height over the net?

  • Thread starter Deleted member 23235
  • Start date
D

Deleted member 23235

Guest
#1
according to braden’s book, what do you think, of matches recorded via slow mo vid, the average height over the net for connors, mcenroe and borg,...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
D

Deleted member 23235

Guest
#17
I’d like to see that stat for current players. Stan hits a really high ball over the net. In this court level vid here you can see he hits a bunch that are around 5-6 feet over the height of the net. And some that are way higher.

i’d be content to play like connors/mac/borg played :)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
D

Deleted member 23235

Guest
#21
I have that book, but I never thought those numbers were correct and still don't.
seems to line up with my experience..

when i’m at the baseline (say 2ft behind) and I hit a 3/4 pace ball that is waist height... I need to hit at least 6ft over the net to reach within 2ft of the opposing baseline.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
#24
seems to line up with my experience..

when i’m at the baseline (say 2ft behind) and I hit a 3/4 pace ball that is waist height... I need to hit at least 6ft over the net to reach within 2ft of the opposing baseline.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
But a groundstroke hit 2 feet behind the baseline isn't going to be your average shot. By comparison, they calculated the average net clearances at the 2013 World Tour Finals and got:

Nadal 1.31 meters
Gasguet 0.91 meters
Wawrinka 0.79 meters
Djokovic 0.74 meters
Federer 0.61 meters
Berdych 0.59 meters

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/average-net-clearance-of-top-players.482457/

1.31 meters is between 4 and 4.5 feet and 0.59 meters is just under 2 feet. So given these numbers, I don't think Braden's were right.
 
#26
But a groundstroke hit 2 feet behind the baseline isn't going to be your average shot. By comparison, they calculated the average net clearances at the 2013 World Tour Finals and got:

Nadal 1.31 meters
Gasguet 0.91 meters
Wawrinka 0.79 meters
Djokovic 0.74 meters
Federer 0.61 meters
Berdych 0.59 meters

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/average-net-clearance-of-top-players.482457/

1.31 meters is between 4 and 4.5 feet and 0.59 meters is just under 2 feet. So given these numbers, I don't think Braden's were right.
Those numbers sound about right to me. I will shoot some video soon at the AO standing just behind the player and exactly at the same level with him and post it here.
 

MisterP

Hall of Fame
#27

This is from 7:40 in the video I posted above.

Each of these red lines represents the height of the net in the middle (3 feet). You can see the ball is two net heights above the net. This isn’t a moonball. It’s a routine groundstroke that all good players use to push their opponents back while using topspin to keep the net out of play.

If you watch the whole point, which starts at 7:30, you can see both players hit between 1 foot and 6 feet over the net depending upon the situation.
 
#28

This is from 7:40 in the video I posted above.

Each of these red lines represents the height of the net in the middle (3 feet). You can see the ball is two net heights above the net. This isn’t a moonball. It’s a routine groundstroke that all good players use to push their opponents back while using topspin to keep the net out of play.

If you watch the whole point, which starts at 7:30, you can see both players hit between 1 foot and 6 feet over the net depending upon the situation.
There were only 2 shots there about 2 net heights above the net and the discussion is about average height over the net.
 

MisterP

Hall of Fame
#29
Here’s another one between Laver and Borg. The point starting at 1:20 you can see Borgs shots are at least 5-6 feet over the net every time.

 

MisterP

Hall of Fame
#30
There were only 2 shots there about 2 net heights above the net and the discussion is about average height over the net.
There were dozens throughout the match. I’m disputing your claim that a ball that clears the net by more than 6 feet is a “moonball” by showing you it’s a shot all pros use in nearly every point.

In other words, you don’t know wtf you’re talking about.
 
Last edited:

MisterP

Hall of Fame
#33
seems to line up with my experience..

when i’m at the baseline (say 2ft behind) and I hit a 3/4 pace ball that is waist height... I need to hit at least 6ft over the net to reach within 2ft of the opposing baseline.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I think the problem is that a lot of these guys believe they are hitting “good” shots because they look fast and don’t clear the net by much. When in reality, a low fast ball will usually land short and still get eaten up by any decent player. If it even clears the net to begin with.
 

LETitBE

Hall of Fame
#34
I think the problem is that a lot of these guys believe they are hitting “good” shots because they look fast and don’t clear the net by much. When in reality, a low fast ball will usually land short and still get eaten up by any decent player. If it even clears the net to begin with.
you are obviously a physicist.....BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAH
 
#35
There were dozens throughout the match. I’m disputing your claim that a ball that clears the net by more than 6 feet is a “moonball” by showing you it’s a shot all pros use in nearly every point.

In other words, you don’t know wtf you’re talking about.
Go look up the meaning of average.
 
