Consistency in Tennis

[Elite Tennis Barcelona]

Very frequently, many players with great technical movement manifest confidence issues because of the inconsistency of their strokes. They are convinced that this lack of consistency is a technical problem: that you must hit more in front, a better position, with more topspin, etc.

While these may be factors that need to be adjusted, they are almost never the main reason. Personally, I find that the main reason a player is NOT being consistent is because they are trying to hit beyond their own technical skills baggage. This means that they try to play based on how they would like, or were told to play, and not really on how they can really play.

I like to consider each shot as an "entity" of the player. Each player has "one" forehand, "one" backhand, "one" serve, etc. and somehow, they have their own "personality". The shots speak. With each mistake or success, they tell us what we did well or what to adjust, but the player very rarely listens, not because they are deaf, but because they have not learned to listen, as we (coaches) have not taught them, or because they are only listening to their expectations.

From my point of view, WE ARE ALL CONSISTENT. Everyone is capable of putting 100 balls ... but at the right level. Being consistent is not a technical problem, being consistent is a decision, therefore it is tactical. Having a more or less developed technique should only determine the decision of how I am going to try to hit the ball in. The big problem is that many times the strokes are taught and trained in complete disconnection from the tactical decision, disconnected from the player's feelings, and worst of all, disconnected from the IDENTITY of the player. There are too many players with almost perfect movements but who cannot hit the ball with a certain intention. They are the players with a technique "implanted" artificially from the form and not from the sensations: turn, stand, hit, finish, or any of the 10,000 different progressions that exist. It is useless to teach a preparation or a finish if you do not look at the ball and decide when and how to hit it according to the feeling. The technique has to be developed respecting each stage of development in which the movement is and that each step forward is from the player's internal feeling of FEELING ABLE, that is, from the CONFIDENCE.

The consistency problem is very easy to solve, it can be achieved in 15 minutes, it is just necessary to change the point of view of the decision of the shot, accept what the shot is, identify the real level it has, and at what speed it is RELIABLE. It is easy to solve, but many times, the difficult thing is for the player to accept that at this moment he/she is not the player who thinks and that he must "slow down" to connect to the real technical level with the tactical decision that this technique allows. The incredible thing, the "magic" is that, if you do, if you accept your reality, the shot will accommodate, adjust, find its zone of reliability, and almost unintentionally, improve. If that happens, the player has taken his first step in learning to listen to his/her shots.

 

[10sbeast888]

wrong.. it's almost always a technical problem. everyone is NOT capable of hitting 100 balls... and what is the 'right level' you are talking about? a lot of things change from match to match, opp to opp.

sure, elite players almost have flawless technique.. their 'unforced errors' are really made at their decision, to take more risk, to get ahead in the point, so on.

amatuers, the vast majority, do NOT understand how the racket face is controlled thru the swing. hence the inconsistency.

 

[Elite Tennis Barcelona]

wrong.. it's almost always a technical problem. everyone is NOT capable of hitting 100 balls... and what is the 'right level' you are talking about"? a lot of things change from match to match, opp to opp.

sure, elite players almost have flawless technique.. their 'unforced errors' are really made at their decision, to take more risk, to get ahead in the point, so on.

amatuers, the vast majority, do NOT understand how the racket face is controlled thru the swing. hence the inconsistency.

Thanks for your "kind" feedback. I'll give you my modest point of view about a few aspects of your message.
1. "what is the "right level": well the right level is the one where you can decide the higher percentage shot. Whether if is 10 km/h or 100km/h will depend on your current capacities.
2- "The vast majority do NOT understand...: if you are learning to drive, will learn to drive in an F1 car? the same in Tennis, if you are hitting your shots trying to hit with one technique that is an F1, will you be aware of why you are crashing in the first corner? If you are not aware of how the racket face is, sorry, but is because you are overhitting, that you are "driving" at one speed that you are not ready. Slow down your speed till you are able to predict your shot... this is your level.
But that is just my point of view. With all my respect

 

[Shroud]

Thanks for your "kind" feedback. I'll give you my modest point of view about a few aspects of your message.
1. "what is the "right level": well the right level is the one where you can decide the higher percentage shot. Whether if is 10 km/h or 100km/h will depend on your current capacities.
2- "The vast majority do NOT understand...: if you are learning to drive, will learn to drive in an F1 car? the same in Tennis, if you are hitting your shots trying to hit with one technique that is an F1, will you be aware of why you are crashing in the first corner? If you are not aware of how the racket face is, sorry, but is because you are overhitting, that you are "driving" at one speed that you are not ready. Slow down your speed till you are able to predict your shot... this is your level.
But that is just my point of view. With all my respect

Why is it that slowing down seems to make things worse?

