[Merged] Wardlaw Directionals -- what a difference!

[chess9]

Cindy's just outside of Cairo, of course.

Here's a thought:

Don't re-invent the wheel. Learn from the greats, and if what they have to teach doesn't work for you, put it away for awhile, and COME BACK TO IT LATER. I can't tell you how many times I had a problem to solve, looked it over, wasn't struck with the best approach, and simply shelved the problem for a few days or a few weeks. Tennis is NO different. Sometimes we are ready and ACHING for an idea whose time is right. ("Just In Time Ideas?" ) Sometimes NOT.

Just my humble opinion. I'm usually wrong.

-Robert

 

[Cindysphinx]

Oh, I'll come back to it later. No doubt about that.

It's just that what BB is saying is true: Without the shot control and mechanics, Wardlaw is just a new and exciting way to lose.

Me, I gotta square away my footwork, which is the biggest impediment to good mechanics for me.

 

[tarheels2323]

I'm just going to chime in and say this...

The Directionals are a part of the professional game, so why should anyone below that level believe they can ignore them? Like BB said, the Directionals need to be taught and used along with other strategies by players that can successfully implement them (I won't use an NTRP - if you're at this level you're aware of it; basically, you have developed great consistency and can focus on shot selection and strengths/weaknesses of you and your opponent).

There is a small percentage on this board that know what they're talking about and only a few with the experience to really know what they're talking about. I suggest listening.

 

[Rafael_Nadal_6257]

Heycal...

Your primary reason for not using the Wardlaw Directionals (a set of guidelines, and nothing more) is that with it, you are more likely to lose matches, and when you disregard it, you are more likely to win matches. This is almost verbatim of what you have posted.

I can see how you can get frustrated when you use the Directionals, and you lose more often, than when you don't use the directionals...BUT...

In the end, the long-term benefits of considering and using the Wardlaw Directionals as a guideline far outweigh the (relatively small) short-term benefits (in your case) of exclusively ignoring them.

For you to advance and get better as a tennis player, it is sometimes necessary to sacrifice a couple losses here and there, to learn and get accustomed to an idea, which will work wonders for you, when and if your consistency improves.

 

[LuckyR]

Using the Directionals without drilling to hit balls deep and out the back of the baseline (instead of wide across the sideline) is folly. Why would you be suprised that playing in a style you have practiced all of your life would be inferior to a style you read out of a book or saw on a Forum and tried to put into play without much practice?

No doubt about it, if you can play the Directionals correctly you will: hit difficult to handle balls with a relatively lower UE rate. Against most folks that will lead to wins.

On the other hand trying to hit Directionals without drilling that type of shot will lead to UEs or perhaps to the other guy hitting winners. You can either make mistakes with the Directionals in practice (then win the matches) or you can make those early mistakes in matchplay, get discouraged and drop an otherwise effective tactic.

 

[heycal]

You say the directionals leave you hitting balls to opponent's stronger sides too often, on account of how are a lefty. Say you RH opponent hits a FH ball crosscourt to your BH. Wardlaw says you can change the direction of that ball, which would take it to you opponent's BH.

It's my understanding that Dr. Wardlaw wants me to hit that ball right back to my opponents FH if it's an outside ball. So no, I can't change direction on most cross court shots to my backhand.

But isn't it equally likely that you can get the rally going the other way, where you are hitting FH and opponent must hit BH?

Yes, it's equally likely. And I prefer to make it more than equally likely by aggressively seeking opportunities to hit my BH dtl. Doing so is more likely to produce a return to my FH, and thus put me in the match-up that works to my advantage.

 

[heycal]

Well then...thats fine, but I don't quite understand why you even made a new thread if you're content to "continue playing my own sweet game, thank you."

Because people have frequently posted on this tennis website regarding their experiences with various equipment or tactics related to tennis, and I've come across many posts on Wardlaw lately. So I was simply sharing my experiences with trying something out, and explaining why I abandoned it. It was not a cry for help.

 

[Cindysphinx]

Yes, it's equally likely. And I prefer to make it more than equally likely by aggressively seeking opportunities to hit my BH dtl. Doing so is more likely to produce a return to my FH, and thus put me in the match-up that works to my advantage.

