Hitting two second serves

[zaph]

I basically hit two spin serves, sometimes with a bit of slice to make it turn but always with topspin. I basically did this to cut out double faulting, my first service just being a flatter topspin serve. One surprising result of this is number of free points I am getting on serve, most people can get a racket on it but they struggle to do anything with it. Especially players who like to hit flat aggressive returns, they tend to hit my serve long when they try to return it.

I not saying this is a viable strategy for good players but for players like myself who will never get past 4.0 level at best; we are never going to have 100 mph plus flat first serves. We simply lack the ability to do that. So my argument is a serve with spin and work on it is better than a flatter serve which is coming in at 70-80 mph. The flatter serve is faster yes but it is less reliable and is basically a mid paced serve that most players can take a swing at.

 

[Curious]

My serve lasts less than a second I’m pretty sure!

 

[Curious]

I basically hit two spin serves, sometimes with a bit of slice to make it turn but always with topspin. I basically did this to cut out double faulting, my first service just being a flatter topspin serve. One surprising result of this is number of free points I am getting on serve, most people can get a racket on it but they struggle to do anything with it. Especially players who like to hit flat aggressive returns, they tend to hit my serve long when they try to return it.

I not saying this is a viable strategy for good players but for players like myself who will never get past 4.0 level at best; we are never going to have 100 mph plus flat first serves. We simply lack the ability to do that. So my argument is a serve with spin and work on it is better than a flatter serve which is coming in at 70-80 mph. The flatter serve is faster yes but it is less reliable and is basically a mid paced serve that most players can take a swing at.

My approach is the same but I can still hit pretty fast serves with quite a bit of spin on them. If I hit a flat serve every now and then it’s just by chance. I don’t even bother trying to hit a flat serve as it’s both high risk and also comes back too quickly.

 

[Deleted member 23235]

I basically hit two spin serves, sometimes with a bit of slice to make it turn but always with topspin. I basically did this to cut out double faulting, my first service just being a flatter topspin serve. One surprising result of this is number of free points I am getting on serve, most people can get a racket on it but they struggle to do anything with it. Especially players who like to hit flat aggressive returns, they tend to hit my serve long when they try to return it.

I not saying this is a viable strategy for good players but for players like myself who will never get past 4.0 level at best; we are never going to have 100 mph plus flat first serves. We simply lack the ability to do that. So my argument is a serve with spin and work on it is better than a flatter serve which is coming in at 70-80 mph. The flatter serve is faster yes but it is less reliable and is basically a mid paced serve that most players can take a swing at.

that’s my strat too.
top slice or slice 1st serve.
top or kick 2nd serve

occasional flat, but more if you stand inside the baseline.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[xFullCourtTenniSx]

Last I checked, Nadal has 17 major titles to his name.

 

[TagUrIt]

I actually do the opposite. I serve two first serves at times. Rec tennis first serve all out flat serve, the receiver braces for it. Second serve is a slice, kick serve and the receiver steps into the court. Whenever I see this, I serve a flat serve just to throw my opponent off. I like to mix up my serves. I’ll reverse the order also and serve the 2nd serve first and the 1st serve second. I don’t ever want my serve to be predictable.

I actually do have a 100 (+) mph flat serve btw.

 

[r2473]

Last I checked, Nadal has 17 major titles to his name.

Check again tomorrow

 

[Deleted member 23235]

I actually do the opposite. I serve two first serves at times. Rec tennis first serve all out flat serve, the receiver braces for it. Second serve is a slice, kick serve and the receiver steps into the court. Whenever I see this, I serve a flat serve just to throw my opponent off. I like to mix up my serves. I’ll reverse the order also and serve the 2nd serve first and the 1st serve second. I don’t ever want my serve to be predictable.

I actually do have a 100 (+) mph flat serve btw.

i can occasionally hit 101... but unless i'm up 40-love, the flat body serve is a 50/50 serve on a good day... so i'd avoid hitting that flat serve or even a topslice serve as a 2nd... double faulting and missing returns in reach, are big pet peeve for me

 

[FiReFTW]

If your serve is not a weapon then its a good strategy to spin it make it consistent, a bit stronger 1st spin serve and a bit weaker 2nd spin serve.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

I not saying this is a viable strategy for good players

I'm not a big fan of people self-describing as not "good". Whether I'm "good" depends more on who I'm playing against as opposed to some absolute scale. Rather than bringing in judgment, how about saying "higher level"?

but for players like myself who will never get past 4.0 level at best; we are never going to have 100 mph plus flat first serves.

