Is the general tennis strategy of "try to move forward" still relevant?

[HunterST]

Sometimes people will say that a very general strategy for playing points is to try to move forward while pushing your opponent back.

I have to say that I never think of this as a strategy. I've heard this advice, but have always discounted it as "old school" and no longer relevant. Sure, that was the idea when you basically had to get to net to finish the point, but with modern technology and more people content to stay at the baseline, it seems like other strategies might be more appropriate.

However, I got to thinking about the graphics they show during pro matches. Specifically, the one where they show the percentage of shots hit behind the baseline, at the baseline, and inside. Pretty much without fail, the player who is winning, even if they're not coming to net, has hit a high percentage of their shots inside the baseline.

So, what do you think? Should players focus on trying to press forward during matches. Or, would it be better to focus on a strategy like hitting to the opponents weaker wing?

 

[snvplayer]

I don't think the two questions are mutually exclusive. By hitting to your opponent's weaker wing, you are likely to get a weaker reply, which is easier to exploit and push your opponent behind baseline, and you can move closer to the baseline.

 

[GuyClinch]

I have to say at the lower levels it simply does not matter. If you hit a quality backhand or forehand - with some angle on it - you will get a shorter ball back - and then you will naturally move into that shorter ball - if you get a ball back at all. Your execution and opponent dictate strategy - not the strategy in your head.

If you hit against someone who turns all your quality shots into high powered deep returns - well then you are not coming in - and you are likely overmatched. This is unlikely in league play.. But could happen in a practice match.

Because my serve is a bit stronger then the rest of my game - I get TONS of short balls back on serve. A very common return is wide and short return off my slice serve. You HAVE to come in off that. There is no choice.

If you find yourself coming in and getting frequently passed or lobbed - you are forcing it - and that's a bad idea.

 

[Deleted member 120290]

When you are in control of the point, you are usually hitting from inside the baseline whereas the opponent is being pushed around and behind the baseline. The person in control of the points will usually win at rec levels and will always win at higher levels.
However coming into the net regularly at high level singles 5.0+ as a tactic is pretty much dead. With poly strings, bigger rackets, slower courts and balls, advanced players can hit passing shots consistently.

 

[2nd Serve Ace]

If you've already moved a few steps inside the baseline, and then retreat backwards, it's a big positive for the opponent as the advantage in the rally is lost!
As McEnroe always says: the closer you get to the net, the more the angles open up.
The other alternative is to develop alot of midcourt "put away" shots to avoid even having to volley.

Sent from my SM-T310 using Tapatalk

 

[rkelley]

Yes, even with baseline exchanges you want to try to push your opponent back further back from the baseline and be hitting more of your shots near or on the baseline. This positioning reduces their angles and makes a short ball more likely. You're in a better position to take advantage of a short ball and you have better angles.

If you're playing Nadal it will be less advantageous then you would think, but that's his super power. If you're playing normal people it's a good strategy.

 

[RajS]

I have read that moving forward to hit earlier and thus taking time away from the opponent is the most advanced kind of strategy, and is the most difficult to implement consistently. I don't think I have got beyond hitting crosscourt and hitting to the weaker wing (almost always the backhand), even though I keep trying.

 

[TennisCJC]

Hitting the ball near or inside the baseline is very advantageous. Attacking the net behind a decent approach shot is also still very advantageous too. Work on an all court game where you have a decent volley and overhead and then attack whenever you get the chance.

 

[HuusHould]

It doesn't matter if you aren't coming to the net, you're better off moving in a V around the baseline and taking every ball as far up in the court as possible, rather than a straight "trench." I once read an article by Tomas Mercinger on how to beat a pusher, ( I can't find it, I think it was from Johnny Yandell's tennis player.net) and he talks about the fact that if you take the ball as early as possible each time, the quality of your opponents shots cumulatively declines. You have to be careful not to get caught in no man's land, but pushers generally don't have heavy shots to punish you with when you get caught a bit out of position in that regard. It's like being at the net, you don't only close in on the net if you are going to finish the point, although that's the goal, sometimes you have to close in and then recover back so you don't get lobbed, but you try to contact every volley or smash you hit as close to the net as possible.

I had a pusher with a great backhand passing shot and I used to try to get to the net to beat him, and if I stayed on the baseline I wouldn't make an effort to play up in the court.(because I thought exactly like you that the only reason to play up in the court was to get to the net). At one point he won about 7/10 sets against me. Since I decided to only come in very selectively, but take everything as early as possible and make him move as much as possible I have won about 13/15 sets. As someone mentioned the further up in the court you are the easier it is for you to move them and the further back they are the harder it is for them to move you. If you take the ball early you find some of your short shots turn into angles that pull them off the court.