#37
I’m not disputing the average, professor. I’m saying your claim that a ball that clears the net by 6 feet is a “moonball” is pure 3.5 delusion.
Moonball was a little exaggeration to emphasize my point. Besides if a rec player hits the ball 6 feet over the net and it lands on the baseline it could well be a moonball whereas Nadal's 6 feet above the net ball is a different story. Anyway does it mean you agree now that Borg's average groundies were not really 6 feet above the net?
 
#38
But a groundstroke hit 2 feet behind the baseline isn't going to be your average shot. By comparison, they calculated the average net clearances at the 2013 World Tour Finals and got:

Nadal 1.31 meters
Gasguet 0.91 meters
Wawrinka 0.79 meters
Djokovic 0.74 meters
Federer 0.61 meters
Berdych 0.59 meters

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/average-net-clearance-of-top-players.482457/

1.31 meters is between 4 and 4.5 feet and 0.59 meters is just under 2 feet. So given these numbers, I don't think Braden's were right.
Sounds about right, but keep in mind that these players all vary the shots, so Nadal hits some lower ones and some even higher ones probably like 2 meter or more.

While Federer who is more aggressive hits like 1meter ones probably for more rally balls or crosscourt angles, and lower than 0.5 meters for some very aggresive ones.
 
#39
Just watched Zverev Federer in the Hopman Cup

Course I would love to own Federer's worst shot on the worst match of his life. But I do despair how many back hands he nets down the line at crucial points. I guess the aggression is in the DNA hard to overcome sometimes
 
D

Deleted member 23235

Guest
#41
But a groundstroke hit 2 feet behind the baseline isn't going to be your average shot. By comparison, they calculated the average net clearances at the 2013 World Tour Finals and got:

Nadal 1.31 meters
Gasguet 0.91 meters
Wawrinka 0.79 meters
Djokovic 0.74 meters
Federer 0.61 meters
Berdych 0.59 meters

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/average-net-clearance-of-top-players.482457/

1.31 meters is between 4 and 4.5 feet and 0.59 meters is just under 2 feet. So given these numbers, I don't think Braden's were right.
i bet that those net clearances are just overall average...
vs avg height where a ball also landed “deep”.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
D

Deleted member 23235

Guest
#43
I think the problem is that a lot of these guys believe they are hitting “good” shots because they look fast and don’t clear the net by much. When in reality, a low fast ball will usually land short and still get eaten up by any decent player. If it even clears the net to begin with.
yup. that was exactly the point braden made in his book. went on to say that rec players suffer from the same issue (think a low hard fast ball is the key to winning tennis).

tipsarevic made a similar comment in a coaching documentary.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
D

Deleted member 23235

Guest
#44
Moonball was a little exaggeration to emphasize my point. Besides if a rec player hits the ball 6 feet over the net and it lands on the baseline it could well be a moonball whereas Nadal's 6 feet above the net ball is a different story. Anyway does it mean you agree now that Borg's average groundies were not really 6 feet above the net?

moonballing denotes a lack of energy in the shot. borg also crushed the ball. perhaps not nadal like but definitely harder than your average rec player.

anywho the takeaway is to hit it much higher over the net for depth (vs hittting hard low fast over net)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
#45
i’m a little guy and cant hit pro speeds. so yeah probably.
my avg topspin fh speed is 55 mph (via sony sensor)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Have you ever been in one of those courts that measure speed, spin etc? Smart court or something, you guys in the USA have them all over the place, would be interesting seeing ur spinrates aswell, and also serve speeds.
 
D

Deleted member 23235

Guest
#46
Have you ever been in one of those courts that measure speed, spin etc? Smart court or something, you guys in the USA have them all over the place, would be interesting seeing ur spinrates aswell, and also serve speeds.
yeah i’ve been on them. I don’t recall my rpm
finally hit 101 on a serve in practice and it went in :p


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
#47
I've recently been doing drills with the juniors over at my old academy and one day they had this setup. Hit above the tape for neutral balls, below it for attacking flat balls. Of course, none of these kids are Federer or Nadal (yet), but they'll be D1 players or above.

 
D

Deleted member 23235

Guest
#48
I've recently been doing drills with the juniors over at my old academy and one day they had this setup. Hit above the tape for neutral balls, below it for attacking flat balls. Of course, none of these kids are Federer or Nadal (yet), but they'll be D1 players or above.

i've played like that before... but the the string was set at 4-5ft over the net...
 
D

Deleted member 23235

Guest
#50
I think this is the “bread and butter” rally ball. What Brett Hobden calls the “arc ball”.
since us rec folks spend most of our time practicing the rally ball (ie. from the baseline, 1ft either side of the center hash), figure it would be useful knowledge that the good rally ball is probably an arc ball, vs. a hit-as-hard-as-you-can-laser-beam-1ft-above-the-net
 
Top