Going from defense to offense.

[SinjinCooper]

I totally agree with depth and consistency, but I'm not seeing any pace at all. I've seen people with a pure conti grip hitting deep shots that trouble 4.0s. I've seen players hitting spinny moonballs that trouble players. However, the shots I'm seeing in the video are just floaters.

When TTPS posted about a defensive moonball shot a month ago, I supported him because a) it was a defensive shot and b) It was him trying to make a change to his stroke.

However, this thread is about actual rallies and offensive shots. Those shots he hit in that video will be countered easily by a good player. I'm not even talking about pros or bashing that ball. Also, as I mentioned, even if one feels that this strategy might work against better players, his current opponent is not running at all. That gives you a false confidence in what works and doesn't work. He needs to try it with players who can actually run before getting some level of confidence in that strategy.

He's starting out on a new path. Give him a little time. I'm not saying I saw tournament winning stuff on that video. But it looked better, and like he was more or less doing what he planned. That's a huge step forward for any 3.5.

 

[Deleted member 23235]

Really? You are learning these basics after reaching 3.0? Maybe time to read ANY basic book about tennis. Any such book will tell you that recovery position is NOT the middle of the court.

A good 3.0 opponent wont go and hit to your forehand, except when he has a chance to attack. He will do right back to C, if he want to rally one more to see if you give a bit more shorter ball to him. If he think he can do a slight more, he may try to take you out of balance by going a bit more cross court angle to your backhand. If he really think he can attack, he will hit a good approach shot to your forehand dtl, and get you on hitting a stretching forehand.

That being said, yes, definitely cash in on the opponent mistake giving you an easy forehand. But that is not a plan for defense to offense, just cashing in on mistake from opponent.

lol, a 3.0 with consistent directional control? at 3.0, the only goal i had was moonballing to infinity, waiting for my opponents technique to break down (with an occasional, to me, "big shot" that was harder than usual).
these "basics" that the OP is talking about,... i did not learn til 4.0 (definitely not in a systematic way)

 

[Traffic]

Weapons? I can power spazz with the best of them.
But, this exercise is all about developing feel and control.

Stage 1: Deep rally balls to eventually generate a short ball.
Stage 2: Approach shot. Deep and angled. Or DTL if very short ball.
Stage 3: Volley.

That IS a weapon.

I am not power spazzing from the baseline anymore.
Just rally balls trying to generate the short ball.

Approach shot? I've learned to hit the approach at 50%, not 100%.
Normally, I would just power spazz that shot and either hit an untouchable winner, or hit the fence, or hit the net.
Last guy I hit with took a 100% swing when he was 2 feet from the net. BAM! NET!
I was outside the doubles alley on the other side and he lost the point.
Anyone can hit hard. Moving up from 3.5 involves being more consistent, not hitting harder.

I feel I am the one moving up with a playbook (even if it only has one play)
compared to the power spazz 3.5 who simply continues to power spazz
(and then bunt/push when they keep missing)

However, to have a play in your playbook,
you first need to have a playbook in the first place and then drill it.
This is just one step.

This thread and video are just about one specific pattern.
I have spent time drilling the inside out FH and DTL BH, as well.
In point play, I might slice it back, hit I/O, drop shot, whatever.

I think this is a good strategy for improving.
I know that when I started back into tennis, I struggled with consistency. Yes, I could hit the occasional winners. But there were far too many UEs and don't get me started on the double faults when I started playing matches.

I do recall resorting to bunting to keep the ball in play and let my opponents make the mistake. Then I worked on my serves.

I moved up in the ranks and got to mid 3.0 (at my club, that's probably about a good 3.5 on this board). Bunting doesn't work anymore. Players know how to deal with weak shots. They still struggle against shots with pace and angles. Players are more consistent. And they, themselves, dish out pressure. We do have what would be considered a pusher. But he remains at mid-3.0 level and bounces back and forth from mid-low courts.

I think once you are confident with being able to return shots and understand what shot selection is needed depending on the situation, the power can slowly be added. Hopefully the fitness is coming up and so the footwork will help to be positioned correctly. Especially in doubles, positioning is half the battle.

I think TTPS's thought process is on the right track. And from the short time I've been reading his threads, there is definitely improvement in attitude and technique that could benefit many 3.0 players...err...3.5.

 

[mcs1970]

I saw some nice things on that video. Serve looked pretty fluid and consistent. Moving in on the short ball and the put away shot also looked fine. So yes, definitely there is a lot of progress there.