 

[Dragy]

1. "what is the "right level": well the right level is the one where you can decide the higher percentage shot. Whether if is 10 km/h or 100km/h will depend on your current capacities.

The issue with this approach to me is the fact there’s another guy on that side willing to win the point. Extreme example - he’s in good position at the net. Now most your high percentage options are lost points. You need technical capabilities to deliver high percentage quality lob or passing shot.

Same happens when you play from the baseline. Can you not miss the next shot? Yes, 95% of the time you can. Can you not miss it, and also don’t allow the opponent take advantage of your reply? It’s only reasonable to discuss consistency within the specter of neutral/neutralizing options, not any option.

 

[Fintft]

The issue with this approach to me is the fact there’s another guy on that side willing to win the point. Extreme example - he’s in good position at the net. Now most your high percentage options are lost points. You need technical capabilities to deliver high percentage quality lob or passing shot.

Same happens when you play from the baseline. Can you not miss the next shot? Yes, 95% of the time you can. Can you not miss it, and also don’t allow the opponent take advantage of your reply? It’s only reasonable to discuss consistency within the specter of neutral/neutralizing options, not any option.

Mai @Dragy mai, you should be a coach!

 

[Elite Tennis Barcelona]

The issue with this approach to me is the fact there’s another guy on that side willing to win the point. Extreme example - he’s in good position at the net. Now most your high percentage options are lost points. You need technical capabilities to deliver high percentage quality lob or passing shot.

Same happens when you play from the baseline. Can you not miss the next shot? Yes, 95% of the time you can. Can you not miss it, and also don’t allow the opponent take advantage of your reply? It’s only reasonable to discuss consistency within the specter of neutral/neutralizing options, not any option.

Hitting the ball out of your control already has a very low % of winning.
The question is whether you prefer to lose or to be beaten... it's very different.
In my opinion, tennis is not just about hitting the ball but placing the ball to create spaces.
I'm not saying you shouldn't take a risk, I'm saying you should take a risk with a good chance of success, not flipping a coin.

 

[Elite Tennis Barcelona]

Why is it that slowing down seems to make things worse?

In my opinion, tennis players have to be realistic about the capacity of their shots. As I commented in another post, a worrying high % of young players, are coming to my academy with very good technique but very inconsistent. The shot was developed from the "ideal" and not from the "real" Then, they can not decide to put the ball in, because are hitting over their capacity: Trying to drive an F1 when they do not know how to drive a Karting.

 

[Shroud]

In my opinion, tennis players have to be realistic about the capacity of their shots. As I commented in another post, a worrying high % of young players, are coming to my academy with very good technique but very inconsistent. The shot was developed from the "ideal" and not from the "real" Then, they can not decide to put the ball in, because are hitting over their capacity: Trying to drive an F1 when they do not know how to drive a Karting.

Makes sense but what about topspin and RHS, aren't those the key to consistency and wouldn't slowing down minimize control?

 

[Cap]

I understand what you are trying to convey. How do you see the following idea presented by many coaches:
- If you always play safe, you will win more matches short term, but your development will be slow.
- If you go for shots a bit above your current level, you will lose matches by inconsistency short term, but your development will be accelerated and you start winning matches at a level where you safe play will not be enough at the same time.

 

[Dragy]

Hitting the ball out of your control already has a very low % of winning.
The question is whether you prefer to lose or to be beaten... it's very different.
In my opinion, tennis is not just about hitting the ball but placing the ball to create spaces.
I'm not saying you shouldn't take a risk, I'm saying you should take a risk with a good chance of success, not flipping a coin.

Well yeah, I agree. But see how now it’s a range: not just 100% consistency or miss, but choose to take reasonable risk. And within that range, I believe, technique allows you to be better at placing the ball, creating spaces… while facing variance of shots, including tough ones, no?

 

[Dragy]

I should also add, I don’t have consistency issues playing lower level opponents. I can just barely miss a shot and win 6:1, 6:2, or bagel them…

I used to, when I could actually beat myself against literally anyone. Then I improved and cleaned my technique, as well as balanced my decisions (or more like improved my understanding on when to hit what shot).

Now when I try to play same consistent brand of tennis against some guys who are same level or just better, they take advantage of it, or maybe I become a great retriever and run like a rabbit, but that’s not my best style!

When I face better player, I lose playing both consistently and risky

 

[Elite Tennis Barcelona]

Makes sense but what about topspin and RHS, aren't those the key to consistency and wouldn't slowing down minimize control?

RHS? sorry I don't understand

 

[Bagumbawalla]

What I see happen a lot when a player with "good form" confronts a player
with more consistency (regardless of form) is- the good form player becomes frustrated with long,
exhausting points and, unable to dominate with power and hit winners, takes even greater chances-
and in effect begins a downward spiral.