Yes, but . . . Why is the bolded portion correct? Wouldn't your opponent (if he is of a similar mind) hit to your BH?

Hey, everyone can do what they want out there. Your lefty-ness is an interesting twist, which is why I'm mulling it with you. So if you're done with Wardlaw, then you're done.

I, however, can't help wondering WWND (What Would Nadal Do?). Wouldn't you figure Nadal has sorted this out? When I watch him play, I don't sense he does anything at all to protect his backhand. He (and most pros except Roddick) seem to be able to hit winners off of both sides. He doesn't seem to be freaked out when he has to take his BH to Federer's FH. So how come you are?

BTW, my BH is far less likely to break down than my FH (darn my stupid forehand!), yet most opponents try to attack my BH. So maybe some of your opponents are more like me, and you are doing them a favor by hitting to their BH?

 

[heycal]

Believe it or not, Cindy, Nadal is a lot bettter than me.

That said, my 2 hbh backhand is actually fine, relatively speaking, and I can hit winners with it often. Sometimes its more solid than my FH. But it's not so fantastic and superior that I want to try and engage in endless backhand to forehand rallies with my opponent. I would like to reverse that match-up if I can, capice?

As for your other question, "won't a similarly minded player just return my dtl backhand right back DTL to my bh?"

Yes, that happens sometimes. And I might just send it right back at him in the same way. But they are often not as good at that shot as I am, because as a lefty I've relied on that shot much more than they have, unless they've spent their whole lives playing lefties, which they haven't. So the shot is more foreign to them than to me.

Plus, they might not be similarly minded, but a conservative sort who likes to hit cross court. Ergo, the ball often comes to my forehand.

And then I start pounding their 1 hbh with my devasting lefty forehand just like your friend Nadal does until they weep for mercy...

 

[drak]

"After trying to faithfully follow them for a couple of matches, I found myself losing too many games for whatever reason"

Heycal you said it right there! "a couple of matches"? Do you really think a couple of matches is enough to judge the effectiveness of a new strategy -especially at the 3.5 level? Gimme a break man, first you should be consistently doing crosscourt drills along with playing to begin to get comfortable with something very new and different. This IMO is something one builds up to one after many weeks and months of practice. To abandon it after 2 matches is your choice but truly stupid.

Drak

 

[J011yroger]

Your stroke mechanics do not favor playing in the method that Wardlaw perscribes.

That is why you didn't work out so well with him.

You would either have to alter your stroke production, to better fit Wardlaw.

Or, keep your current game and strokes, and use an alternate strategy.

Either one is fine. But trying to apply Wardlaw to your game is like trying to put a square peg in a round hole.

J

 

[J011yroger]

P.S. Heycal is on the 3.5/4.0 cusp. He played like a weaker 4.0 in the match against storm, but he said (I think) that he played well, and usually makes more errors.

To call him, or even entertain the thought of him being a 3.0 is silly.

J

 

[heycal]

Gimme a break man, first you should be consistently doing crosscourt drills along with playing to begin to get comfortable with something very new and different. This IMO is something one builds up to one after many weeks and months of practice. To abandon it after 2 matches is your choice but truly stupid.

Sorry, Drak. I'm not interested in spending time on drills or practicing.

Your stroke mechanics do not favor playing in the method that Wardlaw perscribes.

That is why you didn't work out so well with him.

You would either have to alter your stroke production, to better fit Wardlaw.

Or, keep your current game and strokes, and use an alternate strategy.

Either one is fine. But trying to apply Wardlaw to your game is like trying to put a square peg in a round hole.

This is what I was trying to explain to them, Jolly, and they're treating me like I'm the worst player in the world if not the devil himself.

Hey, what does that mean anyway, 'my stroke production and mechanics aren't suited to Wardlaw'. I certainly understand that intuitively, but perhaps don't understand exactly why that is, other than being a lefty who often likes to play aggressively. Can you elaborate?

P.S. Heycal is on the 3.5/4.0 cusp. He played like a weaker 4.0 in the match against storm, but he said (I think) that he played well, and usually makes more errors.

