Does running a player around the court break the Wardlaw directionals?

[HunterST]

Inspired by Andre Agassi, I decided I should try to run my opponents around the court as much as possible. To accomplish this, I basically used the "hit where they're not" strategy. I had quite a bit of success doing this. However, I realized that sometimes I was (slightly) breaking the Wardlaw directionals by doing this.

Many times my opponent's shots would land close to the middle of the court, but probably 3 feet toward my forehand side. In other words, I think it was technically an outside shot, and should therefore be hit crosscourt. However, my opponent was positioned cross court, so I hit toward the other side of the court and ended up winning the point.

Does this break the wardlaw directionals? I considered running around it to make it a backhand (inside shot), but I tend to lose confidence in my backhand during a match so that didn't seem smart.

How is it possible for either player to run their opponent around on the court like Agassi if they're both following the directionals perfectly?

Thanks in advance for any help!

 

[Steady Eddy]

I think you should be able to run them just as much by giving them a severe cross-court shot as by down-the-line. A player should stand in the middle of where an opponent can return the ball. If he's standing so that there's more court DTL, then of course, take what he's leaving. But if an opponent is positioning in an orthodox manner, then you should be able to run him just as much by going cross-court.

 

[J011yroger]

The directionals are a guideline, but you are free to change directions on balls that are not challenging to you.

This is totally dependent on yourself as a player.

I may hit a heavy deep crosscourt FH to my buddy of equal skill level and he is best off returning it crosscourt. Agassi would take my heavy deep crosscourt FH and take it on the rise rifling it down the line for a winner, because to him, my heavy shot is a meatball.

So if your opponent gives you a shot you are comfortable changing direction on, then by all means do if that is what you think is the best strategy.

J

 

[tribunal4555]

Inspired by Andre Agassi, I decided I should try to run my opponents around the court as much as possible. To accomplish this, I basically used the "hit where they're not" strategy. I had quite a bit of success doing this. However, I realized that sometimes I was (slightly) breaking the Wardlaw directionals by doing this.

Many times my opponent's shots would land close to the middle of the court, but probably 3 feet toward my forehand side. In other words, I think it was technically an outside shot, and should therefore be hit crosscourt. However, my opponent was positioned cross court, so I hit toward the other side of the court and ended up winning the point.

Does this break the wardlaw directionals? I considered running around it to make it a backhand (inside shot), but I tend to lose confidence in my backhand during a match so that didn't seem smart.

How is it possible for either player to run their opponent around on the court like Agassi if they're both following the directionals perfectly?

Thanks in advance for any help!

In my humble opinion, the Wardlaw directionals are great guidelines, but they're just that- guidelines. They make for great percentage tennis. However, and this does not just apply to the directionals, people make the mistake of being locked into the same patterns, for example the idea that one should blast a hard first serve, without adjusting for different factors, like surfaces, conditions, their opponents, and most importantly, themselves. If a person was playing on clay, playing in humidity, playing against an opponent who likes hard serves, or does not possess a safe second serve, this "cannonball" serve does not make much sense, at least to me. My point is, you should be able to adapt and adjust on the tennis court. Often times, I use the directionals to set up a point, and then I seize an opportunity to attack, even if the ball is still an outside shot.

Besides, the directionals do mention that if the ball is a weaker one, you can change directions, even if it is an outside ball, as long as you hit a forcing shot.

My $0.02.

 

[xFullCourtTenniSx]

If everyone stuck to Wardlaw's directions like they cling to oxygen to live, then tennis would be far too predictable. Once you get to the level where people can consistently control where they place the ball, then there's no real need to guess where the opponent is going or covering the crosscourt shot because you'd know where the opponent is hitting already just by the relation of the ball to their body and your knowledge of Wardlaw's directionals.

 

[HunterST]

Thanks a lot guys. Every post so far has really helped.

Basically I've gathered that if the shot is a good, deep ball with some pace that is hard to attack, I should follow the directionals. If I think I can attack the ball, I'll hit it wherever I want as long as I'm confident I can make the shot.

 

[ubermeyer]

You don't always have to stick to them. Indeed, you shouldn't; they are merely good guidelines to hit to return a ball that is well struck and you don't know where to hit it.

 

[Zachol82]

Wardlaw's directionals is good for consistency and getting the ball back, it's not really used to finish off a point or running your opponent around. Therefore, yes, you will break Wardlaw's directionals if you try to move your opponent around the court.

 

[fruitytennis1]

The wardlaw directionals??? No clue what that is.

 

[Zachol82]

The wardlaw directionals??? No clue what that is.

http://hoskinsjohn.bizland.com/direc/

 

[35ft6]

It's interesting how much I'm seeing guys hit up the middle these days on the pro tour. Federer did it against Davydenko to turn the match around. It probably doesn't work at the amateur level as well, though. But on the pro tour, where some guys actually prefer hitting on the move with less time to "think" (Pete Sampras' running forehand is an extreme example of this), hitting heavy shots up the middle, forcing them to create something, seems to work wonders. Fed's match was the most notable example of late but I've seen it a lot in other matches as well.

 

[J011yroger]

It's interesting how much I'm seeing guys hit up the middle these days on the pro tour. Federer did it against Davydenko to turn the match around. It probably doesn't work at the amateur level as well, though. But on the pro tour, where some guys actually prefer hitting on the move with less time to "think" (Pete Sampras' running forehand is an extreme example of this), hitting heavy shots up the middle, forcing them to create something, seems to work wonders. Fed's match was the most notable example of late but I've seen it a lot in other matches as well.

