I think :49 is far from an accidental good shot. Dimitrov hit and he knew it was pretty good but not good enough to get a floating ball that you can volley it away. Wawrinka obvious had enough time and made a short ball. Even if dimitrov came in earlier, wawrinka would slap a passing DTL from that position.
ChaelAZ
G.O.A.T.
So I voted for 4-5ft and was out hitting this weekend with the ball machine and thought I would test this. Moved the camera off me so I don't have to hear technique comments 
p) and I could play around with height. First few shots are pretty much my standard neutral ball shots. You can then see me hit more aggressive, flatter shots (introduces a few tape snaps too), and then through I just played with a few rollers and such. My goal was always service line or deeper. This was the end of a full hour of hitting so a bit worn, but decent sample of shot height/depth.
General observations for me:
p) and I could play around with height. First few shots are pretty much my standard neutral ball shots. You can then see me hit more aggressive, flatter shots (introduces a few tape snaps too), and then through I just played with a few rollers and such. My goal was always service line or deeper. This was the end of a full hour of hitting so a bit worn, but decent sample of shot height/depth.General observations for me:
- Looking at the first 3-4 balls, I actually clear the net a lot more than I thought or perceived. Probably more that 6ft?
- driven balls I have a lot more room for depth that I think I think. (if that makes sense)
- I think I am happy with the height and depth combos I use, but could improve that driven flat ball.
mightyrick
Legend
On the forehand side, I generally aim for 6ft in most rallying situations. I find it the highest percentage location for my stroke. My backhand is generally flat and linear, but I have good control. I aim for maybe 3ft over the net on the backhand side.
D
Deleted member 23235
Guest
shots 2,3,4 are like my ideal rally shot... doesn't have to be hit too hard, but lands deep, neutralizes, and sometimes is enough to illicite a short ball.So I voted for 4-5ft and was out hitting this weekend with the ball machine and thought I would test this. Moved the camera off me so I don't have to hear technique comments
General observations for me:
Anyway, always good to check yourself so was fun to review.
- Looking at the first 3-4 balls, I actually clear the net a lot more than I thought or perceived. Probably more that 6ft?
- driven balls I have a lot more room for depth that I think I think. (if that makes sense)
- I think I am happy with the height and depth combos I use, but could improve that driven flat ball.
i'm ok with missing long. really gett annoyed with myself for hitting into the net
ChaelAZ
G.O.A.T.
On board for all of the above. I have one guy I hit with each week that has the loopiest shot, but driven with pace. Get's huge net clearance, but has enough spin to bring it down and then it always jumps. So I have to force myself to take everything on the rise (a weak spot of mine), or hit everything at or above the shoulder, and that gets physically tough after an hour. I want to find the happy medium of my driven pace and weight with more of his spin and height.
I know when I try to drive balls I will snap the net at times, and that really bugs me.
And some of those balls were completely flat, so you could bang the crap out of them and they go no where with a loud thud. lol.
D
Deleted member 23235
Guest
that's the type of rally shot i'm trying to develop.. loopy, heavy topspin... that consistently lands deep... only drive on a short ball
ChaelAZ
G.O.A.T.
I will have to get some video of us hitting. He absolutely drives me nuts with it. I assume it is what pros say about Nadal's ball jumping off the court, but at my level.
D
Deleted member 23235
Guest
yeah, that's a tough ball.
hard to take on the rise consistently because your footwork has to be doubly aggressive.... especially if his ball is kicking slightly left/right based on varying contact heights.
IowaGuy
Hall of Fame
I assume this is his FH?
Assuming he is a righty, he must do great against lefties, working their BH...
I occasionally hit against a 19-year-old on the university club tennis team that has a similar shot to the one you describe, and the only way I can stay in the point is to try to get into BH CC rallies right from the serve or return of serve, giving him a steady diet of biting slices until I get a ball I can attack. He kills me in neutral CC FH rallies with his heavy TS.
Morch Us
Hall of Fame
Another way to think about the whole rally ball situation is the intelligent tradeoff involved. Let me see how many of you get confused on this math.
