Good videos

user92626

G.O.A.T.
Haha watch the game, interesting how it changes. The blue guy is playing himself going for too much and getting frustrated, the orange guy is playing the opponent.
I saw a bit more of the clip. I could see how the blue guy lost which is unfortunate for him. He looks younger and fitter but he seemed to get himself into a quandary and couldn't find a way out.

Broadly speaking, he didn't realize his assets of being younger and fitter. He didn't need to continuously play the same exhausting, loopy shots. Just careful, flatter slower but sharper angle shots would have done the orange guy in. Hehehe
 
Broadly speaking, he didn't realize his assets of being younger and fitter. He didn't need to continuously play the same exhausting, loopy shots. Just careful, flatter slower but sharper angle shots would have done the orange guy in. Hehehe
Combining "flatter" and "sharper angle" is a sticky wicket. I guess it depends on how much he has to slow it down.
 

user92626

G.O.A.T.
Combining "flatter" and "sharper angle" is a sticky wicket. I guess it depends on how much he has to slow it down.
Not necessary. You can trade off some power for better control, thus placement.

Last week, I advocated this, albeit the opposite, to my partner and it worked. My partner was super and unnecessarily consistent/control -- thus his power was lacking. I asked him to up his power and sacrifice his ultra consistency-- I didn't care for his easy, long exchange which eventually got slammed by opponent netman's poach and made it hard for me to play the net.

It worked up to where we were leading 4-1. Then predictably he slowly shrank back (and opponent quit on tied games). LOL Very hard for people to change.
 
Not necessary. You can trade off some power for better control, thus placement.
If I attempt to hit sharper angle, I will either ramp up the TS or hit a chip slice that stays low and moves pretty slowly. In doubles, the chip shot is not to pass but to get the net man to get low and lunge towards the alley, thus disrupting his position and balance.

Last week, I advocated this, albeit the opposite, to my partner and it worked. My partner was super and unnecessarily consistent/control -- thus his power was lacking. I asked him to up his power and sacrifice his ultra consistency-- I didn't care for his easy, long exchange which eventually got slammed by opponent netman's poach and made it hard for me to play the net.
The outcome of the match is not just on your partner's shoulders: given his comfort zone, what did you do to help the team out? How did you adjust so that your partner could hit more of his strength and less of his weakness?

It worked up to where we were leading 4-1. Then predictably he slowly shrank back (and opponent quit on tied games). LOL Very hard for people to change.
Human nature. Especially *during* a match [it's hard enough during practice].
 

J011yroger

Talk Tennis Guru
Not necessary. You can trade off some power for better control, thus placement.

Last week, I advocated this, albeit the opposite, to my partner and it worked. My partner was super and unnecessarily consistent/control -- thus his power was lacking. I asked him to up his power and sacrifice his ultra consistency-- I didn't care for his easy, long exchange which eventually got slammed by opponent netman's poach and made it hard for me to play the net.

It worked up to where we were leading 4-1. Then predictably he slowly shrank back (and opponent quit on tied games). LOL Very hard for people to change.
I once told a partner we were going to play a set where I didn't care if he missed the ball, as long as the point ended after every shot he hit at net.

So he could hit the back fence and I would be ok with it but if the opponent got his volley back I consider it a lost point.

J
 

user92626

G.O.A.T.
If I attempt to hit sharper angle, I will either ramp up the TS or hit a chip slice that stays low and moves pretty slowly. In doubles, the chip shot is not to pass but to get the net man to get low and lunge towards the alley, thus disrupting his position and balance.


*** Ramping up ts for sharper angle if you can is one just one way. I only refer to the concept of control and power in general. In general, lowering power allows you to have more control. This works for practically everything.





The outcome of the match is not just on your partner's shoulders: given his comfort zone, what did you do to help the team out? How did you adjust so that your partner could hit more of his strength and less of his weakness?

*** I know there's work on my part and I did my extension and change-up but it wasn't enough to cover his weaknesses. Therefore I need him to change-up. The point is...the change up was reasonable and possible for him, as I have explained above.

****Another thing I asked him to do was to simply run across and wave his racket as if to poach after my 2, 3 rally shots. ( Per my observation opponent net guy moved in after 3rd shot). I don't care whether he succeeds poaching or not. It would work for us because their baseline guy would screw up more than he would score. You would think such request is easy, right? Not really for my partner.


Human nature. Especially *during* a match [it's hard enough during practice]
 

user92626

G.O.A.T.
I once told a partner we were going to play a set where I didn't care if he missed the ball, as long as the point ended after every shot he hit at net.

So he could hit the back fence and I would be ok with it but if the opponent got his volley back I consider it a lost point.

J
I do a lot of calculations in my matches. Sometimes my request of my partners were crazy simple and they worked. Run across to poach/fake after my 2nd or 3rd baseline shot.


Or, if they play the baseline, they only need to be able to make 3 shots!!!


If they could carry out those requests and a point is lost, it's my fault! In reality it usually works for my team (me) because I know exactly what to do. We have plans instead of "just play and see". Partners know their goals.
 
