Depth & Topspin in ATP Matches

user92626

user92626

G.O.A.T.
Hello All,

I just realize from watching Nadal, Verdasco, Djokovic, etc. that they seem not too hung up about depth at all. A good percentage of their rally shots lands around the service line, but their topspin must be really huge to bring to the ball to the baseline.

On the other hand I and several others I play with kinda have the tendency to hit dangerously deep. It makes sense cuz we lack the topspin power. Our shots either land long or if land safely short, ie service line, we'd be playing from no man's zone, likely getting ankle ball for next shot. To boot rec players are lazy to reset to baseline or too incompetent to do half volley. No wonder recreational tennis is just so messy. LOL.
 
user92626 said:
Hello All,

I just realize from watching Nadal, Verdasco, Djokovic, etc. that they seem not too hung up about depth at all. A good percentage of their rally shots lands around the service line, but their topspin must be really huge to bring to the ball to the baseline.
Click to expand...

Don't forget that during the next month, clay accentuates the topspin bounce, and rushing the net after a taking a short shot on the rise is an invitation to be passed.

Still your main point about the viscious topspin, yet relative safety in the high net clearance and not aiming for the baseline, is a good one most of us could learn from, even though none of us will be Nadal or Veradasco.
 
Also, most of the time you see them hit shorter, they are using angles, not hitting straight up the middle of the court. Consistently short up the middle is an invitation for a beatdown, even on clay, IMO.
 
When I tried to use the western grip during games after school. My shots that land at the service line would kick up to 8+ feet behind the baseline. Although this didn't seem to bother my teammates. Only the few who had never seen it kick up so fast.
 
TheFuture101 said:
When I tried to use the western grip during games after school. My shots that land at the service line would kick up to 8+ feet behind the baseline. Although this didn't seem to bother my teammates. Only the few who had never seen it kick up so fast.
Click to expand...



Analysis in matches show that Verdasco and Djokovic return most shots @ 3 meters and less from baseline.

So, you, sir, are playing pro-level shots!

---


Anyway, back to the topic I'm thinking of adding more topspin and whipping power which brings me this question. How likely can one change his swingpath? I feel I have found my "natural" swing path and any change too drastically is gonna feel forced, unnatural and error-proneous. So, I'm thinking moving my sw grip to more western is best course. Same swingpath, hit bigger, clear net higher, good?
 
user92626 said:
Anyway, back to the topic I'm thinking of adding more topspin and whipping power which brings me this question. How likely can one change his swingpath? I feel I have found my "natural" swing path and any change too drastically is gonna feel forced, unnatural and error-proneous. So, I'm thinking moving my sw grip to more western is best course. Same swingpath, hit bigger, clear net higher, good?
Click to expand...

Stick with the same grip & alter the swing path.

It's more worthwhile learning how to hit flat & spinny with one particular grip than to learn a whole new grip & struggle with new ball contact point.
 
While watching monte carlo this week i noticed the same thing.A very high percentage of their shots land within a few feet of the serve line.

I want to see this analysis that shows they hit within a meter or less of the baseline on any kind of a consistent basis.That is total bs, i would say that a lot higher percentage lands 3-5 feet from the serve line.
 
What seperates pros from amateurs are the amount of spin and power they put on the ball and their movement. As a result from their spin and extreme grips, they don't need to hit the ball deep because the amount of topspin they generate allows them to push players back and outside the sidelines. In fact, players like Federer get into trouble when they try to hit too deep. That's when he starts missing like he did in 08.
 
Heres a thought that may or may not be idiotic. If they hit it too deep, can't the opponent just take it on the rise giving say Rafa less time and taking away some of the benefits of topspin. So if Rafa hits it around the middle between the service line or baseline, the opponent would not be able to take it on the rise and the topspin Rafa puts on the ball would take its full affect on the opponent as it would bounce at head level or so.
 
vyse,

No one can hit ball on the rise more consistently than ball that peaks in their strike zone. The longer you let the ball comes to you the less power it has. Thus, easier for you to strike it back. If it's easy as you say to hit a ball on the rise, everyone would be standing & playing from the no man's land.
 
user92626 said:
Analysis in matches show that Verdasco and Djokovic return most shots @ 3 meters and less from baseline.

So, you, sir, are playing pro-level shots!