I'm also not a big fan of of creating limits. How about instead thinking about what it takes to get to the next level, regardless of what that level is; and what do you need to do to improve your flat serve [whether or not it ever breaks 100mph]? If you're not interested in improvement, that's one thing; but don't put an artificial ceiling on your potential.

We simply lack the ability to do that. So my argument is a serve with spin and work on it is better than a flatter serve which is coming in at 70-80 mph. The flatter serve is faster yes but it is less reliable and is basically a mid paced serve that most players can take a swing at.

So, back to the tactics: if it's working for you, it likely is a valid choice unless you just happen to be playing against a group that can't handle this type of serve but everyone else you're about to play can. That's unlikely so I think you've found a good tactic.

 

[Traffic]

I find that I don't have an overwhelmingly fast 1st serve. It is only effective if they are not prepared for it. So I have to hit a few of my 2nd serves:

• top-slice to the T
• kicker body
• top-slice out wide

Then I'll throw a 1st serve out wide on deuce or down the T on ad. It's just fast enough that if they are a step out of position or if they have grown used to my 2nd serve pace, then all of a sudden it feels like a fast serve.

 

[dgold44]

I basically hit two spin serves, sometimes with a bit of slice to make it turn but always with topspin. I basically did this to cut out double faulting, my first service just being a flatter topspin serve. One surprising result of this is number of free points I am getting on serve, most people can get a racket on it but they struggle to do anything with it. Especially players who like to hit flat aggressive returns, they tend to hit my serve long when they try to return it.

I not saying this is a viable strategy for good players but for players like myself who will never get past 4.0 level at best; we are never going to have 100 mph plus flat first serves. We simply lack the ability to do that. So my argument is a serve with spin and work on it is better than a flatter serve which is coming in at 70-80 mph. The flatter serve is faster yes but it is less reliable and is basically a mid paced serve that most players can take a swing at.

Yes that is a good strategy but mix in a few flat ones

 

[zaph]

I'm not a big fan of people self-describing as not "good". Whether I'm "good" depends more on who I'm playing against as opposed to some absolute scale. Rather than bringing in judgment, how about saying "higher level"?



I'm also not a big fan of of creating limits. How about instead thinking about what it takes to get to the next level, regardless of what that level is; and what do you need to do to improve your flat serve [whether or not it ever breaks 100mph]? If you're not interested in improvement, that's one thing; but don't put an artificial ceiling on your potential.



So, back to the tactics: if it's working for you, it likely is a valid choice unless you just happen to be playing against a group that can't handle this type of serve but everyone else you're about to play can. That's unlikely so I think you've found a good tactic.

It is realism, I am 5' 6" and lightly built even for that height. The reality is I am giving up a huge reach, height and weight advantage to virtually everyone I play. The only real advantage I have is I am quick and since I am so small I am difficult to wrong foot. There is not a hope I can win in a flat hitting and power contest.

I can beat people much bigger than me by using spin to neutralise their power and minimising my mistakes. i am certainly not built to be a top level player and to be honest I find it funny when I beat much bigger players. I mean how do they possibly lose when they have such an advantage?

 

[IowaGuy]

It is realism, I am 5' 6" and lightly built even for that height. The reality is I am giving up a huge reach, height and weight advantage to virtually everyone I play. The only real advantage I have is I am quick and since I am so small I am difficult to wrong foot. There is not a hope I can win in a flat hitting and power contest.

I can beat people much bigger than me by using spin to neutralise their power and minimising my mistakes. i am certainly not built to be a top level player and to be honest I find it funny when I beat much bigger players. I mean how do they possibly lose when they have such an advantage?

You might enjoy studying some video of 5'7" Nishioka, currently ranked #69 in the world.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

It is realism, I am 5' 6" and lightly built even for that height. The reality is I am giving up a huge reach, height and weight advantage to virtually everyone I play. The only real advantage I have is I am quick and since I am so small I am difficult to wrong foot. There is not a hope I can win in a flat hitting and power contest.

Instead of concentrating on your deficits, focus on your assets: what are you good at? How can you use those assets to neutralize those of bigger opponents? Your quickness and agility are weapons; use them!

