College tennis - see the net clearance !

FiReFTW

Hall of Fame
#2
Seems normal to me, like most other good tennis players (alltho styles vary a bit).

Why, what did you notice that you find interesting?
 
#6
I have not watched that much of college tennis, what's your thoughts on net clearance of these ground strokes?


the beginning on the match they are hitting with noticeably more margin, more topspin, and less pace off both fh and Bh.

They seem to flatten out strokes more as match progresses, so I’m guessing they were grooving their strokes at the beginning and maybe feeling out their opponent a bit.
 
#13
Black shirt plays pretty high but red shirt hits some moonballs but also a lot of lower shots, in fact he hits the net almost a bit too often. If he hits the hard shots a foot higher he makes less errors. Still both are very good players of course.
 
#17
But according to TTW they are NTRP 3.5 at best, so you are already much better!

But seriously, I find this quite interesting, why is none of them hitting any sharp angles ever?
the don’t go for a sharp angle until they get a short ball.

it’s not flashy but you have to respect the deep ball that’s rising as it crosses the baseline.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
#18
For comparison... check out the net clearance of neutral ball of this match... how I want to play...

But seriously, I find this quite interesting, why is none of them hitting any sharp angles ever?
Most of Andrew's videos are on slow clay. His serve is not as much of a liability (at 5.0) on clay, likewise he has an easier time with a big-serving opponent on clay.

I would like to see Andrew play Jolly on a hard court to see how he handles pace and big serves on a faster court :)
 
#20
Most of Andrew's videos are on slow clay. His serve is not as much of a liability (at 5.0) on clay, likewise he has an easier time with a big-serving opponent on clay.

I would like to see Andrew play Jolly on a hard court to see how he handles pace and big serves on a faster court :)
That would be fun to see.
 
#21
But they got a shorter ball alot of times and still no angle (I don't mean super short, just attackable one).
I have watched several of Andrew's videos (many have been posted on this forum over time as examples of various things) and he is a solid player who plays high-percentage tennis. I would categorize his style as retriever/defender - he is very fast, just spins in most serves, and can consistently hit deep, spinny groundstrokes. Kind of like a 5.0 version of Michael Chang.

So, only attacking very short balls seems to be his strategy. On slow clay this isn't that bad of a strategy, as it's tougher to put away short balls and volleys.

He likely isn't as good on faster courts for this same reason, as waiting to attack just means that it's more likely the opponent will get an attackable ball before you do.

On my local hard courts you definitely want to be the attacker as the courts are fast/skiddy and play closer to grass than to clay...
 
#22
I have watched several of Andrew's videos (many have been posted on this forum over time as examples of various things) and he is a solid player who plays high-percentage tennis. I would categorize his style as retriever/defender - he is very fast, just spins in most serves, and can consistently hit deep, spinny groundstrokes. Kind of like a 5.0 version of Michael Chang.

So, only attacking very short balls seems to be his strategy. On slow clay this isn't that bad of a strategy, as it's tougher to put away short balls and volleys.

He likely isn't as good on faster courts for this same reason, as waiting to attack just means that it's more likely the opponent will get an attackable ball before you do.

On my local hard courts you definitely want to be the attacker as the courts are fast/skiddy and play closer to grass than to clay...
100% agree... but that said, hitting high deep ball as a neutral rally shot is still a good way to keep the other guy from attacking consistently regardless of surface.
 
#24
example?
you also have to be in position to attack the short ball...
Well @IowaGuy said it well, his playstyle is more of a retriever defender which makes sense.

There are a ton of examples in the vid but im too lazy too go through it again.

Looking at the first few shots 0:06 is a good example.
Guy is stretched on the BH side and the ball is more than decent for an angle CC, its a bit high bouncing so a buggy whip CC angle would be a good option then attacking the net, if the guy would get it he would be completely stretched and would be hard to recover from this position specially since the opponent attacked the net, only an extremely great lob or insane and difficult passing shot.

But considering his play style i guess its just not his playstyle and he doesnt even have that shot in his repetoar.

But pause at 0.06 and imagine he hits a sharp angle with lots of spin here, the opponent would be in huge trouble if he gets the ball even.
 
#25
100% agree... but that said, hitting high deep ball as a neutral rally shot is still a good way to keep the other guy from attacking consistently regardless of surface.
Yes...whenever the topic of high, deep balls is brought up, you'll see a bunch of posts immediately say that you can't move past 4.5 with that strategy because advanced players will take the ball in the air and move in. Yet time and again we see videos of even higher level players using high balls as not just a one-off strategy but also as a core strategy.
 
#26
Short angle is a highrisk/highreward shot. Clay is a lowrisk/lowreward surface.
It is hard to see the realistic difficulty of that particular short ball in real-time. But from playing a lot of clay, I know that sometimes we hit the balls short (around service lane area) to allow the ball to take full advantage of the spin/surface (think of a bouncer in cricket). The shortest you can land, with the ball still rising when crossing baseline.