 

[Elite Tennis Barcelona]

I understand what you are trying to convey. How do you see the following idea presented by many coaches:
- If you always play safe, you will win more matches short term, but your development will be slow.
- If you go for shots a bit above your current level, you will lose matches by inconsistency short term, but your development will be accelerated and you start winning matches at a level where you safe play will not be enough at the same time.

- If you always play safe..."

if you play from your capacities to your more probable decisions, the level of your capacities will improve from confidence and predictability, your shot speed will increase in parallel.

If you go for shots a bit above your current level, you will lose matches by inconsistency short term...

this is exactly what I say, the secret is to decide the shot just a bit above your Neutral/control shot and when you feel it, go for a faster shot, it is the BALL that is telling me what can i do with the shot, not my espectation.
I personally work with my players based on 3 basic decisions: Neutral, proactive, and reactive.

1. Neutral is when I'm Reliable
2. Proactive is when I'm Trustable
3. Reactive is when I spin the coin.

But this is a matter of another post

 

[Elite Tennis Barcelona]

Well yeah, I agree. But see how now it’s a range: not just 100% consistency or miss, but choose to take reasonable risk. And within that range, I believe, technique allows you to be better at placing the ball, creating spaces… while facing variance of shots, including tough ones, no?

We all play tennis, and we must take risks, but not hit and close our eyes and pray the ball goes in... like a very high % of players that have learned from the "Highlights!

 

[Crocodile]

I believe there are 2 ways of looking at consistency:
1. Typical patterns of play and technical skills that result in consistency that is proven to be a sound methodology that consensus thinking agrees on,
2. Individual qualities and expertise that guarantee consistency in outcome, For example if one has mastered the art of serve and volley and the geometry of such play to an elite level then they can perform at a consistent level of proficiency.

 

[Shroud]

RHS? sorry I don't understand

Sorry. Racquet Head Speed. Faster speed= more spin

 

[tendency]

consistency = reps, plain and simple. i've seen countless players with s**t form that never missed because they put endless hours of practice, over many years, into not missing. i've seen countless players with really nice form that havent put the time, effort or intensity into the game, who missed all the time. or, players (some on here come to mind ) that obsess endlessly over technique and fail to improve because they don't focus on the consistency etc. keep it simple.

 

[socallefty]

At lower levels of rec tennis, everyone is self-coached and has terrible form/technique at least compared to the textbook - in this land of the blind, the one-eyed more consistent pushers do well.

Once you get to 4.5/5.0+ levels where almost everyone was coached a lot as a junior, pretty much everyone has somewhat orthodox form/technique and you get decent consistency from almost everyone with limited unforced errors. Here, the players who serve and return the best along with hitting +1 winners without too many unforced errors win the most as the majority of points end within four shots.

So, I think those who have self-taught technique should focus on consistency as their ceiling is low anyway and this will maximize their potential. For those with coach-taught technique combined with thousands of hours of practice accumulated as juniors, my advice would be to currently practice serves, returns and +1 shots off short balls along with point-ending shots like volleys/overheads the most.

It seems like the tennis world is split up between players who can barely keep 10 shots in the court against like-level players and those who can easily hit 50-100 shots in a row without missing. I tell kids I coach that it is hard to stop making errors with bad technique as it will be a lifelong struggle. On the other hand if you learn proper footwork and technique, it is almost impossible to miss shots against neutral balls from same-level players and an opponent has to make you miss by pressuring you with serves, returns and aggressive shots. So, coaches should give advice accordingly depending on the audience.

I feel like I need to practice serves, returns, put away shots, short ball drills, approach shots, volleys, overheads at least twice a week to win a lot at 4.5. I do consistency drills only about once a month and I think it is enough as I play too conservatively for my liking when I do those drills. On the other hand when I was a kid, we did consistency drills religiously every day till our technique and footwork got grooved over many years.

 

[socallefty]

i've seen countless players with s**t form that never missed because they put endless hours of practice, over many years, into not missing. i've seen countless players with really nice form that havent put the time, effort or intensity into the game, who missed all the time.

I hear this on TTW that there are mythical players with bad form/technique that don’t miss. At what level is this true? Because I don’t see these players in Southern California at all at 4.5 or 5.0 and I don’t think it is possible for most self-taught unconventional form players to keep errors low when faced with 4.5+ power and precision - they will be put on the defensive right away after their serve or return. Someone like MEP is an internet celebrity because his unconventional form is pretty rare at the mid-4.5 level he wins at as most others have very conventional coach-taught technique.