I find it is a smart thing for me to do when my shot is heavier than my opponents, but he is better at creating angles than I am, so I am better off pounding hard up the middle, until I get something short, instead of giving him some angle, that he can multiply, and make me run.

J

 

[samster]

I find it is a smart thing for me to do when my shot is heavier than my opponents, but he is better at creating angles than I am, so I am better off pounding hard up the middle, until I get something short, instead of giving him some angle, that he can multiply, and make me run.

J

Excellent, J011y!

 

[35ft6]

I find it is a smart thing for me to do when my shot is heavier than my opponents, but he is better at creating angles than I am, so I am better off pounding hard up the middle, until I get something short, instead of giving him some angle, that he can multiply, and make me run.

J

You really want a good example, do some two on one groundstroke games. The two guys can just absolutely school the guy by himself. It's amazing how much more court you have to work with, how many more angles you have, when you're in a corner. Why most players can't take advantage of this is because their movement's not good enough. Whatever "advantage" you might have is more than offset by not being in good position due to lack of foot speed or anticipation.

(but in the pro level, the guys with really good hands and feet can take advantage of this and love hitting on the move... and likewise, some guys love a target, can miss random balls for no reason but are lethal on the passing shots...)

Think about when people hit an extreme short angled shot, like a forehand that lands 3 feet up from the service line on the deuce side. If it's struck with power, and the guy is pulled out of position, it's an effective shot. But if the guy is there in time, no matter how well it was struck, when you have a good look at a forehand from outside the doubles alley, you can easily hit a winner up the line or cross court, you have SO MUCH court to work with.

If it wasn't for the whole foot speed thing, the middle of the baseline would be the WORST place to hit the ball from in terms of taking control of a point.

 

[35ft6]

^ Related to the extreme angle shot example, somebody at a different board posted a link to that shot Murray hit around the net post against Cilic. I said what was amazing is he got there so quickly. If you can get there, it's not a tough shot in terms of simply hitting it. It's his foot speed that amazed me.

 

[J011yroger]

I love doing 2 on ones.

Actually the 1 guy can do pretty well for himself. Just keeping the ball deep and heavy, usually to one guy for a few balls, then when you get the opportunity, paste the other guy who hasn't hit a ball in 8 shots.

Don't play angles, go deep middle and deep corner, until you get something you can work with, then end the point.

The absolute bullet up the middle is great for causing confusion too.

We play to 11 and then rotate, or play to 21 if we want to make the single guy puke.

J

 

[samster]

I love doing 2 on ones.

Actually the 1 guy can do pretty well for himself. Just keeping the ball deep and heavy, usually to one guy for a few balls, then when you get the opportunity, paste the other guy who hasn't hit a ball in 8 shots.

Don't play angles, go deep middle and deep corner, until you get something you can work with, then end the point.

The absolute bullet up the middle is great for causing confusion too.

We play to 11 and then rotate, or play to 21 if we want to make the single guy puke.

J

Hahaha, so true, so true!

 

[J011yroger]

Hahaha, so true, so true!

Did the drill with BHBH and Geoff where the 1 guy served, and the 2 guys returned, and everyone only got singles alleys.

Was very very fun, but we ran out of time.

J

 

[35ft6]

When we play 2 on 1's, the 2 guys on one side have to show some restraint. It's too easy to end the point quickly when you are basically in perfect position for every shot.

What we try to do -- and by "try" I mean "it rarely happens" -- is basically, the 2 guys are trying to approximate a really good player, the kind we don't get to play a lot. We hit corner to corner, but the guy by himself should get to the balls and have to really work hard to stay in the point, hitting forceful shots, but not getting desperate and going for stupid all or nothing winners.

Like I said, it doesn't usually work out that way though. Really, the way we do it, it's for the best to use Wardlaw directionals philosophy. Against better players, even properly executed low percentage shots is a risky proposition since it will probably come back anyway, and if you have bad foot speed, you're leaving them a whole open court to hit into.

Now that I think about it, lucky me for bringing this back to the original topic, but well orchestrated 2 on 1 drill, where the 2 people should be trying to be Michael Chang, will really illustrate how in the long run, if you're playing somebody good, the Wardlaw method pays off. It's your best bet. It's like playing the percentages in blackjack. You have to stick with it for a while before the advantages of playing the percentages really reveals itself.

 

[Nellie]

So let's say you receive a good cross-court shot and your opponent is waiting crosscourt on the reply - you would, when you are likely well wide of the sideline, change direction, and go down the line to a very small target, over the high point of the net, to hit a shot that your opponent does have to move a little to reach but can then hit a clean, high percentage crosscourt shot for a winner?

You have to think of different rules for different times - if the ball is deep and/or fast stay crosscourt. If the ball is short/slow, change direction as you want.

 

[BounceHitBounceHit]

I wouldn't worry too much about the 'directionals' if your current choices are allowing you to consistently hit winners. BHBH

 

[tricky]

Wardlaw covers this:

Guide Three – If you change direction on an Outside Ground Stroke there is a 90 Degree change of direction. You have to be careful when using this change of direction as it is in such instances that errors are made. The ball needs to be in your comfort zone and not when you are under pressure from a good shot from your opponent.