you have modern, topspinny strokes?
Yeah definitely. I hit with a SW and windshield wiper motion. I was told I often hit with too much topspin. I think the too much spin problem causes 1) sometimes I brush too much and net the ball, and 2) when I do go a really big shot, I inadvertently hit a loopy topspin that doesn't have enough pace to really harm the opponent. But I think I hit long a lot because I'm trying to keep the ball deep and over-compensate. I don't think its a matter of low-percentage vs. high-percentage, but a lack of execution.
Last edited:
