How would you beat them? Better movement? Power? Placement? What do you see as their weaknesses? I think they'd both be pretty tough outs myself for many / most people.I think so; after I recover, get my fitness back and get back to practicing.
How would you beat them? Better movement? Power? Placement? What do you see as their weaknesses? I think they'd both be pretty tough outs myself for many / most people.
I'd say no 4.0 is beating them. 4.5's would be a mixed bag. They'd expose the weaknesses of most 4.5's though I'd say and win many more times than not. 5.0's would beat them.
I love how they play, especially the gentleness, efortlessness of it. If I had always played like them I wouldn't probably have any knee, elbow problems now, and my total unforced error count so far would be 75% less. I wish I had watched videos like this instead of current pros' in the last 5 years since I started playing tennis.
I love how they play, especially the gentleness, efortlessness of it. If I had always played like them I wouldn't probably have any knee, elbow problems now, and my total unforced error count so far would be 75% less. I wish I had watched videos like these instead of current pros in the last 5 years since I started playing tennis.
I agree but the main point to me is the low powered, relaxed style. That's what impresses me a lot.I had a look at Connors vs Rosewall, Forest Hills, 1974 and there was your smooth, slice and low-powered game going up against the brute power of Connors. And the guys playing today hit a lot harder with more topspin and RHS. Connors had a lot of easy volleys when he came to net as the return was a slice shot that was popped up. Yes, you can do a lot with slice today in the modern game but you'd better have a decent topspin backhand too when the other guy pounds your backhand and comes to net.
How would you beat them? Better movement? Power? Placement? What do you see as their weaknesses? I think they'd both be pretty tough outs myself for many / most people.
I'd say no 4.0 is beating them. 4.5's would be a mixed bag. They'd expose the weaknesses of most 4.5's though I'd say and win many more times than not. 5.0's would beat them.
Are you a 5.0 player?I would probably win 0-0. They are very good for their age, but the returns are hit from inside the baseline and land over the T. Once they get in trouble they cannot recoup, combine that with a weak return/serve and they will never really be in the point.
Once they start having to take 2-3 steps on the return, their age will show, curently its like 1step max. One of the downfalls of being 70.
Btw, ive played many top senior players. They beat the hell of out me as a junior. Still remember breaking my new yamaha white gold racket after losing 6-0 to someone in their mid 60's
That's my opinion as well, although video certainly slows the game down. But looking at the type of unforced errors they make and their overall consistency they'd make them, I'd say they may be 4.0 if their tactics are quite good. I've played in 4.0 tournaments and play 4.0 matches as a sub in the Northeast so this is just my own personal opinion based on my limited USTA experience. Just a quick breakdown of the first two games:I'm a 4.5 and I think that any 4.5 with above average movement would not struggle against these guys.
Are you a 5.0 player?
That's my opinion as well, although video certainly slows the game down. But looking at the type of unforced errors they make and their overall consistency they'd make them, I'd say they may be 4.0 if their tactics are quite good. I've played in 4.0 tournaments and play 4.0 matches as a sub in the Northeast so this is just my own personal opinion based on my limited USTA experience. Just a quick breakdown of the first two games:
Love-Love: Al hits a deep return but and gets one rally ball back but makes an error on non-offensive slice.
No idea, but was invited to the league (i play for fun now). Would probably play like 3-4, the top guys arent real 5.0's. Older top 200 pro's who teach, but in doubles they are beasts, such great hands. Not sure if my friends elbow got better, but he was playing and had a win over becker in doubles. Mid 40's now but so good at doubles, can bounce balls over the fence off high backhand poaches. Has that effortless flick like the bryans.
The problem i stated is the one i have problems with against younger players. They start each point off at such an advantage you are rarely able to do what you want. Just the way it goes.
Starting the point outside the doubles alley means you gotta hit a good return, sometimes you hope to get it back, much less do something. Thats like 3-4 additional steps back to home base, gives them a chance to hit behind you if you turn and run, instead of split stepping back (lots of work)
I think that a lot of those errors are due to the power of the racquets that they are using. Being off slightly on the angle and the ball goes wide.
I use this one, its a modern wilson profile with a 16*15 pattern. Its the most powerful frame on the market, no problems at all with the open pattern on angled shots. I can almost hit the bench with my xcourt rolling fh (if set up)
https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/new-wilson-racquet-ultra-xp-100s.544749/
I have a very powerful frame as well, but the power is tamed with topspin. Did you see any rolling angled shots from these two players?
Keep watching. They made a lot of errors in the first 3 games. Starting from the 4th game Al starts to pick up his game. Consistency improves. Al hits some balls that would trouble almost players on this board.That's my opinion as well, although video certainly slows the game down. But looking at the type of unforced errors they make and their overall consistency they'd make them, I'd say they may be 4.0 if their tactics are quite good. I've played in 4.0 tournaments and play 4.0 matches as a sub in the Northeast so this is just my own personal opinion based on my limited USTA experience. Just a quick breakdown of the first two games:
Love-Love: Al hits a deep return but and gets one rally ball back but makes an error on non-offensive slice.
15-Love: Brent hits a second serve with spin - you can tell it's well practiced and likely consistent, but it's not offensive enough to push his opponent back. Brent does hit a deep slice to force an error, this is higher quality perhaps above 4.0 level.
30-Love: Good high return by Al and well handled deep forehand but Brent just dumps a junk ball into the net without moving his feet at all. At the 4.5 level I'd have to think the player would have moved to hit a heavy deep forehand and perhaps approached behind it.
30-15: Brent fishing for an error or short ball using his slice to the backhand but got a little too aggressive makes an unforced error of his own. On par with 4.0 that I'm used to.
30-30: Another solid second serve by Brent, reinforces the idea that he's had decades of practice and won't likely breakdown in a match. He really doesn't do much with the return directly to him and gives Al a look at an offensive shot. Ignoring the debate of whether to shot was in or out, the placement, spin and pace of his attacking ball looks representative of 4.0 level to me (good depth, little spin, hits lower tarp on decline of bounce).
40-30: On a well-placed/lucky return Brent smartly slices back. His strategy is sound and execution is good. Al's timing is off, which on that quality of a slice I'd expect to see a 4.0 not be able to hit aggressively on a consistent basis.
2nd game
Love-Love: Al goes straight for a slice down the middle to Brent's backhand. It's obvious that tactics-wise, they're above average 4.0 level because their serves are well refined in strategy and placement (Almost all of Brent's serves in the 1st game were to the backhand), but they just like pop.
15-Love: Second serve able to aim on the backhand side, although I think young faster 4.5+ player could run around and hit punishing forehand. And then rally slices up until Al is forced to approach and Brent hits a nice topspin backhand dipping shot on a relatively deep ball.
15-15: Another well aimed first serve slicing into the backhand body. The short return would typically illicit and heavy and deep approach but the deep slice is probably more comfortable for Al. The winner by Al at the end is potentially a ball a younger 4.0 could get up to and maybe whack a down the line attempt but the overall quality of the point is still high level 4.0 maybe even low 4.5 imo.
30-15: Another well placed serve. Just from these few points it seems like Al has a tendency to not stay low throughout the entire shot when he's hitting topspin drives. Maybe it's a product of his age but it's obvious his shot isn't landing close to the ideal target. And it's really too close to call but it does seem like Brent isn't giving him any benefit of the doubt throughout these close ones.
30-30: Consistent second serve followed up by excellent approach. I have to give Brent credit for his speed here at 70+ but a younger Al would have likely followed his drive a bit quicker so that first volley would have been a finishing smash, instead he has to volley from a bit further out and ideally could have hit a dropper. And same idea with the overhead, perhaps with faster legs he would have caught up and hit a much more aggressive smash instead of being forced to back up to no man's land and then respond to a tough slice.
30-40: Not enough done by Al after a short return and both guys stay pretty consistent in a rally which I'd mark as high 4.0 before Brent his a nice dropper.
Overall just seems like these guys could be 4.5 or even higher if they had the mobility and quickness of younger legs. Not once do you really see a full kinetic chain forehand whip, because it really requires a deep knee bend to smack those low slices and these guys most likely can't do that for a full match. But you do see a lot of good tactical habits. Decades of always serving to the backhand has been ingrained, and not once did either guy double fault while still aiming for the backhand side. I'd be able to buy high level 4.0 since these guys will never beat themselves, maybe even taking a set on a low level 4.5 but a full best of 3 match, particularly if outdoors? I'm not so sure.
Al’s weapon is his placement and control. He hit a lot of innocuous looking balls that put Brent on the defensive due to the placement.I watched the first 3 minutes and I don't see any "weapons" possessed by these old men that would give me troubles!!!
They're not even 4-shot consistent.
You see them moving but they become out of position fast with short balls and resort to pace-less BH and Forehand slicing. Oh how I love paceless balls!
I play with a USTA 3.5 woman and gave her my full doubles court and beat her with ease though.
Al’s weapon is his placement and control. He hit a lot of innocuous looking balls that put Brent on the defensive due to the placement.
So many people watch the Brian Su video and think, “he doesn’t do anything special.” I guarantee you, he’d beat most all of the posters on the board with his ordinary looking game.
Of course Brian’s playing level is higher. He was in his early 40s in that video whereas the old guys are nearly 2x that age in the 70s. It’s like comparing present day Safin or Santoro to present day Laver.Are you talking about this Brian Su?Brian's playing level is clearly different and higher than the old men above. His strokes look all controlled and the placement is well intended and executed.
But I wasn't talking about Brian Su.
The old men's hitting forms are very wobbly which explain their lack of consistent. The points that stay a bit longer are those hit well in the middle and soft. Scroll to a random point in time, 12:25, and see.
They look active but why do they slice on both wings a lot?
Of course Brian’s playing level is higher. He was in his early 40s in that video whereas the old guys are nearly 2x that age in the 70s.
He does alot of things special. A very smart player in reguards to shot selection. Even mixes in the floater slice. His defense is loopy top that lands deep. I like watching him play (havent seen much).
In the video above i like how he hit a def loopy return, followed by a flat fh. Much different timings and bounce, rarely gives you the same shot twice (hard to play against).
These guys are trickey, you have to hit 2 great shots to win the pt. But you have to know the first one is good enough to set up the 2nd. For example if the black shirt guy knew the return would be played defensive and s&v, it would of ended it quickly. But the serve has to be good enough to produce that result. Takes a great player to do these things enough times to win a match.
How about these guys? When the age is 10 years lower, the speed and footwork improves significantly. Too bad we're all getting old!
Video is not edited but fast forward with arrow keys work well.
Lets give Bret and Al some respect.
Who here has won a National title,
Section title,
State Title,
Local Title,
Or do you only play in your own little 4.0, or 4.5 box, because you might win more than 50% of your matches.
If you have not lost one and one, you need to play better players.
I posted the image of doing 400 miles this past month. Anyone else here doing that kind of mileage? Do you think that the two older guys are doing that kind of mileage?
I'm fairly new to tennis, but everything I've been reading tends to agree that long distance running doesn't provide much benefit to tennis endurance. Although, if your perspective is that it takes patience and a very strong mental fortitude to run that far - I'd have to agree.
If running doesn't provide much of a benefit to tennis endurance, why does David Ferrar run for an hour a day?
I'm really out of shape, running long distance would definitely help my endurance level. I'm just not sure if it would help my endurance level for tennis more than doing sprints, according to what I've been reading. I'm definitely not an expert on the matter .
Irrelevant. Brent Abel was a pro player.
You do 13.5 miles a day everyday? Wow!!I I posted the image of doing 400 miles this past month. Anyone else here doing that kind of mileage?
Did you see the Isner thread from 2006? A poster thought he was a hacker back then.
You do 13.5 miles a day everyday? Wow!!
What has that got to do with Brent Abel having been a pro player and a coach?
Point is he is not a fair comparison for rec players.
Lets give Bret and Al some respect.
Who here has won a National title,
Section title,
State Title,
Local Title,
Or do you only play in your own little 4.0, or 4.5 box, because you might win more than 50% of your matches.
If you have not lost one and one, you need to play better players.
That's the point. I'm really asking if younger / faster, but less experienced / less skilled players will beat players with this much experience but older. It seems to me that we have differences of opinion (as I expected).Irrelevant. Brent Abel was a pro player.
Rod Laver was a pro player as well. Did you see him hitting a few balls with Federer last year or the year before? Do you think that you could beat Laver in his current physical condition?
That's the point. I'm really asking if younger / faster, but less experienced / less skilled players will beat players with this much experience but older. It seems to me that we have differences of opinion (as I expected).
I'm of the opinion that their experience and their "ability to win" would prevail much of the time.
The video is deliberately deceptive. It's two skilled players. If we put Brent against a 4.0 TT poster, we'd see a much different match.
How about these guys? When the age is 10 years lower, the speed and footwork improves significantly. Too bad we're all getting old!
Video is not edited but fast forward with arrow keys work well.