---


Anyway, back to the topic I'm thinking of adding more topspin and whipping power which brings me this question. How likely can one change his swingpath? I feel I have found my "natural" swing path and any change too drastically is gonna feel forced, unnatural and error-proneous. So, I'm thinking moving my sw grip to more western is best course. Same swingpath, hit bigger, clear net higher, good?
Click to expand...

Yeah you must have seen a clay court match. They are more worried about angles because penetrating shots aren't as effective without the open space.

But yes there's a significant difference in topspin and clearance with pros/amateurs.

I would say that you shouldn't change your grip. SW is great and can transition well between surfaces. If you want to produce more topspin look to the rest of your body. Advanced players load from their legs and have greater rotation to create more topspin.

As for swing path, you should learn how to go back and forth between flat and heavy shots. It's a change in the balance between the forward motion and the brushing motion. Use your shoulder rotation to exaggerate that brushing motion. When you have an easy ball, this is when you can lean in and flatten the ball.
 
The pros hit short because they don't need to hit long. Their topspin is hit with huge effort and spin, so the ball has pace even from behind the baseline. Also, the opponent is NOT looking to move forwards into volley position, content to stay 7' behind the baseline and trade heavy groundstrokes.
Since most sub 4.5's DON'T have heavy groundstrokes, don't have good placement angles or depth, they get approached when they hit short.
No penalty for hitting short if the opposition insists on staying back...and practicing a few short groundies just enhances your feel for sharp angles...and dipping passing shots, if need be.
Modern huge topspin shots don't lend themselves to consistent depth. No need for depth, if the ball is hit hard enough to a backcourt player.
 
I think you guys are exaggerating the lack of depth in pro tennis by a long shot. Watch Del Potro and Azarenka some time: deep, deep, deep, deep, angle, deep winner. And when these "big topspin" guys like Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic go on offense their shots have outstanding depth.

Just because you hit a heavy ball doesn't mean you don't want to hit deep. I'd take a ball kicking from the service line over a ball kicking 2-3 feet from the baseline.
 
But as you said, the pros hit short sometimes, but they're working on hitting the next shot with huge shortangles.
And I think some pros hit flatter than others, like WTA vs ATP, so flatter shots tend to land deeper more consistently.
If someone hits huge spin, short angles, they'd be tough to beat.
If someone hits huge spin, deep and generally center court, they'd be easier to beat.
Hitting short gives you practice for hitting huge shortangles. That takes the opponent off the court.
 
LeeD said:
But as you said, the pros hit short sometimes, but they're working on hitting the next shot with huge shortangles.
And I think some pros hit flatter than others, like WTA vs ATP, so flatter shots tend to land deeper more consistently.
If someone hits huge spin, short angles, they'd be tough to beat.
If someone hits huge spin, deep and generally center court, they'd be easier to beat.
Hitting short gives you practice for hitting huge shortangles. That takes the opponent off the court.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's what I said in post #3.
 
If any of you can still watch some of the monte carlo action you will see what i am talking about. It was a much higher percentage of shots that landed within 3 feet of the serve line. Not that close to the baseline, i dont want to hear about delpo or whoever.

Just watch the pro tourney from last week+then tell me about the average rally depth.Sure they will hit deeper when they want to attack more.But they only do that at certain times, not consistently.

This is the same thing that oscar wegner talked about in his videos.Do not try to hit to deep because you will not be a solid consistent player.

That is the reason the pro players do this.They clear the net by a lot, but dont hit real deep on a lot of their strokes.
 
tlm said:
If any of you can still watch some of the monte carlo action you will see what i am talking about. It was a much higher percentage of shots that landed within 3 feet of the serve line. Not that close to the baseline, i dont want to hear about delpo or whoever.

Just watch the pro tourney from last week+then tell me about the average rally depth.Sure they will hit deeper when they want to attack more.But they only do that at certain times, not consistently.

This is the same thing that oscar wegner talked about in his videos.Do not try to hit to deep because you will not be a solid consistent player.

