Essential tennis some new set video

[mcs1970]

So having a big serve and being able to blast away the weaker replies doesn’t mean anything? Okay whatever you want to believe go with it. I’m well aware that there are some 5.0 guys that don’t hit that big of shots, there are always exceptions. But the majority have big first serves and monster forehands
and regardless of what you say it definitely means something.

I'm not saying there are some exceptions. I'm saying I've seen quite a few 5.0 rec matches too, and it's not just a few exceptions as far as lack of blistering serves and big hitting. They are not pros. You have made up your mind as to how you feel a 5.0 should play. Looks like nothing can change that opinion.

 

[J011yroger]

I'm not saying there are some exceptions. I'm saying I've seen quite a few 5.0 rec matches too, and it's not just a few exceptions as far as lack of blistering serves and big hitting. They are not pros. You have made up your mind as to how you feel a 5.0 should play. Looks like nothing can change that opinion.

You are wasting your time. 4.0s glorify 5.0 tennis so they can feel like they are good. 5.0s know they aren't good.

J

 

[Wise one]

You are wasting your time. 4.0s glorify 5.0 tennis so they can feel like they are good. 5.0s know they aren't good.

J

There is no 'good', only various levels of skill.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

No kidding they are pro players. That doesn’t change the fact that their backhand is a weakness that holds them back from being able to beat the top players. If you knew anything about tennis you would understand this.

Most everyone else can't beat the top players also and they have traditional drive BHs. The players with slice BHs can't beat the top players not because they have slice BHs but because the top players are better than them.

Johnson made it to #21.
Vinci beat Serena en route to winning the US Open.
Lopez made it to #15.
Oh, and then there's that Graf lady.

How much better would they be if they had a normal drive BH? Who knows. Also, did you entertain the possibility that they might be worse? The time spent on developing the drive BH is time that couldn't have been spent elsewhere. You're assuming it always would produce a positive return; I'm not so sure.

I know plenty about tennis and so do you. I just use the information to go in a different direction.

 

[CiscoPC600]

That doesn't mean anything..no disrespect. I can say I've seen higher level players not hit that hard, and that's a true statement too.

I'm not saying the Essential Tennis guys are 5.0 folks. At the end of the day you have to play tournaments to claim that ranking. Everything else is subjective. However, both of them serve and move pretty well, and if they did consistently play tournaments, which I'm not sure they do anymore, they'd be legit 5.0 contenders.

As for hitting hard and fast. many have posted videos of Brian Su here over the years. If he didn't play tournaments, people wouldn't believe he was a 5.0.

Man.. I couldn't make it past 3 minutes. Seemed like 50% of Brian's shots barely went past the service line. The other guy was very inconsistent.

 

[MordredSJT]

So having a big serve and being able to blast away the weaker replies doesn’t mean anything? Okay whatever you want to believe go with it. I’m well aware that there are some 5.0 guys that don’t hit that big of shots, there are always exceptions. But the majority have big first serves and monster forehands
and regardless of what you say it definitely means something.

You're describing a game style and not a level of play. I've known 5.0 players who serve and volley and have suspect groundstrokes on both sides. I've known 5.0 players with stronger backhands than forehands. I've known 5.0 players with weak serves that are awesome returners. Not everyone plays your typical surf and turf, big serve and big forehand game. We aren't all young Andy Roddicks out there.

I knew a guy that won a fast serve contest once with a 143mph serve, and he had a huge forehand. He was a 4.5.

 

[FiReFTW]

Just for info, the black shirt guy playing green shirt guy is close to UTR12, which is like 5.5 teritory slowly if you check myutr

 

[Chadalina]

Now the guy with the black shirt definitely looks like a 5.0 level player he hits the ball harder and faster outdoors on clay than the other 2 supposed 5.0 players could hit indoors on hard court.