I also don’t see players with what I consider good form/technique miss much on their own against neutral balls unless their physical mobility/speed has been impacted too much by old age or being overweight. Both the consistent pushers and hard hitters or bashers at lower levels below 4.0 (which is the majority of rec tennis) have terrible unconventional form and particularly footwork for any spectators watching them - the bashers just think they have good form while the pushers don’t worry about it. Probably if a pro watches a 5.0 player, he will think their form is terrible also - beauty lies in the eye of the beholder based on what they are used to seeing. But not too many coaches will say that they see a lot of 3.0/3.5/low 4.0 players with good ‘form’.

 

[Elite Tennis Barcelona]

What I see happen a lot when a player with "good form" confronts a player
with more consistency (regardless of form) is- the good form player becomes frustrated with long,
exhausting points and, unable to dominate with power and hit winners, takes even greater chances-
and in effect begins a downward spiral.

This is exactly what I meant. They collapse mentally and their "ego" starts to say: how, with my beautiful shots, can I lose against this "ugly technique" player?

 

[Elite Tennis Barcelona]

First of all, thank you very much for all the answers.
The concept of "consistency" that I propose, goes beyond the level, in fact, it applies to all levels, no matter if it is beginner or advanced. The secret, for me, is to accept the level of my neutral shots, play them at the speed I control, and take risks (hit harder) when I feel I can and not when I would like to.
If I'm going to cross a street, I won't do it when I want to, I will do it when I can.

 

[jxs653]

I like your idea of consistency. The difference between "to lose" and "to be beaten" is a great stuff also. Thank you.

 

[tendency]

I hear this on TTW that there are mythical players with bad form/technique that don’t miss. At what level is this true? Because I don’t see these players in Southern California at all at 4.5 or 5.0 and I don’t think it is possible for most self-taught unconventional form players to keep errors low when faced with 4.5+ power and precision - they will be put on the defensive right away after their serve or return. Someone like MEP is an internet celebrity because his unconventional form is pretty rare at the mid-4.5 level he wins at as most others have very conventional coach-taught technique.

I also don’t see players with what I consider good form/technique miss much on their own against neutral balls unless their physical mobility/speed has been impacted too much by old age or being overweight. Both the consistent pushers and hard hitters or bashers at lower levels below 4.0 (which is the majority of rec tennis) have terrible unconventional form and particularly footwork for any spectators watching them - the bashers just think they have good form while the pushers don’t worry about it. Probably if a pro watches a 5.0 player, he will think their form is terrible also - beauty lies in the eye of the beholder based on what they are used to seeing. But not too many coaches will say that they see a lot of 3.0/3.5/low 4.0 players with good ‘form’.

Sure, I oversimplified it a bit. Of course if you have a 3.5 level never-miss player play against a 4.5 player they're going to miss. So, all things being equal level wise etc.

 

[tennis3]

While these may be factors that need to be adjusted, they are almost never the main reason. Personally, I find that the main reason a player is NOT being consistent is because they are trying to hit beyond their own technical skills baggage. This means that they try to play based on how they would like, or were told to play, and not really on how they can really play.

The issue with this approach to me is the fact there’s another guy on that side willing to win the point. Extreme example - he’s in good position at the net. Now most your high percentage options are lost points. You need technical capabilities to deliver high percentage quality lob or passing shot.

Same happens when you play from the baseline. Can you not miss the next shot? Yes, 95% of the time you can. Can you not miss it, and also don’t allow the opponent take advantage of your reply? It’s only reasonable to discuss consistency within the specter of neutral/neutralizing options, not any option.

You play the guy on the other side of the net. Period.

You play the lowest risk game possible that makes him uncomfortable and wins you points.

Not everyone likes to play this way. Some players (claim to) enjoy taking "unnecessary" risk because they like to hit "higher quality" shots. Even if they aren't as effective as lower risk shots.

 

[Elite Tennis Barcelona]

You play the guy on the other side of the net. Period.

You play the lowest risk game possible that makes him uncomfortable and wins you points.

Not everyone likes to play this way. Some players (claim to) enjoy taking "unnecessary" risk because they like to hit "higher quality" shots. Even if they aren't as effective as lower risk shots.

Of course yes, everyone is free to play the way they want, but then there is no need to complain about "not having confidence in the shots", it never connects with confidence if I can't predict the outcome of my shot at a high percentage. If every shot is a roulette...
My golden rule about this is: "hit the most offensive shot that you can hit IN"

 

[Elite Tennis Barcelona]

Makes sense but what about topspin and RHS, aren't those the key to consistency and wouldn't slowing down minimize control

Topspin is a very good tool to be consistent, that is if you are able to hit with topspin. Does this mean that if you are not able to hit with topspin, you cannot be consistent? Of course, you can be consistent, and when you are ready to hit with topspin then you will be consistent at a higher speed. But... if you can't be consistent at low speed, do you think you can be consistent at high speed? If you crash while driving your car at 80 km/h, do you think it's a good idea to drive it at 120 km/h?