It's just that when someone posts a pattern as a winning strategy, I think the flaws in what has been posted need to be pointed out too. As I said here it looked like there were too many high floaters and also the opponent didn't care much about running. I've gone and done drills many times where I was convinced I had some nice great tools to bring to a match the next time, only to see it fail because the opponent found the holes in my bullet proof strategy, and here the holes are pretty obvious and glaring. If it was just a progression towards slowly adding more pace, then too I would agree. However, TTPS' constant derision of pace seems to indicate that he believes the strategy he is currently employing would work against better players too. I think the proper feedback would be to point out some of the issues with what he's doing.

 

[TimeToPlaySets]

Again, point totally taken.
Thanks for pointing out the potential flaw.

For what it's worth, pace is a video always looks half as fast as it does in real life.

I can overswing my BH and have it land on the service line with the best of them 3.5's
For now, I am going to stick with high arc topspin high net clearance that lands deeper.
Ultimately, if my BH is too much of a fluff ball, then I will naturally adjust.
At 3.5, I predict people aren't even going to move back for it.
I am not worried about a 3.5 or 4.0 putting it away for a winner from the baseline, while running.

The guy on the other side of the court is a (lightning fast) D1 player who dominates 5.0 level adult play.
He is just feeding balls here to demonstrate a pattern I may employ.
He is telling me the BH pace is fine, and he understands winning tennis, not "pretty" tennis.
If he's telling me a deep lob is hard to attack, I am taking his word for it until proven otherwise.

 

[Traffic]

He is telling me the BH pace is fine, and he understands winning tennis, not "pretty" tennis.
If he's telling me a deep lob is hard to attack, I am taking his word for it until proven otherwise.

I think this is great feedback. IMHO, you just need enough pace to make it uncomfortable for your opponent to return a good shot, let alone a winner. With some topspin, depth and a good bounce, there's not a whole lot they can do with that ball. That's a great starting point in understanding what is needed in that situation.

I think too many get into their heads that they have to hit winners or super hard returns. Eventually you will need to do that. But I think learning to walk and then to run is probably a better progression and less frustrating.

There maybe a lot of players on the Board that have progressed beyond this point providing some insight on what is to come. But I don't think they should discount getting a more solid foundation to build on.

 

[ttgrinder]

Video looks good for its purpose. I see a progressive attitude change also. You will make right adjustments and improve. Good job.

Again, point totally taken.
Thanks for pointing out the potential flaw.

He is just feeding balls here to demonstrate a pattern I may employ.
He is telling me the BH pace is fine, and he understands winning tennis, not "pretty" tennis.
If he's telling me a deep lob is hard to attack, I am taking his word for it until proven otherwise.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

Here is a sample of my first day trying this out.
I'm basically trying to get a short FH to drive to the BH

Your serve has improved by leaps and bounds!

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

see a progressive attitude change also.

This is the biggest change, IMO. You don't constantly deride other groups, you take into account other opinions, and you've stopped using the words "impossible", "unnatural" and "awkward".

 

[StringSnapper]

I have been practicing a specific point pattern that involves going from defense to offense.
I will post a video example of this later tonight.

When the ball comes to my (lefty) BH, instead of attacking, I hit more of a girl's rally ball.
If I am standing near point B or C, I will hit a high arcing lob-like BH to the yellow spot area to his FH.
Ideally, it lands deep, and bounces high.
Yes, I am hitting to his FH, but this is more reliable than going DTL, and takes the net out of play.
I am now all about high percentage shots from the baseline.

Instead of recovering to point A, I will hover around point B.
The logic is that he will probably hit it back CC.
Staying at B gives me more room to hit my FH.
When he does return CC, I am now hitting FH, and hit to his BH around the green spot area.

I have now gone from hitting BH into hitting FH (to his BH)
I am now the dictator looking to generate a short ball.

The trade-off is this:
If I return to point A, I can cover a DTL FH.
However, I may then have to hit a CC return with my BH, and remain weaker.
If I stay at B, the downside is not covering a DTL return.

I will be testing this out, and seeing if the opponent can hit a running DTL FH.
If he can't, or prefers CC returns, then I will safely wait at B in order to play my FH to green.

The only problem with this is when you hit your forehand DTL from your backhand corner into his backhand, you better hope he doesn't have a good BH Cross court to your now vacant FH side.

I like the "3 or 4 punch" combo of: Hit it deep to a corner, hit it shallow with more spin to the same side (drags them off the court - but also gives them opportunity to hit a DTL shot. depends how good your shallow angle shot is, but its a hard shot for them anyway), then hit into the open court and follow it up with a volley if the DTL wasnt a winner.

 

[StringSnapper]

Here is a sample of my first day trying this out.
I'm basically trying to get a short FH to drive to the BH

Nice, good attacking points. I like your serve motion also; it looks really efficient.

Your FH take back looks weird. I had the same thing. I think the racket is supposed to be up more at the start (you don't really turn it, its more like your upper body turns side on and the racket just comes along for the ride), then loops down and up.