A lot of the times it is actually also an invite for the fast court players will go for a highrisk/highreward shot, to their disadvantage for the surface. Believe me, you can rundown a short angle from opposite side of the court on clay, and would still have time to hit a loop. A drop shot is actually a better option in clay.

0:06 is a good example.
they got a shorter ball alot of times and still no angle
 
#27
Well @IowaGuy said it well, his playstyle is more of a retriever defender which makes sense.

There are a ton of examples in the vid but im too lazy too go through it again.

Looking at the first few shots 0:06 is a good example.
Guy is stretched on the BH side and the ball is more than decent for an angle CC, its a bit high bouncing so a buggy whip CC angle would be a good option then attacking the net, if the guy would get it he would be completely stretched and would be hard to recover from this position specially since the opponent attacked the net, only an extremely great lob or insane and difficult passing shot.

But considering his play style i guess its just not his playstyle and he doesnt even have that shot in his repetoar.

But pause at 0.06 and imagine he hits a sharp angle with lots of spin here, the opponent would be in huge trouble if he gets the ball even.
I asked for an example because people have different definitions of “short ball” or ball they can attack.... there are also varying degrees of attack. sharp short angle IMO you have to be well prepped and positioned for.

0:06 is an invitation to change direction, and be aggressive which he does... but IMO not a good ball to go for a sharp angle... he’s not perfectly set up and kinda hitting off his back foot.

also not everyone has a sharp angle shot... (ie side T target). how often do you practice yours?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
#28
Yes...whenever the topic of high, deep balls is brought up, you'll see a bunch of posts immediately say that you can't move past 4.5 with that strategy because advanced players will take the ball in the air and move in. Yet time and again we see videos of even higher level players using high balls as not just a one-off strategy but also as a core strategy.
I think it’s because lower level players picture a fluffy defensive moonball... vs a heavy spinning ball that has some weight behind it (ie hard to move forward and take it out of the air because it’s diving quickly enough)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
#30
Yes...whenever the topic of high, deep balls is brought up, you'll see a bunch of posts immediately say that you can't move past 4.5 with that strategy because advanced players will take the ball in the air and move in. Yet time and again we see videos of even higher level players using high balls as not just a one-off strategy but also as a core strategy.
Take the ball in the air strategy applies to high,deep balls that lack enough topspin and slow moving through the air- these guys are hitting with a ton of spin and the balls are not slow to come and attack - the ball trajectory has such a shape it's difficult to time the shot in the air.
 
#31
I watched 2 of Daniels matches here in Surpirse at the ITA event and he didn't seem to be hitting with as much net clearance as often.
Is it because of the viewing level? I have watched plenty of atp matches in stadium - the ball just seems to skim over the net - it's probably because where we get to watch it from.
I have not watched very high level tennis from a court level view.
 
#32
Is it because of the viewing level? I have watched plenty of atp matches in stadium - the ball just seems to skim over the net - it's probably because where we get to watch it from.
I have not watched very high level tennis from a court level view.
skimming for atp is ~2ft minimum... likely on an aggressive offensive shot because they are putting more pace on the ball.

in they are getting decent clearance... on avg.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
#33
You will also see tons of post saying every ball on high level is heavy spinning, and you cannot take anything in the air. If you try it, it will break your racket into two, because of heaviness :)

Yes...whenever the topic of high, deep balls is brought up, you'll see a bunch of posts immediately say that you can't move past 4.5 with that strategy because advanced players will take the ball in the air and move in. Yet time and again we see videos of even higher level players using high balls as not just a one-off strategy but also as a core strategy.
 
#34
But they got a shorter ball alot of times and still no angle (I don't mean super short, just attackable one).
You really think that those shots are attackable? Good luck attacking those shots the way they come off the court, they may not land that deep but they carry deep after the bounce. Hitting real deep is a myth, good players don’t hit that many shots near the baseline.
 
#38
There’s a difference between thinking you can attack those balls versus doing it successfully without exposing yourself to more angles to defend. :)
Well considering the level of the players in question here, that 0.06 ball is not difficult at all, and he should easily be able to hit a sharp angle from it, but maybe since hes more of a grinder his playstyle is just different, but at that level that ball is not difficult or should not be difficult, even a 4.5 should be able to hit a good angled shot from that ball.
 
#39
Well considering the level of the players in question here, that 0.06 ball is not difficult at all, and he should easily be able to hit a sharp angle from it, but maybe since hes more of a grinder his playstyle is just different, but at that level that ball is not difficult or should not be difficult, even a 4.5 should be able to hit a good angled shot from that ball.
He was off balance and his weight was jumping backwards when he hit that ball. Maybe you are a skilled enough player to be able to execute the sharp angle shot you are talking about at that point in time. I know I can’t when I’m falling backwards.
 