 

[Shroud]

Topspin is a very good tool to be consistent, that is if you are able to hit with topspin. Does this mean that if you are not able to hit with topspin, you cannot be consistent? Of course, you can be consistent, and when you are ready to hit with topspin then you will be consistent at a higher speed. But... if you can't be consistent at low speed, do you think you can be consistent at high speed? If you crash while driving your car at 80 km/h, do you think it's a good idea to drive it at 120 km/h?

I am confused now. If you swing faster don't you get more topspin?

 

[Elite Tennis Barcelona]

I am confused now. If you swing faster don't you get more topspin?

if the racket is in the right angle and timing yes. A lot of players are trying to swing faster but without any idea about angle and timing.

 

[socallefty]

It really comes down to this quote. Consistency comes when you know what you are capable of and what you are not - the limits are also different under match pressure as opposed to practice. If I play a player who is obviously below my level, I can play a very low-risk game and thrash him. If I play an opponent who seems slightly above my level and who is 25 years younger than me, I need to take more risks to keep points shorter (I’m not going to outlast him physically) with shot targeting closer to lines, aggressive returns and increased serve speed in particular to stand a chance.

But, I can’t go for shots that are low-% for me constantly and expect to make them. I can go for 5-7 mph more on first serves for example than I usually serve in matches knowing from practice that it will make my % go down only by 10-15%, but I can’t try to serve 15-20mph harder and have my first serve % tank well below 50% - that will not help me win.

 

[FuzzyYellowBalls]

Very frequently, many players with great technical movement manifest confidence issues because of the inconsistency of their strokes. They are convinced that this lack of consistency is a technical problem: that you must hit more in front, a better position, with more topspin, etc.

While these may be factors that need to be adjusted, they are almost never the main reason. Personally, I find that the main reason a player is NOT being consistent is because they are trying to hit beyond their own technical skills baggage. This means that they try to play based on how they would like, or were told to play, and not really on how they can really play.

I like to consider each shot as an "entity" of the player. Each player has "one" forehand, "one" backhand, "one" serve, etc. and somehow, they have their own "personality". The shots speak. With each mistake or success, they tell us what we did well or what to adjust, but the player very rarely listens, not because they are deaf, but because they have not learned to listen, as we (coaches) have not taught them, or because they are only listening to their expectations.

From my point of view, WE ARE ALL CONSISTENT. Everyone is capable of putting 100 balls ... but at the right level. Being consistent is not a technical problem, being consistent is a decision, therefore it is tactical. Having a more or less developed technique should only determine the decision of how I am going to try to hit the ball in. The big problem is that many times the strokes are taught and trained in complete disconnection from the tactical decision, disconnected from the player's feelings, and worst of all, disconnected from the IDENTITY of the player. There are too many players with almost perfect movements but who cannot hit the ball with a certain intention. They are the players with a technique "implanted" artificially from the form and not from the sensations: turn, stand, hit, finish, or any of the 10,000 different progressions that exist. It is useless to teach a preparation or a finish if you do not look at the ball and decide when and how to hit it according to the feeling. The technique has to be developed respecting each stage of development in which the movement is and that each step forward is from the player's internal feeling of FEELING ABLE, that is, from the CONFIDENCE.

The consistency problem is very easy to solve, it can be achieved in 15 minutes, it is just necessary to change the point of view of the decision of the shot, accept what the shot is, identify the real level it has, and at what speed it is RELIABLE. It is easy to solve, but many times, the difficult thing is for the player to accept that at this moment he/she is not the player who thinks and that he must "slow down" to connect to the real technical level with the tactical decision that this technique allows. The incredible thing, the "magic" is that, if you do, if you accept your reality, the shot will accommodate, adjust, find its zone of reliability, and almost unintentionally, improve. If that happens, the player has taken his first step in learning to listen to his/her shots.

Well put, I think of my opponents sometimes in this way, if they hit say 4 really good backhands in a row I think is this their real level, their real consistent level, or a fluke? More times than not they are luckily stringing 4 shots above their stroke level together , they will keep overshooting their stroke level and start making mistakes eventually.

 

[LuckyR]

The OP is correct of course. The reason that the concept is not commonly followed is because it is more ego soothing to go for a low consistancy winner and miss than it is to hit a lower pace shot in and wait for an error.

 

[tennis3]

My golden rule about this is: "hit the most offensive shot that you can hit IN"

Why? Most of tennis is just hitting your "rally ball" shot.

