Is playing with spin actually safer?

Dragy said:
We usually bring up DelPo’s bullet shots as if he was hitting them all the time. Meanwhile, he actually hits a lot of mid-pace mid-spin shots to hang in points when not set up for a full signature drive. He’s rather patient and tactical player, as is Wawrinka, opposed to some of the others, like say Goffin or youngsters, who play more uniformly.
Click to expand...

Well its true he goes for them when he is setup well, and also hits more mid spin shots like you said when on defense or neutral-ish, but when hes setup he goes for it, but if you compare that to Nadal when does Nadal ever go for those? Never, because hes a different type of player, even when he goes for aggressive shots he hits ton of spin even with low net clearance, he hits alot of winners with them but they have massive spin and many times dip down just a bit deeper than service line, very very rarely do you see him hit quite flatter and deeper, on the top of my head I remember such a shot against wawrinka at RG final, where he really slapped a bullet down the line once.
 
FiReFTW said:
Well its true he goes for them when he is setup well, and also hits more mid spin shots like you said when on defense or neutral-ish, but when hes setup he goes for it, but if you compare that to Nadal when does Nadal ever go for those? Never, because hes a different type of player, even when he goes for aggressive shots he hits ton of spin even with low net clearance, he hits alot of winners with them but they have massive spin and many times dip down just a bit deeper than service line, very very rarely do you see him hit quite flatter and deeper, on the top of my head I remember such a shot against wawrinka at RG final, where he really slapped a bullet down the line once.
Click to expand...
If you watched Nadal on AO, he actually hit many more flatter shots than ever before. It’s part of his recent development together with better serving, which is outstanding.
The point is, Nadal and some other players, typical modern hitters like Nole, or Thiem, or even Fed dominantly hit their rally shots not holding back (although not maxing out the effort, and limiting the backswing when required or body involvement), and this rally ball is their signature. DelPo with his techniques seems to be limited in RPM, so he hits lots of “mild” shots in a rally, and only swings unrestricted (again, not 100% effort) when set up well. So he’s a good example of alternative approach for this thread, but the value is not within the laser winners.
 
Pete Player said:
Goffin was mentioned, but the best example of the species to me is Thiem. He is really squashing the ball.
Click to expand...
I agree Thiem is possibly one of the only guys who put close as much as they have in most of the shots. I referred Goffin who in my opinion is one of the very many applying more or less same intensity to most shots, not holding back or pumping up pace too much. They keep their speed/spin rate mostly, hit higher RHS when comfortable or lower when stretched, always a high quality modern ball.
 
Dragy said:
If you watched Nadal on AO, he actually hit many more flatter shots than ever before. It’s part of his recent development together with better serving, which is outstanding.
The point is, Nadal and some other players, typical modern hitters like Nole, or Thiem, or even Fed dominantly hit their rally shots not holding back (although not maxing out the effort, and limiting the backswing when required or body involvement), and this rally ball is their signature. DelPo with his techniques seems to be limited in RPM, so he hits lots of “mild” shots in a rally, and only swings unrestricted (again, not 100% effort) when set up well. So he’s a good example of alternative approach for this thread, but the value is not within the laser winners.
Click to expand...

However in the final he was a statist.

I bet Nole was not that superior and on top of his game. Nada was hesitative and played his Roland Garros game, instead of what he did to get there.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
LeeD said:
Some swing hard for control..Rafa, some swing slow for control..Mac.
Are we all the same?
Click to expand...

Mac like in John Patric McEnroe? Well yes, but i think being a lefty, he got more our of what he got compared to the majority of players.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Dragy said:
If you watched Nadal on AO, he actually hit many more flatter shots than ever before. It’s part of his recent development together with better serving, which is outstanding.
The point is, Nadal and some other players, typical modern hitters like Nole, or Thiem, or even Fed dominantly hit their rally shots not holding back (although not maxing out the effort, and limiting the backswing when required or body involvement), and this rally ball is their signature. DelPo with his techniques seems to be limited in RPM, so he hits lots of “mild” shots in a rally, and only swings unrestricted (again, not 100% effort) when set up well. So he’s a good example of alternative approach for this thread, but the value is not within the laser winners.
Click to expand...

What does that have to do with anything im saying?

Im saying there are players who hit high arc over net high spin most of the time, thats their bread and butter tennis, they play consistent placement tennis.