That is the reason the pro players do this.They clear the net by a lot, but dont hit real deep on a lot of their strokes.
Click to expand...
i agree with you and wondered about this myself. i noticed how they would have 10 hit rallies where the balls would hardly go near the baseline. its as if they are waiting for their moment while trying to force their opponent to commit an error. so they will hit slice, slice, topspin, slice...inside-out, outside-in, slice. and they just keep changing the type of ball hoping to get their opponent to hit an erratic shot.

i am not saying that there aren't times that they go all out for hard shots and i don't believe you are saying that either. but you hardly see sustained rallies where they are both just blasting away at the ball and keeping it in play. though i did see tsonga do this, but of course he was ousted.
 
It is simple to say "take the ball on the rise" but the truth is far more difficult. With the excessive spin pros put on the ball you can't be 100 percent sure that the ball isn't going to dip earlier or later than you thought. Plus you have the effects of clay and with that the possibility of getting a bad bounce. It seems like I have seen more shanks during Monte Carlo than I have during all the hard court tourneys up to this point combined.

With that said, if we look back to the end of last year when Nadal struggled some (specifically the final 8 tourney) he wasn't getting the depth he need and opponents were just clobbering the ball.
 
tlm said:
That is the reason the pro players do this.They clear the net by a lot, but dont hit real deep on a lot of their strokes.
Click to expand...

I'd like to play like that, too, but not sure how. How do you that -- whip hard like Nadal, clear the net good and still safe inside the baseline?? If I exert any power in the manner of Nadal (but obviously not his strength) my shot will need to have low net clearance and will also land deep/long.
 
The clay and weather combined at Monte Carlo resulted in extremely slow and heavy playing conditions, that was the major reason we saw so many short balls.

I wouldn't use this tournament as the standard for depth of shot, it was at an extreme, even for clay.
 
tlm said:
If any of you can still watch some of the monte carlo action you will see what i am talking about. It was a much higher percentage of shots that landed within 3 feet of the serve line. Not that close to the baseline, i dont want to hear about delpo or whoever.

Just watch the pro tourney from last week+then tell me about the average rally depth.Sure they will hit deeper when they want to attack more.But they only do that at certain times, not consistently.

This is the same thing that oscar wegner talked about in his videos.Do not try to hit to deep because you will not be a solid consistent player.

That is the reason the pro players do this.They clear the net by a lot, but dont hit real deep on a lot of their strokes.
Click to expand...

Ugh, so that's where I remembered that user name. You're one of the Wegner's Witnesses. It's unrealistic to expect every ball to be hit a foot within the baseline, but pros hit much deeper more consistently than the average tennis player, unless they're using angles which we already discussed.
 
Don't forget one very important factor.....
The pros are hitting against other pros.
Against you and me, every shot would be deep and penetrating.
Against their peers, both sides can hit deep and penetrating shots, so that's why you see short balls hit by them.
If I played a weaker player, even my paltry shots would land deep consistently. Unfortunately, when I play against real 4.5, lots of my shots land short.
 
Please tell me djokovicfan4life did you watch any of the monte carlo masters? If you did not would you try to+then let us know your opinion.

But it sounds like you would rather just state what you think is correct, instead of watching the last pro match that was played.

Also it is not because one player is hitting harder+deeper than the other.I do know that many times if one player is out hitting his opponent it will cause short balls.Nobody is debating that, but that is not what we are talking about.

To anyone that wants to see the truth all i can say is watch some of the monte carlo tourny.If you did not see any of the past weeks tennis+if you dont try to watch it then i do not see how you can debate it.

As far as being a wegner witness or whatever you want to call it.I am stating one more of the many points that oscar has taught years ago in his videos.

So you can trash talk him all you want but what i stated is a fact, he taught to not try to hit to deep because of inconsistently.

He said that after studying hours of pro matches he noticed how often they did not hit that deep.Which is exactly the opposite of what most instructors teach.

Of course the key point is watching pro matches closely. Which is obviously not being done by some here who keep debating this subject.
 
these are still pro level players that can take the ball on the rise. That is one reason they are the best. I just think that could be one reason.
 
I think LeeD mentioned this, but the "short" balls they hit are EXTREMELY heavy. Watch a US Open match on an outer court from the fence and you can actually hear the ball hiss it's spinning so fast, and you can actually see it take an oval shape.

Sure, the pro's are hitting these heavy balls on the rise, but they are not easy shots to take early and be aggressive/offensive. I think this is why we see so many baseline rallies where the ball lands shorter than one would expect.
 
tlm said:
Please tell me djokovicfan4life did you watch any of the monte carlo masters? If you did not would you try to+then let us know your opinion.
Click to expand...