 

[Crocodile]

The concept of moving forward in todays game is seen a little differently to what people would have thought 20 years ago in some instances. From an Australian perspective when many of the major events were played on grass, people would associate moving forward with strategies like S and V, chip and charge, approach shots etc.
In today's hard court/clay court environment where more all court styles are being used, many people envisage moving forward as getting inside the baseline then executing either a winner, or an approach to the net, or even a drop shot. Moving forward into the court allows you to be more aggressive in your shots and the angles available to you increase as well. Conversely staying behind the baseline is seen as a more defensive strategy. Where things get more interesting is that the modern racquets and strings have made it possible for elite players to be aggressive in once thought to be defensive court positions. You will see pros have the ability to pull of winners from positions that were previously not common place. As a consequence you may probably noticed that at more advanced levels, the counter puncher/retriever style of play in the true sense has diminshed. Off course this is why tennis at your local park will be different as many players need to first learn how to be consistent players that limit their unforced errors until their skill level improves to the point where they can start to be more forcefull with their approach.

 

[HuusHould]

The concept of moving forward in todays game is seen a little differently to what people would have thought 20 years ago in some instances. From an Australian perspective when many of the major events were played on grass, people would associate moving forward with strategies like S and V, chip and charge, approach shots etc.
In today's hard court/clay court environment where more all court styles are being used, many people envisage moving forward as getting inside the baseline then executing either a winner, or an approach to the net, or even a drop shot. Moving forward into the court allows you to be more aggressive in your shots and the angles available to you increase as well. Conversely staying behind the baseline is seen as a more defensive strategy. Where things get more interesting is that the modern racquets and strings have made it possible for elite players to be aggressive in once thought to be defensive court positions. You will see pros have the ability to pull of winners from positions that were previously not common place. As a consequence you may probably noticed that at more advanced levels, the counter puncher/retriever style of play in the true sense has diminshed. Off course this is why tennis at your local park will be different as many players need to first learn how to be consistent players that limit their unforced errors until their skill level improves to the point where they can start to be more forcefull with their approach.

Yes, at the higher levels you have to be careful loitering in no man's land as you mention, guys like Djokovic can attack from defensive situations/positions.

 

[Crocodile]

Exactly, and the more elite the player is the more that aggressive attacking zone moves closer to the baseline. Many of you will remember people talking about the traffic light zones (Red - Defense, Orange - Transition, Green- Attack) with the court divided into 3rds which is a good model for recreational players, but for the pros this model is replaced by the concept of if you are behind the baseline you defend, if you are inside the baseline you attack. For the elite pros this zone of attack is greater due to their technical excellence, speed and precision. The other concepts that also come into play is that to many top plays a shorter ball to them is equivalent to also getting a slow ball or even a favourite ball. With a lot of players the weight of shot in a rally will determine who is attacking or defending. This is how modern polyester and Nadal type hitting changed what it meant to be aggresive.
The other indicator that comes into play here is the bounce you get off your shots. The modern topspin player will try to get the ball to bounce at the shoulders of the opponent and this makes them vulnerable for being attacked because it either pushes them back in court position or they have to slice to slow things down. Nadal was very effective with this especially against Roger's one handed backhand.
This is why I'm great believer that modern frames and strings have had a considerable impact on the game.

 

[Todd Hicks]

Sometimes people will say that a very general strategy for playing points is to try to move forward while pushing your opponent back.

I have to say that I never think of this as a strategy. I've heard this advice, but have always discounted it as "old school" and no longer relevant. Sure, that was the idea when you basically had to get to net to finish the point, but with modern technology and more people content to stay at the baseline, it seems like other strategies might be more appropriate.

However, I got to thinking about the graphics they show during pro matches. Specifically, the one where they show the percentage of shots hit behind the baseline, at the baseline, and inside. Pretty much without fail, the player who is winning, even if they're not coming to net, has hit a high percentage of their shots inside the baseline.

So, what do you think? Should players focus on trying to press forward during matches. Or, would it be better to focus on a strategy like hitting to the opponents weaker wing?

You must use various facets of the game to mix things up, surprise your opponent, make your opponent uncomfortable, expand your repertoire, etc.