This isn't an arm-wrestling contest: the 6' 5" opponent still has to get the ball back over the net. Maybe you're more consistent at it than he is? Don't try to match him with power; change the terms of engagement. If you're going up against Hussein Bolt, don't make it about running.

I can beat people much bigger than me by using spin to neutralise their power and minimising my mistakes. i am certainly not built to be a top level player and to be honest I find it funny when I beat much bigger players. I mean how do they possibly lose when they have such an advantage?

Again, I suggest that you stop worrying about whether you have a top player's build and focus on what you can do to improve.

Look at the shorter players who have done well: Radwanska, Cibulkova, Schwartzman, Ferrer, Goffin, Sela, etc.

 

[zaph]

Instead of concentrating on your deficits, focus on your assets: what are you good at? How can you use those assets to neutralize those of bigger opponents? Your quickness and agility are weapons; use them!

This isn't an arm-wrestling contest: the 6' 5" opponent still has to get the ball back over the net. Maybe you're more consistent at it than he is? Don't try to match him with power; change the terms of engagement. If you're going up against Hussein Bolt, don't make it about running.



Again, I suggest that you stop worrying about whether you have a top player's build and focus on what you can do to improve.

Look at the shorter players who have done well: Radwanska, Cibulkova, Schwartzman, Ferrer, Goffin, Sela, etc.

I know how to beat these guys I get the ball back and move them about but I am also a realist. If I play someone with a big height, strength and reach advantage; I can only beat them if I have more skill than them. If we are matched in skill, I lose, it is that simple. Otherwise WTA players would be able to match ATP players.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

I know how to beat these guys I get the ball back and move them about but I am also a realist. If I play someone with a big height, strength and reach advantage; I can only beat them if I have more skill than them. If we are matched in skill, I lose, it is that simple. Otherwise WTA players would be able to match ATP players.

If they're tall, they might have trouble bending low.

If they're strong, they might have trouble with finesse.

If they have a wide wingspan, maybe they have trouble with balls in close to the body.

Do you see the difference between the way you approach the problem vs the way I'm proposing?

I'm not saying you will win every time or even most of the time. I'm trying to get you to stop concentrating on the downside.

 

[Fintft]

I'd rather hit 2 first serves Flat mostly.

 

[Curious]

I'd rather hit 2 first serves Flat mostly.

You must be a double fault machine.

 

[Shroud]

Check again tomorrow

I checked today! Made my day

 

[xFullCourtTenniSx]

Check again tomorrow

You were saying? I know this is easy to say in retrospect, but given the current field, it's hard to bet against Djokovic going back to running the tour. I give Nadal a slight edge on clay if he stays healthy, but I doubt anyone can stop Djokovic. Maybe Federer sneaks one out before retirement.

I know how to beat these guys I get the ball back and move them about but I am also a realist. If I play someone with a big height, strength and reach advantage; I can only beat them if I have more skill than them. If we are matched in skill, I lose, it is that simple. Otherwise WTA players would be able to match ATP players.

There are so many things wrong with WTA players before we consider why they can't match up physically. Their forehands aren't optimal for generating heavy balls. Their serve motions are deficient. They lack variety (how often do you see a great slice, drop shot, or net play).

There's a reason that there's only one player who has reached ATP #1 at 6'4" or higher, and only a handful achieved that at 6'3". Everyone knows how amazingly talented Safin was at 6'4". But there are so many downsides to being tall. Look at what it did to Murray's hip. What is important in tennis is being able to put the last ball into play. It doesn't matter how you do it.

On the men's side, power isn't the only weapon you can have (look at Federer and Murray). On the men's side, reach won't solve everything (look at Karlovic and Isner). Looking at Del Potro, Gonzalez, Groth, and many others, you can also tell that power isn't everything. When playing on a team, the coach thought I had the biggest forehand. I wasn't the biggest or even the strongest player. I didn't even hit the fastest forehand. I was just the best at threading the needle with my shot, being accurate with placement, and being very flexible with it.

Yes, it helps to be tall, but it's not necessary. What's necessary is to have the will to fight, push forward, and stand your ground until the bitter end as a competitor. Be willing to adapt your strategy, push yourself harder than you think you can go, and believe in yourself.

 

[Fintft]

You must be a double fault machine.

Not really. And there was a top WTA that played in AO just like that (forgot her name). At times she took a bit off her second first serve.