On the other side of the spectrum there are players who hit flat, hard, with low net clearance in most of their shots, they play aggressive winner ballbashing tennis.

Both exist on highest level of tennis, hence both are valid to play, it depends on what you want and what kind of player you want to be, both have pros and cons.

Most players specially on the atp tour have a fair amount of variation between each and in between mostly, but there are also a lot that consist of the 1st or 2nd case, and they play high level, so you can't say high arc and spin is the way to play, or low net clearance and little spin is the way to play, IT DEPENDS ON YOUR STYLE.


Ostapenko hits through the ball with flat, little clearance not alot of spin


Halep hits more spin and more curve in her shots

Both top players
 
FiReFTW said:
What does that have to do with anything im saying?

Im saying there are players who hit high arc over net high spin most of the time, thats their bread and butter tennis, they play consistent placement tennis.

On the other side of the spectrum there are players who hit flat, hard, with low net clearance in most of their shots, they play aggressive winner ballbashing tennis.

Both exist on highest level of tennis, hence both are valid to play, it depends on what you want and what kind of player you want to be, both have pros and cons.

Most players specially on the atp tour have a fair amount of variation between each and in between mostly, but there are also a lot that consist of the 1st or 2nd case, and they play high level, so you can't say high arc and spin is the way to play, or low net clearance and little spin is the way to play, IT DEPENDS ON YOUR STYLE.


Ostapenko hits through the ball with flat, little clearance not alot of spin


Halep hits more spin and more curve in her shots

Both top players
Click to expand...
Halep is a top ranked player.
Ostapenko struggles to rebuild the incredible level of play she had winning that RG.

Yes this depends on the style among other things. Valid to play - absolutely, as is Giles Muller's or Misha Zverev's or Feli Lopez S&V. Just not getting them higher than they are against modern patterns.
 
Dragy said:
Halep is a top ranked player.
Ostapenko struggles to rebuild the incredible level of play she had winning that RG.

Yes this depends on the style among other things. Valid to play - absolutely, as is Giles Muller's or Misha Zverev's or Feli Lopez S&V. Just not getting them higher than they are against modern patterns.
Click to expand...

Ostapenko is still a winner of RG, how many girls have won a grand slam? Which means her style is good enough to win slams with, so why should someone at a lower level think that this style could not be good enough?

Muller, Zverev and Lopez are also good players, they play to their strenghts which is S&V, they don't have baseline games comparable to those players, so its arguable that if they did not S&V they would be much worse off.

Your basically just assuming things, thing is more important than trying to force a style and play a style, you should analyze your strenghts and weaknesses and then figure out what style would work best for YOU and bring you most success.

On rec tennis its even more valid because players are not great at everything and usually can't punish you so much.

Someone who is weak from baseline but has great volleys and a good 1st serve, he should consider S&V often, it would bring him more success than rallying from baseline.

Someone has good hand eye coordination and good at taking balls early, he should consider a more aggressive style of tennis.

Someone is a fast player and good defensive skills and hustle, maybe a grinder type would suit him most and bring him most success.

Get what im saying? Do you agree?
 
Dragy said:
No not the same, peak Nadal >> peak JMac. It's progress not just different approach.
Click to expand...


Progress?
Or what's currently in vogue?
Do YOU play better swinging like Rafa?
Does the pro game directly translate to US?
 
LeeD said:
Yeah, tis is "tips/instruction"
Not "Pro Players technique"
Click to expand...

Ofcourse not. Most of rec players doesn’t even have the fundamentals of swinging a racket right, but nipples to the net saloon door shots all the way.

Combining a couple of your posts to one answer being a total tool on multi-quote.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
FiReFTW said:
Ostapenko is still a winner of RG, how many girls have won a grand slam? Which means her style is good enough to win slams with, so why should someone at a lower level think that this style could not be good enough?

Muller, Zverev and Lopez are also good players, they play to their strenghts which is S&V, they don't have baseline games comparable to those players, so its arguable that if they did not S&V they would be much worse off.

Your basically just assuming things, thing is more important than trying to force a style and play a style, you should analyze your strenghts and weaknesses and then figure out what style would work best for YOU and bring you most success.

On rec tennis its even more valid because players are not great at everything and usually can't punish you so much.

Someone who is weak from baseline but has great volleys and a good 1st serve, he should consider S&V often, it would bring him more success than rallying from baseline.

Someone has good hand eye coordination and good at taking balls early, he should consider a more aggressive style of tennis.