 

[5263]

Exactly, and the more elite the player is the more that aggressive attacking zone moves closer to the baseline. Many of you will remember people talking about the traffic light zones (Red - Defense, Orange - Transition, Green- Attack) with the court divided into 3rds which is a good model for recreational players, but for the pros this model is replaced by the concept of if you are behind the baseline you defend, if you are inside the baseline you attack. For the elite pros this zone of attack is greater due to their technical excellence, speed and precision. The other concepts that also come into play is that to many top plays a shorter ball to them is equivalent to also getting a slow ball or even a favourite ball. With a lot of players the weight of shot in a rally will determine who is attacking or defending. This is how modern polyester and Nadal type hitting changed what it meant to be aggresive.
The other indicator that comes into play here is the bounce you get off your shots. The modern topspin player will try to get the ball to bounce at the shoulders of the opponent and this makes them vulnerable for being attacked because it either pushes them back in court position or they have to slice to slow things down. Nadal was very effective with this especially against Roger's one handed backhand.
This is why I'm great believer that modern frames and strings have had a considerable impact on the game.

You make a ton of good points here and I tend to agree in general with what I think you are saying, but I'd like to refine some of the points a bit differently.

I like the idea that if you are inside the BL you should be looking to attack, but from behind the BL I'd term it more as the Rally area. Now the Rally area has a ton of variety since you can be aggressive with your rally, neutral or even a bit defensive. My take is that when the players are engaged in a rally, they are punching and counter punching for an advantage....which normally comes in the flavor of a shorter, attackable ball. Biggest mistake I see in tennis is for players to try to force errors or even clean winners from the rally area, which leads to way too many UEs in the Rally area. 2nd biggest problem I see is no real plan or skills for attacking the shorter attackable balls once they are earned. It is very hard to win a match if you are giving away too many Rally area UEs.

 

[sureshs]

Moving forward is a good strategy for older club players who cannot move fast from side to side

 

[Deleted member 23235]

The concept of moving forward in todays game is seen a little differently to what people would have thought 20 years ago in some instances. From an Australian perspective when many of the major events were played on grass, people would associate moving forward with strategies like S and V, chip and charge, approach shots etc.
In today's hard court/clay court environment where more all court styles are being used, many people envisage moving forward as getting inside the baseline then executing either a winner, or an approach to the net, or even a drop shot. Moving forward into the court allows you to be more aggressive in your shots and the angles available to you increase as well. Conversely staying behind the baseline is seen as a more defensive strategy. Where things get more interesting is that the modern racquets and strings have made it possible for elite players to be aggressive in once thought to be defensive court positions. You will see pros have the ability to pull of winners from positions that were previously not common place. As a consequence you may probably noticed that at more advanced levels, the counter puncher/retriever style of play in the true sense has diminshed. Off course this is why tennis at your local park will be different as many players need to first learn how to be consistent players that limit their unforced errors until their skill level improves to the point where they can start to be more forcefull with their approach.

+1
was watching the djoker/murray match this weekend, you can often see who was in control, just by seeing who was standing closer to the baseline.... that person was usually dictating, getting slightly better angles, and/or able to take away time by being closer to the net, etc... occasionally murray will dig himself out of a defensive position (ie. extreme cc angle from 5-8ft behind the baseline), but that's a much lower % shot than just dictating balls landing shortish in the court.

even at the local park... you should be aware of when you "accidentlally" hit a deep ball (ie. you think it's going long, but lands on just before the baseline)... your opponent will likely give you a short ball, so you should be moving in. i always tell students if they hit a ball deep (intentionally or accidentally), move in!! don't wait to see what the call is, just presume it's in, and move forward (to develop the habit) to anticipate an easy volley/overhead... or at the very least be able to hit a groundie from well inside the baseline (ie. both feel inside)

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

i always tell students if they hit a ball deep (intentionally or accidentally), move in!! don't wait to see what the call is, just presume it's in, and move forward (to develop the habit) to anticipate an easy volley/overhead... or at the very least be able to hit a groundie from well inside the baseline (ie. both feel inside)

S&V and C&C are also ways to force people to move in. Another is to make a rule that if the opponent hits a short ball [ie one that lands in the service box], the receiving player MUST come to the net. It's uncomfortable for a lot of people but it's a great way to get them accustomed to the movement and the ball recognition.

 

[Deleted member 23235]

S&V and C&C are also ways to force people to move in. Another is to make a rule that if the opponent hits a short ball [ie one that lands in the service box], the receiving player MUST come to the net. It's uncomfortable for a lot of people but it's a great way to get them accustomed to the movement and the ball recognition.

most folks that don't come to net, usually don't because they can't volley and/or hit overheads... (i used to be in this camp)
but it's big skill area that prevents <=4.0's getting to 4.5

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

most folks that don't come to net, usually don't because they can't volley and/or hit overheads... (i used to be in this camp)
but it's big skill area that prevents <=4.0's getting to 4.5

In many ways it's a positive feedback cycle [self-reinforcing]: they aren't good at volleys/OHs so they don't come to the net so they don't get practice hitting volleys/OHs so they don't improve so they don't...Having a drill that forces them to do what they are not comfortable with is a fast way to short-circuit this cycle. It also may cause some students to quit, unfortunately [or go find another coach who doesn't make them do stuff they don't like].