I watched it. I saw some short balls, lots of deep balls, and the use of angles by hitting with less depth.

tlm said:
But it sounds like you would rather just state what you think is correct, instead of watching the last pro match that was played.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm sure that Monte Carlo changed the way pro tennis will be player forever. Oh wait, I thought that was Oscar?

tlm said:
To anyone that wants to see the truth all i can say is watch some of the monte carlo tourny.If you did not see any of the past weeks tennis+if you dont try to watch it then i do not see how you can debate it.
Click to expand...

That's funny, I don't see how you can take a tournament with extremely heavy conditions, then exaggerate the lack of depth to support your theory.

tlm said:
As far as being a wegner witness or whatever you want to call it.I am stating one more of the many points that oscar has taught years ago in his videos.
Click to expand...

Oscar really teaches to aim around the service line when you're not using angles? He won't be getting any of my money any time soon.

tlm said:
So you can trash talk him all you want but what i stated is a fact, he taught to not try to hit to deep because of inconsistently.

He said that after studying hours of pro matches he noticed how often they did not hit that deep.Which is exactly the opposite of what most instructors teach.
Click to expand...

And it finally comes out. The us vs. them, "modern" vs. "conventional" instruction. Didn't take you long.

tlm said:
Of course the key point is watching pro matches closely. Which is obviously not being done by some here who keep debating this subject.
Click to expand...

Funny that you talk about watching matches. Why don't we talk about Davydenko vs. Nadal last year? Would you say Nadal's lack of depth got him into trouble? Would you say Davydenko hit very deep, pinning him behind the baseline?
 
+1 to DjokerFan - you're trying to isolate a heavy clay court tourney as an example for all. Once grass season comes around, and then hardcourt again, watch the depth.

On clay because of the grab, you can get away with hitting short, because it's tough to really hit the ball THROUGH the court the way you can on grass or hardcourt.

Besides that fact, who here is hitting balls with the level of energy that the pros are? The easiest way to get blown off of the court is to leave a ball short with a heap of topspin and little pace - the ball sits up in the midcourt and your opponent (provided they're a competent player) will be able to hit down on their approach shot and will put you on the defensive.
 
Personally, if I know my opposition is staying back regardless of my shots, I can afford to hit shorter and work on shorter angles, to move him around wider side to side.
If my opposition is constantly looking to move forward and approach, I'd start to hit deeper to keep him back.
Now couple that with heavy, slow courts, lots of time for me to hit passing shots, and I'd say, ......on slow courts, I can afford to hit short shots during rallies, as it can't come back to hurt me!
 
SlapShot said:
+1 to DjokerFan - you're trying to isolate a heavy clay court tourney as an example for all. Once grass season comes around, and then hardcourt again, watch the depth.

On clay because of the grab, you can get away with hitting short, because it's tough to really hit the ball THROUGH the court the way you can on grass or hardcourt.

Besides that fact, who here is hitting balls with the level of energy that the pros are? The easiest way to get blown off of the court is to leave a ball short with a heap of topspin and little pace - the ball sits up in the midcourt and your opponent (provided they're a competent player) will be able to hit down on their approach shot and will put you on the defensive.
Click to expand...

Even on clay the depth is pretty good. Did you see any of Ferrero's matches? He kept excellent length (forehand and backhand) when he wasn't hitting extreme angles.
 
I have a video where Louis Cayer is doing a seminar for high-performance coaches and his definition of hitting short was interesting. He says a ball is short/attackable if it is not still rising when it passes through the baseline.

When Nadal hits a ball that bounces at the service line, when the other pros return it from 3ft behind the baseline it is still on the rise.
 
deluxe said:
I have a video where Louis Cayer is doing a seminar for high-performance coaches and his definition of hitting short was interesting. He says a ball is short/attackable if it is not still rising when it passes through the baseline.

When Nadal hits a ball that bounces at the service line, when the other pros return it from 3ft behind the baseline it is still on the rise.
Click to expand...

That's actually a very, very good observation. I never thought of it that way, but it makes sense - if you're having to back up to hit the ball in your strikezone, it isn't really a short ball, even if it landed 3 feet from the net...
 
It is not only on clay court that the pro players hit shorter than many think.Many of their rally balls on any surface land closer to the serve line than they do the baseline.