*** Ramping up ts for sharper angle if you can is one just one way. I only refer to the concept of control and power in general. In general, lowering power allows you to have more control. This works for practically everything.
Not for a 2nd serve: if I lower my power and thus my RHS, I will get less spin and less control.

My point was that I don't typically associate "flatter" with "sharper angle".

*** I know there's work on my part and I did my extension and change-up but it wasn't enough to cover his weaknesses. Therefore I need him to change-up. The point is...the change up was reasonable and possible for him, as I have explained above.
"reasonable" for whom? For you that's asking or for your partner who has to execute?

****Another thing I asked him to do was to simply run across and wave his racket as if to poach after my 2, 3 rally shots. ( Per my observation opponent net guy moved in after 3rd shot). I don't care whether he succeeds poaching or not. It would work for us because their baseline guy would screw up more than he would score. You would think such request is easy, right? Not really for my partner.
Again, "easy" from whose perspective?

You appear only to be thinking about this from your standpoint. What's easy or reasonable to you may not be to your partner.
 

FiReFTW

Legend
Not necessary. You can trade off some power for better control, thus placement.
Thats true for the 1st serve.

I agree with @S&V-not_dead_yet that for 2nd serve it doesn't work, you want max RHS and max SPIN, because u hit way above net and make it dip down.

But on the 1st serve it can work very well, if you hit 100% out you don't have much precision, but if you serve at like 80% you still get alot of rhs but you have much better placement and precision.

I just played a match today against a guy who is a bit worse player than me, but hes decent, but I know that my serve is extremely fast for the level of players im playing and that I don't need to hit it extremely hard to cause alot of problems and also then get only 20-40% of them in, so I rather choose to serve at like 70-80% RHS and also added alot of various spins, from topspin, to topspinslices, to bit towards kick, so the bounce was extremely unpredictable, and my placement and precision was much better with 70-80% RHS so I could really aim in the corners well and consistently.

And I got like 70% 1st serves in for sure, and it caused him huge problems and he made tons of unforced errors from them, never got even close to breaking my serve.

Of course if I was up against someone who could tee off these serves I would be forced to go for more, but sometimes you don't have to.
 

user92626

G.O.A.T.
Not for a 2nd serve: if I lower my power and thus my RHS, I will get less spin and less control.
Thats true for the 1st serve.

I agree with @S&V-not_dead_yet that for 2nd serve it doesn't work, you want max RHS and max SPIN, because u hit way above net and make it dip down..
You guys don't understand. You want to keep up your high rhs ,ie the same spin, the same topspin serve, only when you already have your form in place to accompany it. In other words you already have control.

That's not the same kind of control that I was referring to. The control that I was referring to is the kind that you need when your power and your form already go haywire. You're already going beyond the speed that your form can handle.

Imagine you're telling someone who's crazily bashing the ball 20 ft out, having a hard time keeping the ball in, "keep the same (out of control) powerful RHS to impact more spin, your shot will be good" I doubt that advice would work. The player may continue to wack the ball with the same insane rhs. He would just spray the ball differently.
 
You guys don't understand. You want to keep up your high rhs ,ie the same spin, the same topspin serve, only when you already have your form in place to accompany it. In other words you already have control.
It's not a lack of understanding; it's a lack of agreement.

For me, the high RHS is part of the control equation whereas for you, it's a subsequent factor.

I'll leave it to the serve experts to decide which is the better way to learn.

That's not the same kind of control that I was referring to. The control that I was referring to is the kind that you need when your power and your form already go haywire. You're already going beyond the speed that your form can handle.

Imagine you're telling someone who's crazily bashing the ball 20 ft out, having a hard time keeping the ball in, "keep the same (out of control) powerful RHS to impact more spin, your shot will be good" I doubt that advice would work. The player may continue to wack the ball with the same insane rhs. He would just spray the ball differently.
It worked for Agassi [apparently he was told early on to swing as hard as he could and the ball would eventually go in; this was related by Bollettieri].

I personally could not adopt that model, probably because I'm too old to hit with that kind of abandon. I would modulate my power.
 

user92626

G.O.A.T.
S&V,

You're mixing the debate. I am debating "learning". That's different. Learning is a process.

What I'm saying is simple: whatever you're doing with great power and is out/little of control, you can get better control by lessening the power. It's a truism.
 

FiReFTW

Legend
Id youve played for many years and worked alot on form technique and practiced serve you should be more than capable of swinging out extremely fast and being able to add that speed to spin instead of plowthrough on the serve, and getting more control.

Unless you get tight during a match.
 

ChaelAZ

Legend
If you ever get a chance to attend these top level juniors events, you basically get to see play at what many futures, college, and even pro level matches give you in terms of competition and play. What is interesting is, for this kinda match there are only a handful of people watching! I've been to matches like this and was amazing to watch, with just the parents and family there. Crazy.

For me, and what I like to promote as the #1 attribute players can develop, it is the footwork here that really stands out. Wish it was a longer video of the whole match, but a good 5 minutes to watch.