Someone is a fast player and good defensive skills and hustle, maybe a grinder type would suit him most and bring him most success.

Get what im saying? Do you agree?
Click to expand...
I get what you are talking about, but find your reasoning unstructured. I like the variety SnV players bring to the game, or how some ballbashers shift the game rhythm. But those styles don’t boost safety/consistency when put versus modern heavy topspin hitting. Which was the topic of discussion.
 
LeeD said:
Progress?
Or what's currently in vogue?
Do YOU play better swinging like Rafa?
Does the pro game directly translate to US?
Click to expand...
You did reply to this question yourself. If easily producing RHS high enough to hit the back fence - better use topspin to arc high-pace shots.
 
Dragy said:
I get what you are talking about, but find your reasoning unstructured. I like the variety SnV players bring to the game, or how some ballbashers shift the game rhythm. But those styles don’t boost safety/consistency when put versus modern heavy topspin hitting. Which was the topic of discussion.
Click to expand...

I agree if we talk top pro level, but on rec level it mighr be the most effective style for you based on your strenghts and weaknesses
 
I take spin and playing spin is either top- or underspin.

Sidespun ball with either topspin or a slice makes it difficult for the opponent anyways. Even a sitter, like a hand fed ball with severe sidespin boggles most. Not to mention the unexpected rim spin.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Dragy said:
You did reply to this question yourself. If easily producing RHS high enough to hit the back fence - better use topspin to arc high-pace shots.
Click to expand...


You're wrong.
Easy swing does not equate to racketface control..which controls ball height over the net.
If your topspin goes baseline depth, another foot higher over the net goes out by 3 feet.
 
mucat said:
del Porto also hit with lots of spins comparing to recreational player, his FH in general has a flatter trajectory comparing to Nadal (but who doesn't).

Topspins is not an all or nothing thing, you just need to have the right amount of it to make it challenging for your opponent.
Click to expand...


Exactly my coach's point: she made me add some topspin/clearance over the net, as I was hitting too flat and that was too error prone.

I do that on both sides (including 1HBH) and that helps i.e. during rallies. By comparison the kid I was practicing yesterday (25 and on a weak College team) was hitting way too flat and his FH would sail long, while he netted many of his DTL (his preferred choice) 1HBHs.

Basically it is just too inconsistent to hit too flat.
 
LeeD said:
You're wrong.
Easy swing does not equate to racketface control..which controls ball height over the net.
If your topspin goes baseline depth, another foot higher over the net goes out by 3 feet.
Click to expand...
I dunno what you mean by easy swing and why you bring this up. But evidently, where topspin shot goes out because of 1 extra foot over the net flatter shot will go out because of several extra inches.
Racquet face control is mostly based on mileage and repeatable consistent swing. Not a thing to manipulate actively.
 
Topspin is such a valuable tool why would you throw it away. you can use it to push loopy spinny balls hi to the backhand. Use the windshield wiper and door handle twist to hit short angled shots. do the full Rafa on wide shots to your forehand to send back that Cross Court Looper so you can get back into position. and I'm an old guy who uses plenty of slice moon balls and droppers.
 
ptuanminh said:
I only believe this if peak Nadal with a tiny racquet can beat JMac on indoor fast court.
Click to expand...
You may prefer the old game, now it has changed. But if there were rules for equipment like wood racquets and fast courts modern generation would still produce better athletes due to higher quality of training, nutrition, etc. And I’m sure Nadal would succeed in any environment. Maybe not be that mega-champ he is thanks to clay courts and poly-stringed modern racquets, but still.
 
Dragy said:
You may prefer the old game, now it has changed. But if there were rules for equipment like wood racquets and fast courts modern generation would still produce better athletes due to higher quality of training, nutrition, etc. And I’m sure Nadal would succeed in any environment. Maybe not be that mega-champ he is thanks to clay courts and poly-stringed modern racquets, but still.
Click to expand...
I said nothing about my preference for old game or new game. I simply doubt those statements because it can not be verified. Like you said, equipments and technology have changed the game so much that any comparison will be apple vs orange.
 
Acegame said:
Often i hear people say that playing with spin is safer than hitting flat, because of the margin of safety over the net. But is this really true?