 

[tennis3]

The OP is correct of course. The reason that the concept is not commonly followed is because it is more ego soothing to go for a low consistancy winner and miss than it is to hit a lower pace shot in and wait for an error.

There are generally 2 types of players.

1) Those that have a weapon (or think they do) and win with their weapon(s). This type of player is offensive. Dictates play. Doesn't mind making errors because they will hit enough winning shots to make up for the errors.

2) Those that have "no weaknesses" (or think they don't) and win with consistency. They know the longer the point goes, the more chance their opponent will make an error, or just leave open court for an easy "winner".


Nobody is purely one or the other. But all players will approach a match with one of these mindsets.

 

[Elite Tennis Barcelona]

Why? Most of tennis is just hitting your "rally ball" shot.

What I want to mean is, "Don't be passive or reactive, being solid be proactive"

 

[nyta2]

Very frequently, many players with great technical movement manifest confidence issues because of the inconsistency of their strokes. They are convinced that this lack of consistency is a technical problem: that you must hit more in front, a better position, with more topspin, etc.

While these may be factors that need to be adjusted, they are almost never the main reason. Personally, I find that the main reason a player is NOT being consistent is because they are trying to hit beyond their own technical skills baggage. This means that they try to play based on how they would like, or were told to play, and not really on how they can really play.

I like to consider each shot as an "entity" of the player. Each player has "one" forehand, "one" backhand, "one" serve, etc. and somehow, they have their own "personality". The shots speak. With each mistake or success, they tell us what we did well or what to adjust, but the player very rarely listens, not because they are deaf, but because they have not learned to listen, as we (coaches) have not taught them, or because they are only listening to their expectations.

From my point of view, WE ARE ALL CONSISTENT. Everyone is capable of putting 100 balls ... but at the right level. Being consistent is not a technical problem, being consistent is a decision, therefore it is tactical. Having a more or less developed technique should only determine the decision of how I am going to try to hit the ball in. The big problem is that many times the strokes are taught and trained in complete disconnection from the tactical decision, disconnected from the player's feelings, and worst of all, disconnected from the IDENTITY of the player. There are too many players with almost perfect movements but who cannot hit the ball with a certain intention. They are the players with a technique "implanted" artificially from the form and not from the sensations: turn, stand, hit, finish, or any of the 10,000 different progressions that exist. It is useless to teach a preparation or a finish if you do not look at the ball and decide when and how to hit it according to the feeling. The technique has to be developed respecting each stage of development in which the movement is and that each step forward is from the player's internal feeling of FEELING ABLE, that is, from the CONFIDENCE.

The consistency problem is very easy to solve, it can be achieved in 15 minutes, it is just necessary to change the point of view of the decision of the shot, accept what the shot is, identify the real level it has, and at what speed it is RELIABLE. It is easy to solve, but many times, the difficult thing is for the player to accept that at this moment he/she is not the player who thinks and that he must "slow down" to connect to the real technical level with the tactical decision that this technique allows. The incredible thing, the "magic" is that, if you do, if you accept your reality, the shot will accommodate, adjust, find its zone of reliability, and almost unintentionally, improve. If that happens, the player has taken his first step in learning to listen to his/her shots.

agree! (presuming you're talking about folks at say the ntrp4.0+/utr6.0+ level who already have some decent technique ingrained into their muscle memory)... but i guess you can argue that even beginners can be "consistent" given sufficiently slow pace of shot (ie. in their strikezone, at a speed/spin they are comfortable with).

i like how karue sums it up... "play the ball that is given to you, don't just try to play the ball you want to hit"

obviously things like good footwork, anticipation, preparation, conditioning, balance, vision, etc.. give you more options for any given ball

i'm definitely one who has a shot in mind to play (usually overly aggressive), rather than making the "just in time" decision of what ball i should play (given my own balance, spacing, preparation, etc...)

drills for developing this "magic"?

 

[nyta2]

The issue with this approach to me is the fact there’s another guy on that side willing to win the point. Extreme example - he’s in good position at the net. Now most your high percentage options are lost points. You need technical capabilities to deliver high percentage quality lob or passing shot.

Same happens when you play from the baseline. Can you not miss the next shot? Yes, 95% of the time you can. Can you not miss it, and also don’t allow the opponent take advantage of your reply? It’s only reasonable to discuss consistency within the specter of neutral/neutralizing options, not any option.

i would argue that if i'm in this situation, i was already losing the court positioning battle (due to poorly executed shots earlier in the rally).

that said, rather than missing, i should still be hitting shots that i own, and force them to beat me, rather than beat myself... (ie. via a dipper, or a lob - vs. a high speed thread the needle passing shot).