To call him, or even entertain the thought of him being a 3.0 is silly.

I appreciate that, Jolly. Coming from a very high level player like yourself means a lot. Thank you.

I feel I did play fairly well against Storm that night in Queens, and am certainly capable of worse. (And when are you going to write up that match report for the other "rumble in the East" thread? This is probably my only chance to read an account from a third party about a match I played, so I'm looking forward to it, as our legions of fans.)

 

[sharpilistik]

heycal,

You're actually wrong. The devil does play better tennis than you.

On a more serious note, what this means is that wardlaw won't help you much because of the limiting factors in your game eg. technique/footwork/misc. so it makes sense why you would lose if you followed the wardlaw shot selections.

I would say you would need to be atleast a 4.5 to execute all the directionals on a consistent basis.

 

[5263]

I haven't read up on the directionals lately, but remember them as a guide to when you should consider changing dir of a ball, as most of the time you should just take it back where it came from. Also suggests that you use the 90 degr rule on some changes.

I don't get what the big deal here is heycal. Just deviate as required with you style of play. Actually can't you deviate as much as you want as long as you make shots?? If you can't make the shots with deviations, then you should be hitting the directional. If you can make your deviations, then no problem, as the directionals account for this too if I remember right.

 

[MordredSJT]

That said, my 2 hbh backhand is actually fine, relatively speaking, and I can hit winners with it often. Sometimes its more solid than my FH. But it's not so fantastic and superior that I want to try and engage in endless backhand to forehand rallies with my opponent. I would like to reverse that match-up if I can, capice?

Not to interrupt the flow of this thread with something substantive...but this statement really caught my eye.

I'm not hardcore into Wardlaw's Directionals, but I know percentage tennis and there is no reason why can't or shouldn't do this...at the right time off of the appropriate ball. That is the whole point. If you get a ball that you can hit down the line very comfortably, then you can do that. If you get a ball that challenges your ability to hit down the line, then it is much smarter to hit the higher percentage cross court reply.

Now, for the sake of just changing the diagonal, you don't even need to hit an aggressive shot down the line. You just need to hit a shot that is not attackable. To give an example, I will often hit a very safe, heavily spun forehand deep down the line to an opponent's backhand even if I am in a neutral or slightly defensive position. I do this when I am in forehand to forehand rallies with people that don't necessarily favor me (I have a good forehand, but I am not a grinder). My backhand is often a much easier diagonal for me to dominate, and hitting that safe shot down the line allows me to get into that pattern of play. As soon as I get a look at anything attackable I can step into the court, take my backhand on the rise and do whatever I want with it (usually rip it down the line, or punish them with a nasty short cross court angle). None of this is against the concepts of the directionals as I understand them. I played high percentage shots in all cases, with an eye on what was tactically advantageous to me.

If you can hit a safe shot down the line off of a ball to change the pattern of play away from your backhand, and that is truly the best tactical option at the time, then do it. The problem is that you seem to be advocating a rip it down the line as soon as possible on any old ball because I'm not patient enough or smart enough to wait for the right opportunity mentality...and that is just dumb tennis. If you are hitting quite well that day you will win, if you are a little bit off against a player around your level who isn't playing just as dumb as you are...you will almost always lose. Every so often you will play great and look really cool, but most good tennis players will beat you. If that is the trade you want to make, then go for it.

 

[heycal]

you didn't LOSE because of the Directionals, you lost because you aren't at the level to use the Directionals.

So what you are saying is that using the directionals is a losing strategy for me.

Thanks for finally realizing the truth of what I stated very clearly in my OP. Glad you finally saw the light. Just don't know why it took you three hundred posts to get it.

 

[heycal]

If you can hit a safe shot down the line off of a ball to change the pattern of play away from your backhand, and that is truly the best tactical option at the time, then do it. The problem is that you seem to be advocating a rip it down the line as soon as possible on any old ball because I'm not patient enough or smart enough to wait for the right opportunity mentality....