Did you notice he lost most of the pts when he had to hit 2 bhs? Green guy returns everything to his fh, even serves to it. Great striking but low iq tennis

 

[BounceHitBounceHit]

More of a question to the other posters here, not singling you out. But how many here have played against an atp pro?

I play regularly with a recently retired ATP top 150 doubles specialist. One of my close friends was ATP top 200 in singles. I’ve hit with multiple other ATP pros in the 200-400 range. And I’ve played umpteen top WTA women, including one in the current top 100. [emoji56]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[heninfan99]

Did Ian gas in game 5?

 

[tlm]

You are wasting your time. 4.0s glorify 5.0 tennis so they can feel like they are good. 5.0s know they aren't good.

J

Sorry your not even close, I know that 5.0 is nothing that great but it’s way better than most rec tennis. So a 4.0 glorifies a 5.0 to make them feel like they are good at 4.0 level? Wow that’s hilarious, I’m well aware that 4.0 is nothing special in any way.

I watch the local college guys play and some are pretty impressive but it’s NAIA, and some of the top guys are pretty good but if they were to play division 1 guys they would get smoked. So I definitely understand the many levels of tennis skills, but I have never considered 4.0 level even close to being good. Lol

 

[tlm]

You're describing a game style and not a level of play. I've known 5.0 players who serve and volley and have suspect groundstrokes on both sides. I've known 5.0 players with stronger backhands than forehands. I've known 5.0 players with weak serves that are awesome returners. Not everyone plays your typical surf and turf, big serve and big forehand game. We aren't all young Andy Roddicks out there.

I knew a guy that won a fast serve contest once with a 143mph serve, and he had a huge forehand. He was a 4.5.

There are many different styles of play that can be effective no doubt. I have seen players like you describe that may not have a big serve but have excellent return game. But the majority of 5.0 guys I’ve watched have big first serves and big forehands, but they certainly have more than just those two weapons.

 

[sredna42]

I play regularly with a recently retired ATP top 150 doubles specialist. One of my close friends was ATP top 200 in singles. I’ve hit with multiple other ATP pros in the 200-400 range. And I’ve played umpteen top WTA women, including one in the current top 100. [emoji56]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Faaaaaark you're really lucky mate!

 

[FiReFTW]

There are many different styles of play that can be effective no doubt. I have seen players like you describe that may not have a big serve but have excellent return game. But the majority of 5.0 guys I’ve watched have big first serves and big forehands, but they certainly have more than just those two weapons.

Its all relative tho, those 5.0 have big forehands for some but they dont really have big forehands for federer.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

Sorry your not even close, I know that 5.0 is nothing that great but it’s way better than most rec tennis. So a 4.0 glorifies a 5.0 to make them feel like they are good at 4.0 level? Wow that’s hilarious, I’m well aware that 4.0 is nothing special in any way.

I watch the local college guys play and some are pretty impressive but it’s NAIA, and some of the top guys are pretty good but if they were to play division 1 guys they would get smoked. So I definitely understand the many levels of tennis skills, but I have never considered 4.0 level even close to being good. Lol

It's all relative: a 5.0 playing a 4.5 looks to be a superstar. The same 5.0 playing a 5.5 looks like a newbie. Same player.

5.0 is roughly the 97th percentile of registered players. Whether one considers that "nothing that great" or "way better than I'll ever be" is subjective.

The top of 4.0 is close to the 90th percentile. By most people's standards, that would be excellent. But again, judgment is personal.

Maybe it goes something like this: I am at level X, which isn't that good. But that guy over there is level X+1 and that's really good.

The problem is, that guy over there is thinking the same thing: he's level Y, which isn't that good. But that guy over there is level Y+1 and that's really good.

And so on, and so on...all the way up through the pros.

 

[ByeByePoly]

There are many different styles of play that can be effective no doubt. I have seen players like you describe that may not have a big serve but have excellent return game. But the majority of 5.0 guys I’ve watched have big first serves and big forehands, but they certainly have more than just those two weapons.