 

[nyta2]

Sorry. Racquet Head Speed. Faster speed= more spin

i used to be in the camp of more RHS is better... but these days i just focus on making sure i'm always accelerating into/through contact... but how fast my RHS actually is, will be determined by how big of a backswing i take... (ie. where i start my acceleration)

 

[Shroud]

i used to be in the camp of more RHS is better... but these days i just focus on making sure i'm always accelerating into/through contact... but how fast my RHS actually is, will be determined by how big of a backswing i take... (ie. where i start my acceleration)

I think thats a solid point. I have a tendency to get spastic and go for max accel from the get go instead of ramping up so its max at contact. Something I forgot about. Thanks

 

[nyta2]

consistency = reps, plain and simple. i've seen countless players with s**t form that never missed because they put endless hours of practice, over many years, into not missing. i've seen countless players with really nice form that havent put the time, effort or intensity into the game, who missed all the time. or, players (some on here come to mind ) that obsess endlessly over technique and fail to improve because they don't focus on the consistency etc. keep it simple.

i think the quality&intention/type of reps matters...
we've all seen guys (i've been guilty), that go to the ball machine to bash shots over and over from 2-3ft behind the baseline, 6in high from the net... and think that if i hit 10M of these shots i will be able to play flawlessly...

I feel like I need to practice serves, returns, put away shots, short ball drills, approach shots, volleys, overheads at least twice a week to win a lot at 4.5. I do consistency drills only about once a month and I think it is enough as I play too conservatively for my liking when I do those drills. On the other hand when I was a kid, we did consistency drills religiously every day till our technique and footwork got grooved over many years.

+1
though the consistency drills (neutral ball rallies) are still a staple of my diet, since most shots are a neutral ball rally shot... but yeah, must make sure to also practice all the other shots (sitter put aways, short all, approach, v, oh, etc...), so i can take advantage of when my rally shot can earn an attackable shot.... else i'll be stuck forever grinding at the baseline.

 

[nyta2]

Someone like MEP is an internet celebrity because his unconventional form is pretty rare at the mid-4.5 level he wins at as most others have very conventional coach-taught technique.

MEP is a rec-Santoro....
his "technique", while unconventional, is very consistent, puts the ball where he wants, and makes his opponents play bad in the process... (see Santoro v Safin)

 

[nyta2]

The OP is correct of course. The reason that the concept is not commonly followed is because it is more ego soothing to go for a low consistancy winner and miss than it is to hit a lower pace shot in and wait for an error.

i used to think going for "winners" was an ego thing... now i think i used to do this because it worked (for sufficiently low levels). if i play a 3.5, i can hit through them, and force them into an error due to my spin & pace alone... but at 4.5/5.0, i need to work the point, and be consistent enough (the right mount of depth, placement, spin, pace) to execute on combinations that (hopefully) hit their weakspots... because i'm might win say 40% of points "going for winners" but it's high risk, and they just need to weather the storm before i make a mistake.

 

[nyta2]

I think thats a solid point. I have a tendency to get spastic and go for max accel from the get go instead of ramping up so its max at contact. Something I forgot about. Thanks

lol, me too,

 

[Shroud]

lol, me too,

for once I am in great company!

 

[socallefty]

since most shots are a neutral ball rally shot.

Chart your singles matches and you will see this is a fallacy. I charted a few of mine and about 60% of points end within 4 shots, about 35-40% end in 3 shots. So more than a third of points end after a serve, return and serve+1 shot, 60% end after a return+1 shot. I checked this after reading that in ATP pro matches, 70% of points end within 4 shots and more than 50% end within 3 shots. The % of points with rallies above 7 shots is less than 5% of my matches.

People have tracked junior tennis matches and a very high % of points end very quickly also with under-18s tracking pro levels - points are shorter as the age goes up and the juniors have more power on serves and +1 shots. My match stats track with %s of under-14 tournament juniors which makes sense because their level is about 4.5 also.

A reason why points are so short is because of the high number of service winners either due to good serves or at lower levels due to poor returns. I get about 1-2 service winners per game in singles which is about 25-30% of my serve points. My opponents get service winners on about 15-20% of their serves. So, about 20%-25% of points in my singles matches end after the serve - for pros this rate is around 30%.

At low levels, all players typically have weak serves, but almost everyone has weak returns and the few guys who return well control the point patterns and win more. At higher rec levels, returns become better and the guys with the best serves including 2nd serves win more by holding their service games more easily. When you get to college/pro levels, everyone serves great and the great returners win more as it is a key differentiator to control point patterns.

 

[johnmccabe]

disconnected from the player's feelings, and worst of all, disconnected from the IDENTITY of the player.

what's your advice to players who have relatively good fundamentals but still trying to discover their own identities? How should they improve consistency while figuring out what kind of players they want to be?