On the one hand i agree, because you'll be less likely to hit the net. But isn't it more difficult to hit the ball to begin with? Isn't there a much greater risk that you frame the ball? When hitting flat there's no Y axis to worry about because your swing will be much more horizontal. But when you go for spin you will have to drop your racket down and swing diagonally upwards. Seems to me that the chance you miss the ball is bigger. Below i made a pro's en con's list. What do you guys think.

spin
pro's:
- margin of saftey above the net
- ball bounces up high (out of striking zone)
- less likely to hit long

con's:
- bigger risk of misshits
- hit short
- slower

flat
pro's
- lower risk of misshits
- faster
- more likely to hit deeper shots

con's
- lower margin over the net
- more likely to hit long
Click to expand...
Hitting with spin is definitely NOT slower than hitting flat. It’s the complete opposite. Topspin let’s you hit harder than you can with a flat shot and still keep the ball in.
 
I think when RHS is the same, a flat shot is faster. But that wasn't actually the point i was trying to make. I was more focussed on the fact that a steeper swingpath makes it thougher to make clear contact with the ball.
 
Acegame said:
I think when RHS is the same, a flat shot is faster. But that wasn't actually the point i was trying to make. I was more focussed on the fact that a steeper swingpath makes it thougher to make clear contact with the ball.
Click to expand...

I don't think its an issue, unless the ball is SUPER FAST, say 1st serve speeds of 110mph+, thats why you don't really see people swinging so much low to high on those but just block them.
 
Acegame said:
I think when RHS is the same, a flat shot is faster. But that wasn't actually the point i was trying to make. I was more focussed on the fact that a steeper swingpath makes it thougher to make clear contact with the ball.
Click to expand...
Make some mental exercise imagining various cases of incoming balls and your shots. Actually, it's most easier to not mishit the ball if you hit it:
- directly to where it came from, same line;
- following the shape of flight: on the rise, horizontal (peak), on the descend.
It's "easier" to hit flat shot against a ball with less vertical speed, and it's "easier" to hit topspin to a descending ball - if follow your focus point.
In the meantime players redirect balls and hit various spins against various balls. In practice our hand-eye ability furnished with modern 100 sq.in. racquets is good enough to deal with finding best interception spot for incoming ball trajectory and swing path - unless we try smth extreme, or the incoming ball is uncommon for us. Faster than practiced, slower, extreme spin affecting the flightpath, lots of vertical movement - and we fail to meet the ball and sweetspot even choosing seemingly easiest shot.
 
Dragy said:
Make some mental exercise imagining various cases of incoming balls and your shots. Actually, it's most easier to not mishit the ball if you hit it:
- directly to where it came from, same line;
- following the shape of flight: on the rise, horizontal (peak), on the descend.
It's "easier" to hit flat shot against a ball with less vertical speed, and it's "easier" to hit topspin to a descending ball - if follow your focus point.
In the meantime players redirect balls and hit various spins against various balls. In practice our hand-eye ability furnished with modern 100 sq.in. racquets is good enough to deal with finding best interception spot for incoming ball trajectory and swing path - unless we try smth extreme, or the incoming ball is uncommon for us. Faster than practiced, slower, extreme spin affecting the flightpath, lots of vertical movement - and we fail to meet the ball and sweetspot even choosing seemingly easiest shot.
Click to expand...

Yes I agree its not hard at all, and usually a difference between a 1feet over the net and 3feet over the net with more spin in terms of swingpath is not that huge of a difference, just a couple degrees more upward swing, which barely makes much difference.
Its not like ur hitting completely horizontal when hitting more flat, and hitting completely vertical when hitting alot of spin and arc.
 
The guy who most consistently gets the ball over the net and inside the lines wins most tennis matches. Doesn't really matter how. A consistent top spin player will find his match playing an equally consistent flat ball hitter.

But no matter what, as you get higher in level topspin starts to rule because its the only way to hit really sharp angles necessary to defeat the foot speed and anticipation of good players. It's also the only way to keep them deep in the court and out of attacking range. But that's getting into 5.0 and above territory. You can be a great flat hitter and beat a lot of 4.5's easily.
 
And then there is the slice wizzard from planet Oz, who puts underspin on every ball and never let you hit anything above angle or knee height.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Dartagnan64 said:
The guy who most consistently gets the ball over the net and inside the lines wins most tennis matches. Doesn't really matter how. A consistent top spin player will find his match playing an equally consistent flat ball hitter.

But no matter what, as you get higher in level topspin starts to rule because its the only way to hit really sharp angles necessary to defeat the foot speed and anticipation of good players. It's also the only way to keep them deep in the court and out of attacking range. But that's getting into 5.0 and above territory. You can be a great flat hitter and beat a lot of 4.5's easily.
Click to expand...