Our tournaments used to be:

C (3.5s)
B (4.0s)
A (4.5s)
Championship (5.0s+)
Open (5.0s+)

The Championship bracket was always the biggest variable ... sometimes it was basically filled with best 4.5 (often had won a 4.5 singles tournament before), and other times college or ex-college would enter. Those of us 4.5s that would play Championship (5.0) singles tournaments on occasion learned the best time was NOT the tournaments when there was no Open bracket.

There were a few big servers (pace) in 4.5s and Championship ... but most of the difference was the 5.0 players were just better at controlling points/outcome.

 

[sredna42]

TTW members also say they are 4.0, don't you trust our fellow members? They hit 120mph serves and 90mph forehands with a 90% serve % and 30 rally consistency, they are pretty good and know what they talk about

I myself have o'er a thousand poasts, and am thus more than qualified enough to assess this level as 2.5 to 3.0

 

[FiReFTW]

It's all relative: a 5.0 playing a 4.5 looks to be a superstar. The same 5.0 playing a 5.5 looks like a newbie. Same player.

5.0 is roughly the 97th percentile of registered players. Whether one considers that "nothing that great" or "way better than I'll ever be" is subjective.

The top of 4.0 is close to the 90th percentile. By most people's standards, that would be excellent. But again, judgment is personal.

Maybe it goes something like this: I am at level X, which isn't that good. But that guy over there is level X+1 and that's really good.

The problem is, that guy over there is thinking the same thing: he's level Y, which isn't that good. But that guy over there is level Y+1 and that's really good.

And so on, and so on...all the way up through the pros.

Yea i find it funny aswell but its true.

I look like a joke if i play my coach and she plays seriously, but she plays a UTR12-13 junior male and she looks like a joke, and that junior plays a top 500 ATP player and he looks like a joke, and that 500atp plays a top 30 player and he looks like a joke.


And theres not even that huge of a difference in pace and spin when u reach a certain level but its just a bit more and bit more consistent and bit more accurate and bit quicker and bit better reactions and thinking and tactics etc..

So say we have these matches:

UTR6 vs UTR8
UTR8 vs UTR10
UTR10 vs UTR12
UTR12 vs UTR14
UTR14 vs UTR16


Each of these players that are better than their matchup would completely dominate and look dominant and control the match while the lower player would be on defence and scramble all the time and get overwhelmed.

 

[Badmrfrosty]

Yeah it's all relative. Walk into any neighborhood and ask who is rich.

Whatever number you think in your head is rich tons of people think is poor.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

Yeah it's all relative. Walk into any neighborhood and ask who is rich.

Whatever number you think in your head is rich tons of people think is poor.

Certain research has shown that people who make $x living among people who make $x-$10K are financially happier than those making $x+10K living among those making $x+20K. That seems to be hard-wired into our DNA.

Translating that to NTRP, a 4.0 who plays a lot with 3.5s will feel better about his game [and maybe even himself] than a 4.5 who plays a lot with 5.0s. An argument in favor of not solely playing up when trying to improve.

 

[tlm]

It's all relative: a 5.0 playing a 4.5 looks to be a superstar. The same 5.0 playing a 5.5 looks like a newbie. Same player.

5.0 is roughly the 97th percentile of registered players. Whether one considers that "nothing that great" or "way better than I'll ever be" is subjective.

The top of 4.0 is close to the 90th percentile. By most people's standards, that would be excellent. But again, judgment is personal.

Maybe it goes something like this: I am at level X, which isn't that good. But that guy over there is level X+1 and that's really good.

The problem is, that guy over there is thinking the same thing: he's level Y, which isn't that good. But that guy over there is level Y+1 and that's really good.

And so on, and so on...all the way up through the pros.

Yes there are many layers of playing ability, probably most players are striving to move up because they feel the next level up is good.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

Yes there are many layers of playing ability, probably most players are striving to move up because they feel the next level up is good.