Lets say the difficulty of your opponent to return your different kind of rally ball is from 0 to 10, and the difficulty for you to execute any shot with consistency is 0 to 10. But the key is that it is not linear at as deep as a rally position in court, and will depend on the player how exactly it is distributed.
For example consider a sample below (probably exaggerating a bit to convey a point).
Opponent return difficulty vs Players Consistency difficulty
10 vs 10
9 vs 9.9
8 vs 9.6
7 vs 9.5
6 vs 8
5 vs 3
4 vs 2
3 vs 1.2
2 vs 1.1
1 vs 1
0 vs 0
You can see that this player can easily trade consistency to return difficulty till reaching about return difficulty level 4 or even can go maybe 5. But trying to do anything beyond that is a bad trade off from this position in the court. Also it is a bad decision to not do enough with the ball since you can easily gain more zoom/heaviness on the ball at lower ends by trading slight consistency. Ideally this player from this position want to stick to return difficulty 4 or 5 (consistency difficulty 2 or 3).
Opponent return difficulty is also coming from how far he has to move to hit the shot, and how much time is available for him.
Now the curve changes when the same player moves into a more attacking/defensive position (where he does not have to trade much consistency to gain a lot more zoom/returndifficulty) or when the opponent moves into a more attacking/defensive position. The curve is different for different players also.
So it is all about understanding your own curve, and making the right trade offs from each position in the court.
You don't hit as hard as you can from everywhere. Once you learn your own curve, you can try to see the effect of opponents on the curve as well, but that is more difficult and so leaving that is still OK for most players.
Lets say the difficulty of your opponent to return your different kind of rally ball is from 0 to 10, and the difficulty for you to execute any shot with consistency is 0 to 10. But the key is that it is not linear at as deep as a rally position in court, and will depend on the player how exactly it is distributed.
For example consider a sample below (probably exaggerating a bit to convey a point).
Opponent return difficulty vs Players Consistency difficulty
10 vs 10
9 vs 9.9
8 vs 9.6
7 vs 9.5
6 vs 8
5 vs 3
4 vs 2
3 vs 1.2
2 vs 1.1
1 vs 1
0 vs 0
You can see that this player can easily trade consistency to return difficulty till reaching about return difficulty level 4 or even can go maybe 5. But trying to do anything beyond that is a bad trade off from this position in the court. Also it is a bad decision to not do enough with the ball since you can easily gain more zoom/heaviness on the ball at lower ends by trading slight consistency. Ideally this player from this position want to stick to return difficulty 4 or 5 (consistency difficulty 2 or 3).
Opponent return difficulty is also coming from how far he has to move to hit the shot, and how much time is available for him.
Now the curve changes when the same player moves into a more attacking/defensive position (where he does not have to trade much consistency to gain a lot more zoom/returndifficulty) or when the opponent moves into a more attacking/defensive position. The curve is different for different players also.
So it is all about understanding your own curve, and making the right trade offs from each position in the court.
You don't hit as hard as you can from everywhere. Once you learn your own curve, you can try to see the effect of opponents on the curve as well, but that is more difficult and so leaving that is still OK for most players.
FiReFTW
Legend
The thing is a heavy topspin ball that you hit with 90% swing speed has the same if not more consistency than a shot you deliberately hit with 60% swing speed, but its faster and has alot more pace and spin.
People are just usually afraif to hit as fast on a rally ball than an agressive shot, since they hit more low to high and subconciously they are afraid too hit it too long and deep, but that wont really happen if you watch the contact and hit the ball nice infront.
The only time u start losing consistency is when you are trying go go beyond and absolutely crushing and hitting with every muscle fibre in your body like crazy, you should have a loose arm and swing fast, but not with absolutely 120% effort, thats redlining it way too much beyond what you can consistently control.
IowaGuy
Hall of Fame
I like your example, but this is definitely opponent dependent.
For example, against some opponents I will play your difficulty level 4 example, because I'm dictating the point. For example, I can hit a high-percentage offensive slice which gives many opponents troubles.