Yes its true that hitting spin and angles is needed to be a good tennis player, but you need both angles and spin and penetrating shots, so you can angle someone off the court, then add that injection of pace into the opposite corner.

So for good players, they need everything, and need to know how to hit any type of shots.
 
@Wise one, what would the numbers be for Nada’s fh?

I think the face angle might not be that extreme, but there are other factors producing his spineates.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
- Drag coefficients decreased at lower speeds. This is opposite to the usual wind tunnel result
...
The average drag coefficient for new tennis balls was 0.507 +/- 0.024 and did not vary with spin or speed. The lift coefficient varied with spin.
Click to expand...

Isn’t that in controvercy?

A rolling round profile creating a lift is common knowledge in arodynamics.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalkö
 
Instead of barabolic, I’d say a slice trajectory is more of a inversed Gaussian distribution curve. From high x to zero.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
it kind of reminds me of the junk baller argument as in, why not just learn to play all slices? It's true that a flat game could get you pretty far obviously old pros played very flat and people argue that women hit pretty flat balls but for the most part Beyond 4.0 as you get to 4.5 and 5.0 I think you're going to be at a disadvantage hitting flat. but it's true most people never get to 4.5 or 5.0. I still think many players want to believe they have a high ceiling and I think in a sense hitting flat or choosing to play junkball is intentionally giving yourself a ceiling. It's a kind of capitulation that goes against many peoples sense of competitiveness. I think mentally some people are fine with being practical and resigning themselves to a level but I think other people I want to believe that their game could progress Beyond a certain level therefore they want to learn the strokes that the highest level players use.
 
coupergear said:
Beyond 4.0 as you get to 4.5 and 5.0 I think you're going to be at a disadvantage hitting flat.
Click to expand...

I disagree with this.

The lower the level the more disadvantagious is to play low net clearance flat ball bashing game.

Not the other way around.

Generally the better you are the lower net clearance you can play with more margin.

Theres a junior girl here that hits like 0.5feet over the net and hits hard flat, and ballbashes from baseline.

She would destroy every 4.5 on this board easily.

Now take a 4.0 player hitting 0.5feet above net aggressive ballbashing tennis.

A 4.0 is not capable of playing this kind of game at any reasonable acceptable margin for error.

I would be suprized if he managed to get 3 balls in a row over the net a few times in 2 sets, and would make 100unforced errors.

A 5.5 player can hit very low and hard over the net and make little errors.

A 3.5 would hit 8 out of 10 balls into the net.
 
FiReFTW said:
I disagree with this.

The lower the level the more disadvantagious is to play low net clearance flat ball bashing game.

Not the other way around.

Generally the better you are the lower net clearance you can play with more margin.

Theres a junior girl here that hits like 0.5feet over the net and hits hard flat, and ballbashes from baseline.

She would destroy every 4.5 on this board easily.

Now take a 4.0 player hitting 0.5feet above net aggressive ballbashing tennis.

A 4.0 is not capable of playing this kind of game at any reasonable acceptable margin for error.

I would be suprized if he managed to get 3 balls in a row over the net a few times in 2 sets, and would make 100unforced errors.

A 5.5 player can hit very low and hard over the net and make little errors.

A 3.5 would hit 8 out of 10 balls into the net.
Click to expand...
OK, we can quibble about at what ratings do "junkballers" or "flat hitters" start to have a disadvantage. Someone will bring up Santoro, and that current WTA pro who slices all shots, I know. There are pros who use unorthodox strokes. Yes, always an exception to the rule, like your junior girl example.

Fact remains, the vast majority of top players in the world are using heavy topspin. It's the dominant form of controlling groundstrokes in modern tennis. Do pros flatten out and hit low clearance shots occasionally? Sure. Can they hit extreme slice? Sure. Can they squash shot FH slice? Sure. But to claim that topspin does not dominate the game at the high level, would be foolish.
 
coupergear said:
OK, we can quibble about at what ratings do "junkballers" or "flat hitters" start to have a disadvantage. Someone will bring up Santoro, and that current WTA pro who slices all shots, I know. There are pros who use unorthodox strokes. Yes, always an exception to the rule, like your junior girl example.