Unfortunately, once they get there they might find it's not as good as they thought. So they look to the next level. And they never are happy. That's results-oriented thinking.

A process-oriented person concentrates on the journey, not the destination.

 

[rogerroger917]

Unfortunately, once they get there they might find it's not as good as they thought. So they look to the next level. And they never are happy. That's results-oriented thinking.

A process-oriented person concentrates on the journey, not the destination.

mumbo jumbo. If you want to achieve something you need goals. You are not really getting the real meaning of process-oriented in regards to high performers in any activity. The elite athlete needs to be more process oriented because they are exhausting all avenues of physical and technical instruction and practice. The last pieces of their potential is mental. They also have goals they have been chasing for years. They are anything but unaware of them.

For the guys on here? Run 1 mile a day. You will improve faster than enjoying the process.

I have talked in person with the same guy who does mental training for NBA, Olympic athletes. It's not just a buzzword like process oriented.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

 

[J011yroger]

mumbo jumbo. If you want to achieve something you need goals. You are not really getting the real meaning of process-oriented in regards to high performers in any activity. The elite athlete needs to be more process oriented because they are exhausting all avenues of physical and technical instruction and practice. The last pieces of their potential is mental. They also have goals they have been chasing for years. They are anything but unaware of them.

For the guys on here? Run 1 mile a day. You will improve faster than enjoying the process.

I have talked in person with the same guy who does mental training for NBA, Olympic athletes. It's not just a buzzword like process oriented.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

J

 

[ByeByePoly]

I myself have o'er a thousand poasts, and am thus more than qualified enough to assess this level as 2.5 to 3.0

Got it ... let's call that the TTW Qualification Metric (TTWQM)

So I am 10 times more TTWQM than you, and @sureshs is 5 times more TTWQM than me. Finally I understand how TTW works ... and my standing in this strange little ... uh ... what do we call this place? Hotel California? That would be another nod in Sureshs's (what's plural for Sureshs?) direction ... as it should be.

 

[ByeByePoly]

Certain research has shown that people who make $x living among people who make $x-$10K are financially happier than those making $x+10K living among those making $x+20K. That seems to be hard-wired into our DNA.

Translating that to NTRP, a 4.0 who plays a lot with 3.5s will feel better about his game [and maybe even himself] than a 4.5 who plays a lot with 5.0s. An argument in favor of not solely playing up when trying to improve.

Oh hell no ... when trying to improve in high school ... if I finally beat someone I was better than them from that day forward. I then sought out the next guy to give me constant beat downs until that day I passed their sorry @$$.

Huh ... I guess my self-esteem was strong ... or does that mean the opposite ... I thought I deserved the beatings?

 

[ByeByePoly]

mumbo jumbo. If you want to achieve something you need goals. You are not really getting the real meaning of process-oriented in regards to high performers in any activity. The elite athlete needs to be more process oriented because they are exhausting all avenues of physical and technical instruction and practice. The last pieces of their potential is mental. They also have goals they have been chasing for years. They are anything but unaware of them.

For the guys on here? Run 1 mile a day. You will improve faster than enjoying the process.

I have talked in person with the same guy who does mental training for NBA, Olympic athletes. It's not just a buzzword like process oriented.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

You go run a mile every day ... just leave me out of it ... you presumptuous ****

Hello Darkness my old friend ...

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

mumbo jumbo. If you want to achieve something you need goals. You are not really getting the real meaning of process-oriented in regards to high performers in any activity. The elite athlete needs to be more process oriented because they are exhausting all avenues of physical and technical instruction and practice. The last pieces of their potential is mental. They also have goals they have been chasing for years. They are anything but unaware of them.

For the guys on here? Run 1 mile a day. You will improve faster than enjoying the process.

I have talked in person with the same guy who does mental training for NBA, Olympic athletes. It's not just a buzzword like process oriented.