I don't recall saying I instantly try and rip a backhand winner down the line the second I get a ball to my backhand. But I am looking to hit some sort of ball to my opponent's bh as soon as I see an opportunity. But not always. Sometimes I'll feel like hitting a cross court ball. As I did say earlier, I like to play an improvisational style and hit the ball where I want to, when I want to, and not try and follow a set of guidelines out there that don't seem to lead to good results for me. I'm not looking to go pro here, and I'm not interested in or able to spend time drilling and practicing. I have enough confidence in my athletic ability and competitive instincts to play free and loose and intuitively during my lowly 3.5 matches and obtain decent results.

 

[Bungalo Bill]

So what you are saying is that using the directionals is a losing strategy for me.

Thanks for finally realizing the truth of what I stated very clearly in my OP. Glad you finally saw the light. Just don't know why it took you three hundred posts to get it.

Noooooooo, lol, my gosh.

What I am saying is:

{{{{GOING BACK TO POST #2 IN THIS THREAD}}}}

That is fine, the Directionals are not for everyone.

However, blaming the Directionals for your losses is like blaming your racquet. The Directionals focus primarily on high percentage shots which means any ball crossing you should be hit to where it came from which is cross-court.

If you are hitting those balls crosscourt and you are finding yourself at a loss, then perhaps the issues lie elsewhere?

It could be:

1. That you are not that consistent.

2. Fail to recover properly.

3. Are not in tennis shape to handle a shot that your opponent decides to take more risk on.

4. You are simply thinking too much about them in match play

I work around the Directionals quite often myself especially if I am going to run around my backhand and smack a forehand straight vs. sending it back crosscourt.

However, if I lose, it ain't the Directionals fault. It is my fault.

So here is how you can use the Directionals for shot selection. We are going to suppose here.

Let's say you are playing on a clay court. Both you and your opponent are righthanders. Your opponent hit a forehand crosscourt. You decide to stay with the high percentage shot and hit it back crosscourt. Your opponent is quick and recovers very well. In other words, if you try to change direction, you best hit a winner or an awesome shot, or the neutral position you did have will soon fall to a more disadvantaged position and becomes defensive.

So let's say you use the high percentage play to setup your point. You decide to setup the drop shot and to do so you decide to hit the ball even wider - more angle. This causes your opponent to move off the court some and because you hit it well and recovered well, he decides to hit it back crosscourt for the shortest path for his recovery (remember your opponent is very quick and believes he can still recover). Now, you execute your drop shot in the service court (deuce side) directly in front of you and catch your opponent off guard. You outright win the point because your opponent has no chance to respond.

This is just a basic example of constructing a point using the fundamentals of the Directionals. The Directionals were in the background. You trying to setup the drop shot was in the foreground. They are not written in stone. If you were a strong player, you might have decided to hit the ball straight and hard. However, because you are on clay and your opponent is very quick, this might cause the matchup to change to backhand to backhand. This may not be what you want.

This is not to say that you need the Directionals to setup all your shots. All I am saying is it wasn't the Directionals fault concerning your loss record.

Now, if the blue text is what you now agree with, then it is you that has come full circle.

 

[Supernatural_Serve]

To me, I don't fully understand the idea of attaining a level to then be able to successfully employ Wardlaws directionals.

It seems to me that once a person knows how to construct points with 2-3 shot combinations, they are ready to employ Wardlaw's principles.

From my perspective there are a couple of approaches to singles

1. No strategy at all

2. Simply hit the ball I feel like hitting with very little objective other than to keep it in, possibly deep, possibly attacking a weakness

3. Employ simple 2-3 shot point constructions to take control and end points

then, the next logical step is Wardlaw's directionals.

I would assume that anyone can put the principles to good work once they understand simple point construction combinations (especially the ones from the baseline).

 

[heycal]

All this talk of strategy and rules reminds me of a little thing I seem to remember Brad Gilbert saying about Agassi: that when he first started working with Andre, Andre told him he often did not to decide where he was going to serve the ball until after his toss was already in the air. This must seem like a crazy notion to a lot of the guys around here, who probably have decided where to serve the ball before they even get to the court...

What I take from this Agassi anecdote is that 'winging it' seems to work well for certain types of athletes. Other seem to need to work and think more to achieve good results.