Fact remains, the vast majority of top players in the world are using heavy topspin. It's the dominant form of controlling groundstrokes in modern tennis. Do pros flatten out and hit low clearance shots occasionally? Sure. Can they hit extreme slice? Sure. Can they squash shot FH slice? Sure. But to claim that topspin does not dominate the game at the high level, would be foolish.
Click to expand...

Heavy topspin does not dominate the WTA game, but it does dominate the ATP game.

My point is that many styles are valid and can be pushed to the top level if working alot on them.

Say player A hits high net clearance and alot of topspin and thats his main gamestyle

Player B hits low net clearance, flatter trajectory, doesnt mean almost zero spin, enough spin as needed so can be consistent enough

Both styles are valid and can compete at similar levels depending on the player and how he develops it, and there are players of both such styles on wta and atp.

Player A is generally more consistent, more margin for error, longer baseline exchanges, gets more errors from opponents and makes less errors himself

Player B is less consistent, less margin for error, shorter points, makes more errors but also wins more points and hits more winners or makes opponents struggle to get the ball since it travels faster.

The secret to player B success is to play with enough aggression but not too much so thst the error rate is to much vs the winner rate

Player A generally is more consistent throughout alot of matches, and the level doesnt dip as much

Player B generally can beat stronger players when in the zone but struggle against weaker ones when not, so higher highs and lower lows


Then theres Player C, which has a high degree of skill in both, and can vary the two, when in the zone can hit low clearance aggressive shots, and when struggling to find the timing and range can play a grinding high clearance spin game to grind the win.
Player C is the best of both worlds but it also takes the most skill to master because it needs to master both styles.
 
At lower levels and also at top ranks it is sometimes hard to play your game. You can relate to Nadal losing to Djocovic like a statist in AO this year, but getting there he played totally different game. Less clearance and more laser shots without his signature loopy forehands.

However against Nole he started pulling back from that for a reason or another playing his typical high rev high ball forehand game. Had he played the way he demolished the rivalry prior to final, he’d be the trophy holder.


——————————
No more on pain meds - all contributed matter and anti-matter are still subject to disclaimer
 
No high level players really hit the ball flat, some just hit 'flatter' than others. At the ATP level, guys who hit flatter than average are still averaging around 24" of net clearance. Most men are in the 30"-36" range and then there are the guys like Rafa who are 42"-48" on average. It's difficult to get a good perspective of net clearance on TV or video unless you have a true court level view.

On topic, playing with spin is absolutely safer. It gives you a larger window (margin for error) to hit through and get the ball in the court. It reduces unforced errors by taking the net out of play. It helps bring the ball down to keep the ball inside the baseline. It's easier to maintain consistent depth with high net clearance and high spin and easier to vary depth by varying height. It opens up angles with a greater margin for error. Spin allows you to shape lower incoming balls up over the net and back down deeper into the court. Offensively, it creates challenges for your opponent. High spin creates a heavy ball. High spin and high clearance creates a high bounce that can take the ball out of the opponents strike zone or push them deep behind the baseline. Guys who really put work on the ball can give you a ball that bounces up and away from you. It's more difficult to read and react to the bounce of a high spinning incoming ball. Flatter balls tend to stay within the strike zone. Flatter balls are easier to redirect and use the incoming pace. The window to hit a flat shot though is small and it gets smaller the harder you hit the ball.
 
FiReFTW said:
Heavy topspin ....
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what the heck you're trying to say but gave you a like anyway for your persistence.



Pro's, WTA, ATP all alike hit with a lot of topspin that the ball clears the net comfortably for them. Again, for the ball to clear the net comfortably but yet still land in for pro's they have to have a good amount of topspin. They ain't hitting like the old guys at rec parks who hit up (ie ball clears the net by several ft) and rely on gravity.

Even at 4.0 level, guys also hit hard and rely on topspin to pull the ball down. They are not precision geniuses that can consistently aim the ball within a foot from the tape. They are not that skilled. Nobody is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

X
Need help with flat serves
Replies
4
Views
933
Joe Average
J
C
Struggling with side spin instead of topspin
Replies
7
Views
2K
KingBugsy
K
M
Playing Safer does not mean Playing Slower (Tennis Magazine)
Replies
4
Views
863
Mahboob Khan
M
F
Higher trajectory / more netclearance FH
Replies
22
Views
2K
sureshs
S
phoenicks
a slight conflict between my teaching pro style and my style
Replies
9
Views
796
10sfreak
1
Back
Top