Of course, you're missing the point.

I did not write that enjoying the process will help me in my mile time. If I want to improve that, I will put effort into it.

I also didn't write that you don't need goals. A process-oriented person just goes about achieving them differently than a results-oriented person.

What I outlined is the "grass is always greener on the other side" syndrome where someone thinks they will be happy once they've achieved X but when they achieve it, they aren't satisfied and then place their hopes in Y. Then they achieve that and aren't happy and switch to Z. etc.

This person is achieving a lot, probably more than the guy who is process-oriented. But the latter guy finds contentment in the process whereas the former does not.

You're also thinking about a different audience. I'm not talking elite athletes. I'm talking about the average rec player who could probably benefit from a shift in thinking. You don't live in that world so it's irrelevant to you.

 

[ByeByePoly]

Of course, you're missing the point.

I did not write that enjoying the process will help me in my mile time. If I want to improve that, I will put effort into it.

I also didn't write that you don't need goals. A process-oriented person just goes about achieving them differently than a results-oriented person.

What I outlined is the "grass is always greener on the other side" syndrome where someone thinks they will be happy once they've achieved X but when they achieve it, they aren't satisfied and then place their hopes in Y. Then they achieve that and aren't happy and switch to Z. etc.

This person is achieving a lot, probably more than the guy who is process-oriented. But the latter guy finds contentment in the process whereas the former does not.

You're also thinking about a different audience. I'm not talking elite athletes. I'm talking about the average rec player who could probably benefit from a shift in thinking. You don't live in that world so it's irrelevant to you.

The grass has weeds on both sides.

Don't you hate it when you are trying to have a serious conversation and some inferior intellect butts in. That is how I feel about you and rog ... you are butting in on me.

Oh ... you so didn't see that plot twist coming at the end.

Sorry ... carry on ... I will go away.

 

[ChaelAZ]

Run 1 mile a day. You will improve faster than enjoying the process.

That is process orientated thinking. If the ultimate goal is to lose weight, you don't need a goal of losing xx pounds in xx days or anything like that.

You have one over arching goal of losing weight and you just do the process of consistent running. If they do the process, the results will come.

Enjoying the process is a simple choice. If you don't emrace it and accept that is the new norm for you, you have even less likely hood of compliance and consistency.

 

[EddieBrock]

8:16 in the video looks like it in. Pretty questionable call from Ian

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

That is process orientated thinking. If the ultimate goal is to lose weight, you don't need a goal of losing xx pounds in xx days or anything like that.

You have one over arching goal of losing weight and you just do the process of consistent running. If they do the process, the results will come.

Enjoying the process is a simple choice. If you don't emrace it and accept that is the new norm for you, you have even less likely hood of compliance and consistency.

For me, it comes down to 2 competing philosophies: Al Davis' "Just Win, Baby!" and John Wooden's Pyramid of Excellence. I'm definitely a Pyramid fan and it's process-orientation writ large.

 

[ChaelAZ]

For me, it comes down to 2 competing philosophies: Al Davis' "Just Win, Baby!" and John Wooden's Pyramid of Excellence. I'm definitely a Pyramid fan and it's process-orientation writ large.

To me it is about expectations. People put WAAAAAY too much into make goals and creating (most the time) unrealistic expectations on themselves. With that, failure is a much easier path to find.

I have told the story of a sign outside the football coaches office at the college I work at. It read, "Expect to win", and I absolutely hated it so I sat down with the coach one day and talked about it. If players go out and expect to win, yet in whatever is happening they start losing, mentally they are failing and it can spiral performance. If, however, the mantra the coach had up was, "expect to compete", then a player would be focused on doing their best and the results are less detrimental to their performance.

Expecting to win is focusing on a goal and the result.
Expecting to compete is focusing on the process and accepting the results will come.