 

[Bungalo Bill]

To me, I don't fully understand the idea of attaining a level to then be able to successfully employ Wardlaws directionals.

It seems to me that once a person knows how to construct points with 2-3 shot combinations, they are ready to employ Wardlaw's principles.

I can agree with that and my reference to levels is a loose reference and based on my experience in seeing when players are using 2-3 shot combinations. Normally at the 3.5 level players are not thinking this way.

From my perspective there are a couple of approaches to singles

1. No strategy at all

2. Simply hit the ball I feel like hitting with very little objective other than to keep it in, possibly deep, possibly attacking a weakness

3. Employ simple 2-3 shot point constructions to take control and end points

then, the next logical step is Wardlaw's directionals.

I would assume that anyone can put the principles to good work once they understand simple point construction combinations (especially the ones from the baseline).

Yes, but the problem is executing those 2-3 shot combinations.

If a player can sustain a rally pretty well and has a good game where they can employ certain tactics with their skills, this usually means that they can probably construct a point. This is a good time to introduce the Directionals as a foundation to high-percentage play and building points around it.

However, there is nothing wrong with taking on more risk and mixing it up, so long it is helping you rather then hurting you.

 

[heycal]

I guess we can agree to disagree.

Sure, we can agree to disagree. Meanwhile, I'll stop trying to implement the directionals so I can win more matches.

 

[J011yroger]

Hey, what does that mean anyway, 'my stroke production and mechanics aren't suited to Wardlaw'. I certainly understand that intuitively, but perhaps don't understand exactly why that is, other than being a lefty who often likes to play aggressively. Can you elaborate?

When I get home from work, if you want, I will write it up and send you a private e-mail.

I am not big on offering up unsolicited advice, and I certainly wasn't going to say anything in this train wreck of a thread.

If you want to after reading it, you can post or not post my e-mail here.

J

 

[MordredSJT]

What I take from this Agassi anecdote is that 'winging it' seems to work well for certain types of athletes. Other seem to need to work and think more to achieve good results.

You know...I almost used Agassi as an example in my previous post...

I can assure you that after Agassi started working with Gilbert he knew where he was going to serve before he tossed the ball up and why he was going to serve there...not to mention what he was going to do after that.

Pop quiz...how many grand slams did Agassi win before he worked with Gilbert? How many did he win after?

 

[Bungalo Bill]

Sure, we can agree to disagree. Meanwhile, I'll stop trying to implement the directionals so I can win more matches.

Look, I am going to take the emotion out of my posts.

If you go back and reread post #2 without the emotion or trying to think I was belittling you, you might see that I was trying to give you a different perspective and help you.

The feedback you received during your matches regarding your game and the use of the Directionals was good feedback. I just thought your conclusion did not shed the proper light to make your practices more helpful.

If taking out the word "blame" out of the equation will help that is fine. However, I would need to supplement this word with a synonym of the word blame. You can choose whatever word you like.

I believe the Directionals, whether you want to use them or not, provided you feedback in aspects of your game that need more attention. I made a brief list of those areas. Whether you want to see that or not is up to you.

I will still hold that the Directionals are about playing high-percentage tennis because they are and building your points around high-percentage tennis will increase your chances of winning the point. However, it does not mean you can not go outside of the box and put some creativity in your play. It is simply a foundation to strategy and tactics.

For example, the inside-out forehand can defy the principles of the Directionals. I hit a lot of them. However, because I have knowledge of fundamental principles of high-percentage tennis, it allows me to better choose when to execute the inside-out forehand. Sometimes, I take on a lot of risk. However, it is calculated risk and not blind risk that my decision is based on.

 

[Pet]

The pros not follow this always, i prefer hit the weakness backhand with my forehand that hit a crosscourt ball for example.

 

[Bungalo Bill]

Hey, wassup Double B?

You understand that I actually know Heycal right?

And if he wanted instruction, he would call me, and we would, well you know, go out on a tennis court and practice.

But he isn't asking for advice here, which is why I haven't offered any.

J

But you did offer advice. You can't see that? You also make your little sly comments that you continue to make a big deal about regarding people who rate conservatively. Why does this matter to you? Can't you see that if a player can play up on a general rating that it is a good thing?