The other side. Like most at their level they'll build that serve, but everything else is all ready to go.

 

FiReFTW

Legend
The other side. Like most at their level they'll build that serve, but everything else is all ready to go.

My god those girls can play!

And their technique is great, they hit with alot of topspin, not typical for girls, as most hit extremely flat, even on the WTA.
 

IowaGuy

Hall of Fame
How annoying is this?!

My guess is he doesn't like to come to net - give him some dropshots and sharp angles to bring him forward in the court - that will keep him from walking around behind the baseline :)

@Curious - You're going to meet many of these types of players in your quest for 4.5 :)
 

ChaelAZ

Legend
Open class title play...because...serve. But really, this is a good example of what high level "rec" tennis is. Not as polished and such, but still good points. Both these players are gas-and-go hitters though.

 

FiReFTW

Legend
Open class title play...because...serve. But really, this is a good example of what high level "rec" tennis is. Not as polished and such, but still good points. Both these players are gas-and-go hitters though.

What level is that?

Nice play and level.

The blue shorts guy has an absolutely monsterous serve, it looks as fast as kyrgios in the video of him serving, brutal..

His groundstrokes are quite risky and flat, i wondee if he would be better if he started employing more topspin.
 

Gyswandir

Semi-Pro
Talks about very interesting good points.

I think this is the first video I watch that explains the point of the PTD after the take back. However, it doesn’t address the differences needed between fast and slow rallies as well as hitting on the rise. Nonetheless, he did hint at it at the end. So, will check his other videos.

Good find
 

Dragy

Hall of Fame
Talks about very interesting good points.

I find the loop and gravity part very decent and crucially important. The rhythm thing is more complex in a way that you definitely need to be able to split your swing rhythm from the incoming ball rhythm in specific situations. But for basic rally it’s working pretty well.
 

NuBas

Legend
Talks about very interesting good points.

Watched a few of his videos and his technique is quite poor for a coach but in some videos he does have good pointers and tips that I never heard of. Nice find, take what makes sense to you and leave what doesn't.
 

user92626

G.O.A.T.
Talks about very interesting good points.


This might be a cure for a low take-back issue.

So basically you tie a high back swing to a part of the incoming ball's flight, but will this part have to change from opponent to opponent since they hit with different pace?
 

Dragy

Hall of Fame
but will this part have to change from opponent to opponent since they hit with different pace?
You actually want to hit with your rhythm, not the incoming ball rhythm. Sometimes, like returning fast serve or playing a deep hard shot, you fasten the rhythm, shorten the backswing. But you definitely don’t want to slow down against slow bunts, sitters.
 

ByeByePoly

G.O.A.T.
Talks about very interesting good points.

Liked his video ... but don't buy tracking height of ball with hand.

Seems to me ... two separate components of a great stroke are:

1) smooth efficient swing
2) marrying #1 to a contact on time, with proper spacing

You can be good at #1, and screw up #2 too often (me). You could also have a less than smooth looking swing and nail #2 (Halep FH, anything Kerber hits).

I guess #2 must be the most important.

To me, both of those components have their own rhythm needs. A contious loop (even with some parts slower) is going to be a smoother swing than a segmented one. Rhythm with #2 will be movement married to internal tracking. I can easily see how we can improve the "smoothness" of our swings. It is not clear to me we can make major gains on natural movement/ agility and internal tracking (include eyesight in that). We can improve footwork, and use tracking techniques to marginally improve, but that won't make you fast and agile, or see 20/10. Also ... we can't measure our internal tracking ability ... doubt we are all the same. My guess is it's not directly tied to vision. I seem to track decent even with lazy habits and less than 20/20. I think eyesight probably matters the most when we get near contact (right before the swing).
 

StringSnapper

Hall of Fame
Thats true for the 1st serve.

I agree with @S&V-not_dead_yet that for 2nd serve it doesn't work, you want max RHS and max SPIN, because u hit way above net and make it dip down.

But on the 1st serve it can work very well, if you hit 100% out you don't have much precision, but if you serve at like 80% you still get alot of rhs but you have much better placement and precision.

I just played a match today against a guy who is a bit worse player than me, but hes decent, but I know that my serve is extremely fast for the level of players im playing and that I don't need to hit it extremely hard to cause alot of problems and also then get only 20-40% of them in, so I rather choose to serve at like 70-80% RHS and also added alot of various spins, from topspin, to topspinslices, to bit towards kick, so the bounce was extremely unpredictable, and my placement and precision was much better with 70-80% RHS so I could really aim in the corners well and consistently.

And I got like 70% 1st serves in for sure, and it caused him huge problems and he made tons of unforced errors from them, never got even close to breaking my serve.

Of course if I was up against someone who could tee off these serves I would be forced to go for more, but sometimes you don't have to.
70% is pretty ideal anyway even against your level or higher imo
 

FiReFTW

Legend

Watched this good angle of some points.

Some of these serves... and some of these points overall, the balls they get too, and the massive power they can put on the ball and place it well even when on the run and stretched, my brain just can't phantom it, how its humanly possible.
 
Top