 

[nyta2]

Chart your singles matches and you will see this is a fallacy. I charted a few of mine and about 60% of points end within 4 shots, about 35-40% end in 3 shots. So more than a third of points end after a serve, return and serve+1 shot, 60% end after a return+1 shot. I checked this after reading that in ATP pro matches, 70% of points end within 4 shots and more than 50% end within 3 shots. The % of points with rallies above 7 shots is less than 5% of my matches.

People have tracked junior tennis matches and a very high % of points end very quickly also - even shorter as the age goes up and the juniors have more power on serves and +1 shots. My match stats track with %s of under-14 tournament juniors which makes sense because their level is about 4.5 also.

A reason why points are so short is because of the high number of service winners either due to good serves or at lower levels due to poor returns. I get about 1-2 service winners per game in singles which is about 25-30% of my serve points. My opponents get service winners on about 15-20% of their serves. So, about 20%-25% of points in. Y singles matches end after the serve - for pros this rate is around 30%.

At low levels, all players typically have weak serves, but almost everyone has weak returns and the few guys who return well control the point patterns and win more. At higher rec levels, returns become better and the guys with the best serves win more by holding their service games more easily. When you get to college/pro levels, everyone serves great and the great returners win more as it is a key differentiator.

good points, those stats (from craigS?) are what prompted me to spend more time serving (daily, for 30-60m - over the summer, this was easily 50% of my 10h/w practice time). i don't always get to practice s+1 or r+1 (depends on partner).. so usually just need to play points to get that practice in. to practice {volley, oh, precise returns, midcourt shots, etc..} is actually what prompted me to play more doubles (ie. and force myself to s&v, or return&charge)

what % of your practice are rally balls? I find it's like ?40% of my practice (but that might just be due to the partners i have always wanting to practice that - eg. groundstroke games - no serving, dingles, etc...)...

definitely need to do more s+1, and r+1 practice, midcourt/short balls, etc...

 

[Dragy]

i would argue that if i'm in this situation, i was already losing the court positioning battle (due to poorly executed shots earlier in the rally).

that said, rather than missing, i should still be hitting shots that i own, and force them to beat me, rather than beat myself... (ie. via a dipper, or a lob - vs. a high speed thread the needle passing shot).

Look, no one is arguing against the premise that while in particular match, consistency is a decision, and in particular matchup it may be the decision between your ego and your win.

What is doubtful though is denying techniques as important part of improving consistency. They continue to say how players with "good form" continue to miss - yes, this happens, but it doesn't mean they will stop missing if they go with deficient form! They miss because of lack of ball recognition, footwork and ball approach, hand-eye coordination, shot selection and, very likely, technical issues. To play on the level they want to play they need to learn and practice and get mentally tough. Learn to hit various shots well.

 

[Dragy]

Chart your singles matches and you will see this is a fallacy. I charted a few of mine and about 60% of points end within 4 shots, about 35-40% end in 3 shots. So more than a third of points end after a serve, return and serve+1 shot, 60% end after a return+1 shot. I checked this after reading that in ATP pro matches, 70% of points end within 4 shots and more than 50% end within 3 shots. The % of points with rallies above 7 shots is less than 5% of my matches.

People have tracked junior tennis matches and a very high % of points end very quickly also with under-18s tracking pro levels - points are shorter as the age goes up and the juniors have more power on serves and +1 shots. My match stats track with %s of under-14 tournament juniors which makes sense because their level is about 4.5 also.

A reason why points are so short is because of the high number of service winners either due to good serves or at lower levels due to poor returns. I get about 1-2 service winners per game in singles which is about 25-30% of my serve points. My opponents get service winners on about 15-20% of their serves. So, about 20%-25% of points in my singles matches end after the serve - for pros this rate is around 30%.

At low levels, all players typically have weak serves, but almost everyone has weak returns and the few guys who return well control the point patterns and win more. At higher rec levels, returns become better and the guys with the best serves including 2nd serves win more by holding their service games more easily. When you get to college/pro levels, everyone serves great and the great returners win more as it is a key differentiator to control point patterns.

The question here I wonder about (and I generally am a fan of the idea you describe) is doesn't it actually end after 3-4 shots because someone (even at 4.5+ level) f's up? Kind of, you return, opponent tries to attack with his +1, you defend well with a rally ball, server feels urge to keep attacking... and misses.

Then you serve, he returns more or less decently, you drive a solid shot, he tries to counter-attack and misses.

How big is this % against truly controlled aggression? Especially when it actually ends with server losing the point? Isn't solid rally/neutralizing ball crucially important to elicit errors from the opponent within 3-4 first shots?