Just watch any pro match + count how many balls land closer to the serve line than the baseline.You will be surprised of how many shots are within 2-5 feet from the serve line.

Obviously they can get away with this because of the spin+power that they use still carry's the ball deep.

Nobody is debating that, the point was were the ball lands is not that deep many times.This is not a theory, it is a fact.

I am not saying that it is wise to hit short all the time, you have to use depth when the time is right.But if you try to hit to deep all the time you will not be a consistent tennis player.

I see it all the time at club tennis.Players hit way to flat+way to deep which ends up costing them.Sure they can get hot for a while, but it is just a matter of time before they start hitting the net or long.

I pointed out oscar wegner's instruction because he is the only one that i have heard point out how the pro players do not always hit deep.

Nobody said that he taught to hit around the serve line,that is jokerfan4life being a smart ass because he cant back up his bs.I am sure that he is much more knowledgeable about tennis than oscar is.

I said that oscar teaches it is wrong to try+hit to deep because it will hurt your consistency.Which is proven by the pro players themselves.
 
Just watched the rome final between fed+nadal from a few years ago.Fed was definitely hitting deeper than rafa+it was working very well at times.

But he still lost the match even though he had a few match points+was up 5-2 in the tiebreak in the final set.Of course match point was a long shot by fed, one of many that he missed.

He had 89 unforced errors+most of them were long shots.He also had 70 winners+very well could have won the match.

Also no doubt that his deep penetrating shots were very effective at times.And many times rafa's short balls hurt him, but he still won the match.

So here is fed the best player in the world failing with the hit it deep as often as he can strategy.
 
tlm said:
Just watched the rome final between fed+nadal from a few years ago.Fed was definitely hitting deeper than rafa+it was working very well at times.

But he still lost the match even though he had a few match points+was up 5-2 in the tiebreak in the final set.Of course match point was a long shot by fed, one of many that he missed.

He had 89 unforced errors+most of them were long shots.He also had 70 winners+very well could have won the match.

Also no doubt that his deep penetrating shots were very effective at times.And many times rafa's short balls hurt him, but he still won the match.

So here is fed the best player in the world failing with the hit it deep as often as he can strategy.
Click to expand...

Not sure what your point is. Fed's strategy against nadal is not "hit it deep as often as he can". What about the times when people beat Nadal hitting it deeper than he does? There's a reason Nadal's "short" balls are not attackable but yours are.
 
The obvious point is that there is a lot of risk that goes with hitting deep.No doubt it can be effective, take your opponents time away, make him hit a weak ball that you can put away.

But it is very risky, as i pointed out in this match i just watched.Fed who is the#1 player in the world was hitting much deeper than nadal was.No doubt it was working for much of the match.

But it is very difficult to do this consistently for a long period.Which was proven by feds 89 errors.This match also showed that nadal would get in trouble by hitting to many weak short balls.

He could get away with hitting the ball a little short if he had his huge topspin on the ball.But when he hit a short ball with no juice on it he would be in trouble.

Also nadal would hit the ball deep once he got in the right position to hit a deep penetrating shot.But he would work the point with safer not so deep shots until he had the opening.

Were fed was was going for the deep shot much more often+much quicker than nadal.Which it almost worked for him+it can work, but it is very risky.Which was proven in this match.

On the other hand rafa was getting in trouble at times from hitting to many short balls without much spin or pace.We have all seen him get beat when he gets to defensive.There is a fine line between being to aggressive+being to defensive.

But when it comes to club level players i think it is better to learn to use more net clearance+spin than it is to hit deep all the time.Consistency will win out most of the time.

Learning to rally for many shots in a row is most important.The best way i have found to do this is to hit the ball more between the serve line+the baseline instead of closer to the baseline.Which is exactly what i see the pro players do a high % of the time.
 
tlm said:
Learning to rally for many shots in a row is most important.The best way i have found to do this is to hit the ball more between the serve line+the baseline instead of closer to the baseline.Which is exactly what i see the pro players do a high % of the time.
Click to expand...

Well, halfway between the service line and the baseline would be around 3/4 of the court-- I would consider that pretty deep. So perhaps I misunderstood what you meant by hitting shorter. I'm pretty sure most people would call that pretty deep hitting though.
 