 

[Deleted member 23235]

In many ways it's a positive feedback cycle [self-reinforcing]: they aren't good at volleys/OHs so they don't come to the net so they don't get practice hitting volleys/OHs so they don't improve so they don't...Having a drill that forces them to do what they are not comfortable with is a fast way to short-circuit this cycle. It also may cause some students to quit, unfortunately [or go find another coach who doesn't make them do stuff they don't like].

amen

 

[SinjinCooper]

A modern variant on S&V for the aggressive baseliner is serve, land in the court, split step right there, anticipate a short return, and begin to dictate play from inside the baseline. Retreat if and only if a return comes so hard and deep that it forces you to. Even deep balls hit straight at you give you the option to take it out of the air. If you look for it, this strategy is easy to see being employed almost every service point by Federer and Djokovic. If pushed back, Fed typically takes every opportunity to move back forward, whereas against a solid hitter, Djokovic will often choose to stay back and rally after that first sally forth.

Contrast to more passive strategies like those employed by Murray and Wawrinka. They will typically serve, then retreat a step or two, and rely on outrallying the other guy from their usual perch behind the baseline. They quite correctly reason that they're going to win at least their fare share of rallies in which the other guy also starts from a passive position (as one generally does when receiving serve), and that the additional percentage of points they're likely to win off the strength of their serves will mean they'll win the huge preponderance of their service games, even with a passive strategy. Of course, it's hard to imagine Stan as passive, since his rally strokes themselves are so aggro. But don't confuse the stroke with the strategy.

But all that is to say that yeah, it's relevant. Not necessary, but relevant.

The "Serve and Split" strategy is very good for rec players with decent serves and forehands, and relative weaknesses everywhere else. Yeah, you often wind up looking like a goofball if the other guy pushes a return to your baseline, but that happens pretty rarely in reality. So you wind up looking silly a few more points, taking control of a whole lot more points, and get easier holds out of it in the end. Give it a shot if you're not intentionally doing it already. I feel like the Murray/Wawrinka idea is the one I see 90%+ of clubbers using, and they're giving away a ton of opportunities because of it.

 

[movdqa]

I think about the drills where you hit a forehand, approach shot, volley and overhead over and over again that we did in the 1980s. It seems to be a lot less relevant today. It's a good drill overall but not so much emphasis is needed on it because modern play is more baseline oriented.

What I think of as an example of aggressive point play is serving wide to the backhand on the ad court, then moving to your left and inside the baseline to hit a forehand out wide to the backhand again. That's a nice strategy until you run into a guy with a good defensive game that can hit a pretty good shot down the line. We've seen that from Federer for a while and I saw a decent amount of that from the recent Murray - Djokovic match. So aggressive point play can work but, smart people on the other side of the court will adapt.

 

[fuzz nation]

Reasonable question and lots of good answers already.

So Hunter, consider the flip side of moving forward. Backing up may help against certain players, but you may find that it opens up too much real estate for your opponent to work with too often. Not asserting that we all should be moving forward whenever we can, but it's smart to stay aware of our positioning in the court, both forward or backed up as well as how we're "centered" in the left-right direction. Always stay alert and ready to adjust.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

A modern variant on S&V for the aggressive baseliner is serve, land in the court, split step right there, anticipate a short return, and begin to dictate play from inside the baseline. Retreat if and only if a return comes so hard and deep that it forces you to. Even deep balls hit straight at you give you the option to take it out of the air. If you look for it, this strategy is easy to see being employed almost every service point by Federer and Djokovic. If pushed back, Fed typically takes every opportunity to move back forward, whereas against a solid hitter, Djokovic will often choose to stay back and rally after that first sally forth.

I saw a video of Vandeweghe practicing just this: she hit a serve and then immediately was fed a deep ball that she had to recover in balance to deal with.

 

[Dartagnan64]

I have to say at the lower levels it simply does not matter. If you hit a quality backhand or forehand - with some angle on it - you will get a shorter ball back - and then you will naturally move into that shorter ball - if you get a ball back at all. Your execution and opponent dictate strategy - not the strategy in your head.

If you hit against someone who turns all your quality shots into high powered deep returns - well then you are not coming in - and you are likely overmatched. This is unlikely in league play.. But could happen in a practice match.