Last edited:
#40
He was off balance and his weight was still moving back when he hit that ball. Maybe you are a skilled enough player to be able to execute the sharp angle shot you are talking about at that point in time. I know I can’t when I’m falling back.
I am skilled enough to attempt it, but executing it and not making an error is another thing altogether :-D
 
#41
Is it because of the viewing level? I have watched plenty of atp matches in stadium - the ball just seems to skim over the net - it's probably because where we get to watch it from.
I have not watched very high level tennis from a court level view.

In all the college matches I watched for our local team, GCU, and for the ITA event I'd guess most are hitting 2 or 4 ft clearence when really attacking, but most nuertral rally balls are 6ish ft. I was actually at court level for Daniels top court matches but compared to that video nothing looked consistently as high over the net. Maybe it was a counter strategy against that player?

 
#42
I have not watched that much of college tennis, what's your thoughts on net clearance of these ground strokes?


Thanks for sharing. Watched this match in its entirety & it was a great one - 2 highly skilled college players going at each other.
Kumar attacks the net more than most college players that I've watched lately - he does it pretty successfully too. He's got a great all-court game. His service motion kind of reminds me of Gage Brymer.
This match was neck and neck up to 30-all at 4 games a piece in the 3rd set until Kumar showed some nerves & gifted that game away with 2 consecutive double-faults allowing Cukierman to serve it out.

Kumar's net clearance on his groundies looks typical for any college player using a Babolat Pure Drive or Pure Aero.
I feel the same can be said for Cukierman's net clearance using a PSO7. I've used that racket & even in the 16X19 pattern, it hits a more linear trajectory than most 16X19s and doesn't get as much loop on the ball as Kumar's shots.
He was wailing heavy on some shots, but Kumar didn't seem to have much trouble getting those back.
 
#43
I watched 2 of Daniels matches here in Surpirse at the ITA event and he didn't seem to be hitting with as much net clearance as often.
Did you get to watch the finals - Cukierman vs Chrysochos?
I just watched that match. Cukierman was up 5-1 in the 2nd set & looked like he was going to level the match. After steam-rolling through the 1st half of that set there was a crazy momentum swing & he lost the next 6 games.

Cukierman looks like he puts so much effort into his shots - forceful swings like Nadal & Thiem.
Chrysochos looks more effortless in his gameplay with smoother, flowing swings - he has easy power with plenty of juice on reserve if needed - great match.
 
#44
Did you get to watch the finals - Cukierman vs Chrysochos?

Chrysochos looks more effortless in his gameplay with smoother, flowing swings - he has easy power with plenty of juice on reserve if needed - great match.
I did, and caught 3 of Petros matches. You nailed exactly what I said about him and his play...it looks so effortless and he was rolling quality players hard. Crazy level he plays on, and that final was at least more competitive.

His serve was a good study for simplicity!

See if this link works.

http://instagr.am/p/BqaeL7-grEUDl0KdpQDrEs-zM1Jt88kj3p3U280/



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
#45
skimming for atp is ~2ft minimum... likely on an aggressive offensive shot because they are putting more pace on the ball.

in they are getting decent clearance... on avg.
I'd be careful about this claim. Before I watched professional tennis in person, I'd been told here that pros get massive net clearance that isn't necessarily visible due to the TV angles. After watching some professional tennis in person, I learned that this isn't true.

There's a fair amount of net clearance variation dependent on the player, the surface, the particular match up and the shot. At any professional tournament on hard courts you'll see a fair number of balls clip the top of the tape, either because the player is truly aiming a skimming shot in order to drop the ball short, keep it low, or to hit an angle, or the player has hit from a compromised position giving the ball a lower than ideal trajectory.

On the other hand, the top guys definitely are not trying to net skim most of the time. There's that interesting video from years ago with Janko Tipsarovic telling Marton Fucsovics that Marton is trying to hit too close to the net when playing. Janko admitted that he originally thought it was better to net skim, but realized that at the highest level, net clearance and depth was more important.
 
#46
I'd be careful about this claim. Before I watched professional tennis in person, I'd been told here that pros get massive net clearance that isn't necessarily visible due to the TV angles. After watching some professional tennis in person, I learned that this isn't true.

There's a fair amount of net clearance variation dependent on the player, the surface, the particular match up and the shot. At any professional tournament on hard courts you'll see a fair number of balls clip the top of the tape, either because the player is truly aiming a skimming shot in order to drop the ball short, keep it low, or to hit an angle, or the player has hit from a compromised position giving the ball a lower than ideal trajectory.

On the other hand, the top guys definitely are not trying to net skim most of the time. There's that interesting video from years ago with Janko Tipsarovic telling Marton Fucsovics that Marton is trying to hit too close to the net when playing. Janko admitted that he originally thought it was better to net skim, but realized that at the highest level, net clearance and depth was more important.
just watch the neutral rally balls that land deep, how high was it over the net?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Top