All the champions focus on the process, which also give them better insight into how they are preforming/competing and with less mental baggage when they have a loss. You can hear the mental grooming they do in a loss.

 

[FRV]

To me it is about expectations. People put WAAAAAY too much into make goals and creating (most the time) unrealistic expectations on themselves. With that, failure is a much easier path to find.

I have told the story of a sign outside the football coaches office at the college I work at. It read, "Expect to win", and I absolutely hated it so I sat down with the coach one day and talked about it. If players go out and expect to win, yet in whatever is happening they start losing, mentally they are failing and it can spiral performance. If, however, the mantra the coach had up was, "expect to compete", then a player would be focused on doing their best and the results are less detrimental to their performance.

Expecting to win is focusing on a goal and the result.
Expecting to compete is focusing on the process and accepting the results will come.

All the champions focus on the process, which also give them better insight into how they are preforming/competing and with less mental baggage when they have a loss. You can hear the mental grooming they do in a loss.

You should read the books Ego is the Enemy and The Obstacle is the Way both by Ryan Holiday. You would probably like them. I think the New England Patriots and Seattle Seahawks read one of them, or something like that.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

To me it is about expectations. People put WAAAAAY too much into make goals and creating (most the time) unrealistic expectations on themselves. With that, failure is a much easier path to find.

Patrick Cohn talks a lot about expectations. He opened my eyes to the concept that expectations and confidence are not linearly related nor are they the same thing. People with very high expectations ["I should beat this guy because my game is so much better"] whose results then don't match their expectations get very down on themselves ["How the #!@$ did I lose to that #%*@??"], which doesn't help their game at all.

He suggests high confidence, borne of many hours of practice, combined with no expectations [as opposed to someone whose high confidence would lead to high expectations]. I think this is valuable insight.

I have told the story of a sign outside the football coaches office at the college I work at. It read, "Expect to win", and I absolutely hated it so I sat down with the coach one day and talked about it. If players go out and expect to win, yet in whatever is happening they start losing, mentally they are failing and it can spiral performance. If, however, the mantra the coach had up was, "expect to compete", then a player would be focused on doing their best and the results are less detrimental to their performance.

Expecting to win is focusing on a goal and the result.
Expecting to compete is focusing on the process and accepting the results will come.

All the champions focus on the process, which also give them better insight into how they are preforming/competing and with less mental baggage when they have a loss. You can hear the mental grooming they do in a loss.

I heard a story of a golfer [McIlroy?] who had blown a big lead the year prior and was in the same leader position in the current year. When reminded of his disastrous outcome, he said "I'm just going to concentrate on the process." or something to that effect. I think this is a great example for us rec players. If I can achieve that level of calm, not only will I enjoy my tennis more, I'll also paradoxically probably achieve better results.

 

[FRV]

These guys are definitely catering to low level players. Nothing wrong with that, but that's what they are doing.

 

[ByeByePoly]

To me it is about expectations. People put WAAAAAY too much into make goals and creating (most the time) unrealistic expectations on themselves. With that, failure is a much easier path to find.

I have told the story of a sign outside the football coaches office at the college I work at. It read, "Expect to win", and I absolutely hated it so I sat down with the coach one day and talked about it. If players go out and expect to win, yet in whatever is happening they start losing, mentally they are failing and it can spiral performance. If, however, the mantra the coach had up was, "expect to compete", then a player would be focused on doing their best and the results are less detrimental to their performance.

Expecting to win is focusing on a goal and the result.
Expecting to compete is focusing on the process and accepting the results will come.

All the champions focus on the process, which also give them better insight into how they are preforming/competing and with less mental baggage when they have a loss. You can hear the mental grooming they do in a loss.

"Expecting to win is focusing on a goal and the result.
Expecting to compete is focusing on the process and accepting the results will come."