However, other opponents might easily hit forcing shots/winners against my level 4 shot, so I have no choice but to bump it up, or try another tactic entirely (shorten points, rush the net, etc).
ChaelAZ
G.O.A.T.
Yeah FH mostly. Average 1HBH, but still a lot of spin and kick. He hits those angles on either side and they are tough to chase down.
Morch Us
Hall of Fame
Yes, agreed. I had mentioned that in my post as well. But bringing more variables (opponent) into an already complex equation can sometimes make it too cloudy. So when someone purposely try to train on this curve/trade-off, you could maybe play with same level of opponents, and once it becomes automatic, adding additional variables would be easier. Other probable variables are court conditions/wind/weather etc etc... But once you get a hang of it, adding additional variables are not too bad.
Agree on this as well. When the opponent is too strong and all rounded, his return difficulty level is not going along with your shot executing difficulty and so you take more chances to stay competitive, or at least progress in your game (even if non-competitive in that specific match).
There are also situations where when playing against a lower level player you may win by more margin if you stay at a lower shot executing difficulty (since the opponent will give you a lot of free points, because his return difficulty is too much), but you purposely chose to stay a bit more aggressive in shot makings and reduce your win margin (since you purposely moved out of your curves sweet spot to train yourself to progress).
I was definitely not trying to cover all scenarios involved. Just wanted to introduce the players non-linear trade off curve concept into the discussion. But thanks for pointing out.
Agree on this as well. When the opponent is too strong and all rounded, his return difficulty level is not going along with your shot executing difficulty and so you take more chances to stay competitive, or at least progress in your game (even if non-competitive in that specific match).
There are also situations where when playing against a lower level player you may win by more margin if you stay at a lower shot executing difficulty (since the opponent will give you a lot of free points, because his return difficulty is too much), but you purposely chose to stay a bit more aggressive in shot makings and reduce your win margin (since you purposely moved out of your curves sweet spot to train yourself to progress).
I was definitely not trying to cover all scenarios involved. Just wanted to introduce the players non-linear trade off curve concept into the discussion. But thanks for pointing out.
Last edited:
The Vitamin L
Semi-Pro
Janko Tipsarevic gave some good advice (at about 2:00 in the video) to Marton Fucsovics about depth and height over the net. This has helped me a lot as well in constructing points more successfully.
D
Deleted member 23235
Guest
great find, thx!
my interpretation of what he's saying... at a lower level... hitting low and hard was the way to attack... especially against folks not used to absorbing/redirecting the pace. but as you get better, everyone is used to absorbing that pace (which lands "short"), and will redirect and make you start running. better to get height over the net (gets depth, less risky) when "attacking". I read (somewhere in my tennis library), that defined an "aggessive shot" as any shot (top or underspin) that is still rising as it crosses the baseline... therefore even a underspin lob should be considered aggressive if it lands deep, pushing me back 4-5 feet behind the baseline... most folks that i play at the 4.5 and (low) 5.0 level are not gonna consistently tee off on that shot for a winner/forced error
Last edited by a moderator:
Morch Us
Hall of Fame
The Vitamin L
Semi-Pro
The young player receiving advice in that video is Marton Fucsovics. He's the one that played against Federer in the 4th round of AO 2018. Good to know he's making progress!
5263
G.O.A.T.
How many picked up on his comment about something I've often discussed on TT, on how he sees the young player as "hitting hard and close to the lines"? How he too used to live this lie.
IowaGuy
Hall of Fame
From the other day at IW. Interesting contrast of average net height, eh?
Very cool. Maybe Thiem is working on flattening out his BH to get more pace/penetration? I remember it being much loopier.
Also interesting how different his 1HBH is from Fed, Thiem rotates through the shot much more (like Wawrinka, maybe even more), whereas Fed stays sideways more through the shot.
ByeByePoly
G.O.A.T.
I was hitting the ball machine and decided to take a break from 2hbh, and try some of those IowaGuy cruise missile 1hbh slices. I can ramp it up ... but it might cost me a shoulder.