Because my serve is a bit stronger then the rest of my game - I get TONS of short balls back on serve. A very common return is wide and short return off my slice serve. You HAVE to come in off that. There is no choice.

If you find yourself coming in and getting frequently passed or lobbed - you are forcing it - and that's a bad idea.

I think this was the most sensible response. I see a lot of club players that have been lessoned in doubles strategy, come to the net and get easily passed, lobbed or dipped. Why? Because their approach shots and serves weren't forcing enough to engender a weak reply and additionally, their net skills were woeful.

Moving forward only works if you can force your opponent into weaker replies and you can do something with those replies. Otherwise staying back and letting them force the issue may be a sounder strategy.

I often stick with the 1 up 1 back strategy in doubles because a) it protects against lobs and b) I have better groundies than volleys and can often induce an error with a hard dipping groundie down the middle. When I was younger I constantly got up to the net because I was fit and fast enough to chase down lobs and I had more than a 1 inch vertical in those days so I could smash lower lobs more easily. Those days are gone.

 

[Bender]

I get that the game has changed (for better or for worse) because of advances in racquet and string technology, but insofar as the basic premise as to why you should move in doesn't change--ie to rob your opponent of time, create angles for yourself, decrease own risk, and increase risk for your opponent--there is no reason why you shouldn't be moving forward.

Plus, amateurs are nowhere near as good as pros from the baseline--hell, many pros aren't even that good from the baseline--meaning that the net is far more relevant to us than it is for them.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

I get that the game has changed (for better or for worse) because of advances in racquet and string technology, but insofar as the basic premise as to why you should move in doesn't change--ie to rob your opponent of time, create angles for yourself, decrease own risk, and increase risk for your opponent--there is no reason why you shouldn't be moving forward.

Plus, amateurs are nowhere near as good as pros from the baseline--hell, many pros aren't even that good from the baseline--meaning that the net is far more relevant to us than it is for them.

Totally agree. I've long argued that the disappearance of S&V from high-level play is almost irrelevant to me at 4.5: I just don't run into many guys who can hit the great passer over and over. Some can and against them I become more circumspect. But the standard answer of "no one plays S&V because string/racquet technology makes hitting great passers easy" is only relevant if the person can actually hit the shot consistently. And that's not a foregone conclusion.

Now, if I can make it to 5.0, that will likely change.

 

[Bender]

Totally agree. I've long argued that the disappearance of S&V from high-level play is almost irrelevant to me at 4.5: I just don't run into many guys who can hit the great passer over and over. Some can and against them I become more circumspect. But the standard answer of "no one plays S&V because string/racquet technology makes hitting great passers easy" is only relevant if the person can actually hit the shot consistently. And that's not a foregone conclusion.

Now, if I can make it to 5.0, that will likely change.

Absolutely. If anything, the net is more relevant to us hacks because our groundstrokes are so inconsistent. A hack serve and solid volleyer can easily dominate 3.0-4.0 doubles IMO, while the ball blaster is going to double fault himself down to 2.5 if he's unlucky.

I was a streaky baseline ball blaster with pretty strokes (or so I have been told) but was monumentally sucky at doubles until I bit the bullet and spent a few weeks really focusing on volleying. Now I'm just a bit sucky, but I'm mostly solid at net now. I can win sets off my coach sometimes if my groundstrokes and /or serves are on (because then I can win points from the baseline and at the net), but consistency from the baseline will probably take another two years of non-stop practice. Technique-wise, I'm mostly finished.

The point is that I can actually do more than increase the court size when playing doubles now, and the margin of error part is particularly important to people like me who aren't nearly good enough to be 'on' with the groundstrokes day in, day out. Hit the net against a baseliner of the same level, and the law of averages almost guarantees that you win the match eventually. Not quite the same if you're Almagro and approaching the net against Nadal.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

Absolutely. If anything, the net is more relevant to us hacks because our groundstrokes are so inconsistent. A hack serve and solid volleyer can easily dominate 3.0-4.0 doubles IMO, while the ball blaster is going to double fault himself down to 2.5 if he's unlucky.

That's exactly what drove me to the net in the first place. Now I'm trying to catch up with my GSs.

 

[Bender]

That's exactly what drove me to the net in the first place. Now I'm trying to catch up with my GSs.

Look at Edberg here, trying to win more GS even though he retired years ago!

 

[TimeToPlaySets]

In all the coaching I've gotten, almost every shot seems to require you moving forward.
Not as a positional strategy, but as part of the stroke mechanics.

Volley? MOVE FORWARD. Attack the ball. Hit it high.
FH and BH? Move forward. Step into ball.
Serve? Move forward.