I still think, given a high level pro hitting non pressured against a consistent hitting, but inferior opponent, he can hit deeper than 4' from the baseline at least 20 out of 22 groundies.
But guess what? When a pro player is playing against another pro player, there IS pressure, and the opponent IS also trying to disrupt his opponent.
 
Ya you could say 3/4 court is hitting deep, but some would still consider that a little short. I see a lot of players that like to keep it within a few feet of the baseline, which i think is risky.

I use a lot of topspin with a looping trajectory on the average rally ball.So even though i do land some of them around the serve line which i do consider a little short, they easily carry past the baseline with the kick from the ts.

But i still think that is better to land some short compared to going longer+hitting to many out.But you do need to have a lot of spin+power on the shorter ball to get away with it.

So if most of my shots land 3/4 court then i still have a good amount of court left if i hit the ball a little longer.Were if i am landing most shots within a couple of feet from the baseline then there is basically no room for error.

There is a fine line between hitting to short+letting your opponent step into the court+attack you, compared to hitting deep + taking his time away but playing risky.
 
tlm said:
Ya you could say 3/4 court is hitting deep, but some would still consider that a little short. I see a lot of players that like to keep it within a few feet of the baseline, which i think is risky.
Click to expand...

This sounds just like what I said here, so either we misunderstood each other or you've altered your argument slightly. Not sure which.

Djokovicfan4life said:
It's unrealistic to expect every ball to be hit a foot within the baseline, but pros hit much deeper more consistently than the average tennis player, unless they're using angles which we already discussed.
Click to expand...

On the first page or so there were many posts implying that balls landing around the service line are not attackable because of the topspin. I disagree with this because I see them attacked all the time, yes, even in Monte Carlo. But now we're talking about a whole new ball game.
 
Last edited:
3/4 of one side of the court or of the whole court (baseline to baseline)? If former, that's considered as deep for me, ie the no man's zone, especially if the ball is hit all the way from the other baseline.

If you watch the recent monte carlo tournament, alot of shots were placed at 1 or 2 ft behind the service line. That's hardly 3/4.
 
For the third time...
They are playing against professional tennis player who hit as hard and as consistently as they can.
As such, they will encounter hard shots, some harder than even they can handle.
And they know the opposition is NOT trying to approach or get to net!
 
I agree with user92626 there were a lot of balls only a couple of feet past serve line at monte carlo + if you pay attention when watching other pro matches you will also see it.

There is some truth to what leeD is saying, but i would like lee to watch some of these matches we are talking about.There was plenty of times either player could hit the ball deeper if they wanted to.

So his theory of the incoming ball being hit so hard that they cant hit it deep is not true.There are times that this happens no doubt, but that was rarely the case at monte carlo.

There is truth to his point about them knowing that there is not much concern of the opponent coming in. But when they are hitting a lot of balls just past serve line dont tell me that either one of the players could hit deeper if they wanted to.That is the point many many times they could have hit deeper but chose not to!!!!

I will say it again if any of you doubters would try to watch some of these matches+then tell us how many neutral ball rally's you see were both players are repeatedly hitting the ball barely past the serve line.

I think that some have it so ingrained in their mind that the pro players dont hit that short,so they wont watch it to see the that they are dead wrong.
 
Once again, you don't take into account the players desire to hit some short shots so he can hit sharp angles using the short ball!
You only see where the ball lands.
I see WHY it lands short, when it lands short so it doesn't hurt the hitter, and why he needs to groove short shots IN ADDITION to deeper balls...and as you well know, variety is the spice of life.
We all see things differently. I would never want ALL my shots to go exactly 81 feet.
 
This is true lee the shorter ball is used to create angles a lot of times.But that was not the case in many of the rally's that are being debated.
 
Tennis Chan is showing a rerun of Verdasco vs Nadal.
tlm is right. Both of these guys whacked alot of short balls relatively to the middle in rally.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
Getting depth on my groundstrokes
Replies
10
Views
1K
Element54
Element54
S
Need more FH Depth!
Replies
4
Views
786
mucat
mucat
Y
Some questions about controlling the depth of a topspin forehand shot
Replies
18
Views
3K
5263
5263
C
Appropriate depth of typical groundies
Replies
9
Views
1K
SC in MA
S
J
Positioning (depth) at baseline
Replies
12
Views
587
ubercat
U
Back
Top