I didn't expect to win the first year in 4.5 singles when I lost every 1st round match. Then I won a big match early in the 2nd year, and everything changed ... I went from "can I beat these guys" to "I expect to beat these guys". Not sure what the sign should read ... but that switch was all mental ... started expecting to win ... strokes didn't change much. Well... tactics did ... went s&v.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

These guys are definitely catering to low level players. Nothing wrong with that, but that's what they are doing.

They're catering to the fattest part of the skill curve, say beginners to 4.0. That's about 85-90% of the market. Sounds like intelligent business.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

strokes didn't change much. Well... tactics did ... went s&v.

Well there you go; duh!

 

[FRV]

They're catering to the fattest part of the skill curve, say beginners to 4.0. That's about 85-90% of the market. Sounds like intelligent business.

I'm not using eggs though

 

[ByeByePoly]

Well there you go; duh!

Maybe my sign should have been "go to the net more".

Poly and Nadal screwed fast young players that would have been good at the net ... and will never know.

 

[rogerroger917]

I at least like Kevin and Ian much better than Will Hamilton. So there is that.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

 

[rogerroger917]

That is process orientated thinking. If the ultimate goal is to lose weight, you don't need a goal of losing xx pounds in xx days or anything like that.

You have one over arching goal of losing weight and you just do the process of consistent running. If they do the process, the results will come.

Enjoying the process is a simple choice. If you don't emrace it and accept that is the new norm for you, you have even less likely hood of compliance and consistency.

The goal is winning tennis matches. My point is most 3.5 guys do not need mental training. They need to run a mile 4 times a week.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

 

[rogerroger917]

Maybe my sign should have been "go to the net more".

Poly and Nadal screwed fast young players that would have been good at the net ... and will never know.

Most players in juniors all volley now.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

 

[FRV]

The goal is winning tennis matches. My point is most 3.5 guys do not need mental training. They need to run a mile 4 times a week.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

They need better practice partners who can hit with pace. A mile 4 times per week? Sounds excessive. I used to do Tabata with sprints and then mountain climbers and got into great shape. I got probably my lowest heart rate achieved (54 bpm) by doing something else entirely, but I can't recommend that for people on here.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

I at least like Kevin and Ian much better than Will Hamilton. So there is that.

Yeah, Hamilton sounds kind of smarmy sometimes.

 

[FRV]

I also wouldn't recommend anyone do Tabata who is in a poor state cardio wise. Like myself for example. I am out of shape and if I try to do Tabata now, it would be risky. I did it once when I thought I was in shape, but my heart was like skipping beats after.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

Most players in juniors all volley now.

Being able to volley is one thing. But how often do they seek to move forward and finish the point? In my admittedly limited experience, most are content to stay on the BL

And how much is risk avoidance? It's hard to get passed while on the BL off of a neutral ball. But it's way more likely if someone's at the net. Higher risk but higher reward. Maybe the modern game is more built on lowering risk and such strategies like "Serve + 1"?

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

I also wouldn't recommend anyone do Tabata who is in a poor state cardio wise. Like myself for example. I am out of shape and if I try to do Tabata now, it would be risky. I did it once when I thought I was in shape, but my heart was like skipping beats after.

Isn't there a way of transitioning into Tabata rather than going all in? If someone wanted to train for a marathon, they'd start months prior with short distances.

Same with HIIT: the average person won't make it through a typical HIIT workout so to avoid discouraging them or risking injury, it's wise to offer "mini-HIIT" with fewer reps/less time and more recovery time. The point isn't to instantly be doing HIIT but to make it part of a routine so you eventually can do the full workout.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

My point is most 3.5 guys do not need mental training. They need to run a mile 4 times a week.

I don't approach it as an "either/or": I agree that most could benefit from the cardio as fitness is one of the legs in the 3Fs stool. But another leg is Focus [ie mental toughness].

In fact, I'd argue that more matches are lost due to lack of mental toughness than lack of fitness, especially in doubles. I see ginormous momentum shifts that have little to do with fitness [or the lack thereof].