When I rate, I do it on the evidence I have, what I have seen, what I have experienced, and my background. So what if people are off on some players. Is it that the conservative raters on these boards are way way off - all the time?

Further, the region I played in was very competitive. Players played down. So if someone says he is a recreational 3.5, I automatically rate a half-point lower for competitive play. Did I break the law? Are the the rater of raters? When you come out of the closet, when it is safe, is your rating now right and everyone else is wrong? LOL!

I don't care if your married to the guy. The rating system, whether someone self-rates or gets a ballpark rating from a tester is not an exact science and there is always room for error. Nobody is counting how many you got right and how many you got wrong, except for you of course. LOL!!!

 

[raiden031]

I looked up the Wardlaw directionals last night and found just that it says the following three principles:

- If receiving an outside shot, then hit it cross court back in the same direction
- If receiving an inside shot, then change the direction
- Only change direction on an outside shot when you have an easy ball to work with because of the 90 degree change

This doesn't seem like anything revolutionary but something that people would do naturally without even thinking. Is there more to it than this? What about this strategy makes it only suitable for advanced players?

Also I don't get the 90 degree change. I don't see anything 90 degrees. To change 90 degrees would mean the outgoing ball would send the ball perpendicular to the incoming ball, which would mean straight into the neighboring court.

 

[drak]

"Sorry, Drak. I'm not interested in spending time on drills or practicing"

LMAO!

It's funny, in the previous 2 pages of often "heated" discussion NO ONE mentoned this simple yet totally revealing post by Heycal!

He is simply not interested in drilling or practicing - well I think that simply says it all. No matter what "strategies" one employs, practice is a huge and needed ingredient in improving ones game and RESULTS. Lets stop wasting our time on a guy that does not recognize such a simple yet important fact. He'll keep losing (unless he plays 3.0's or lower all the time - lol) and likely never get better, and the rest of us will move on.

 

[raiden031]

"Sorry, Drak. I'm not interested in spending time on drills or practicing"

LMAO!

It's funny, in the previous 2 pages of often "heated" discussion NO ONE mentoned this simple yet totally revealing post by Heycal!

He is simply not interested in drilling or practicing - well I think that simply says it all. No matter what "strategies" one employs, practice is a huge and needed ingredient in improving ones game and RESULTS. Lets stop wasting our time on a guy that does not recognize such a simple yet important fact. He'll keep losing (unless he plays 3.0's or lower all the time - lol) and likely never get better, and the rest of us will move on.

Hate to say it, but I would guess a solid majority of the 3.5 league players in my area don't care to do drills or even change their stroke technique to improve their game.

 

[Bungalo Bill]

"Sorry, Drak. I'm not interested in spending time on drills or practicing"

LMAO!

It's funny, in the previous 2 pages of often "heated" discussion NO ONE mentoned this simple yet totally revealing post by Heycal!

He is simply not interested in drilling or practicing - well I think that simply says it all. No matter what "strategies" one employs, practice is a huge and needed ingredient in improving ones game and RESULTS. Lets stop wasting our time on a guy that does not recognize such a simple yet important fact. He'll keep losing (unless he plays 3.0's or lower all the time - lol) and likely never get better, and the rest of us will move on.

I know, hilarious. Good insight and point well taken. I spent a good amount of time trying to get this guy to see that the Directionals are not the issue.

Now, that you highlighted those words, I can now see where I have errored. Thanks for knocking me upside the head.

 

[heycal]

"Sorry, Drak. I'm not interested in spending time on drills or practicing"

LMAO!

It's funny, in the previous 2 pages of often "heated" discussion NO ONE mentoned this simple yet totally revealing post by Heycal!

He is simply not interested in drilling or practicing - well I think that simply says it all. No matter what "strategies" one employs, practice is a huge and needed ingredient in improving ones game and RESULTS. Lets stop wasting our time on a guy that does not recognize such a simple yet important fact. He'll keep losing (unless he plays 3.0's or lower all the time - lol) and likely never get better, and the rest of us will move on.

Right. I'm not interested in drilling or practicing. Does that offend your religious beliefs or sense of patriotism or something?

So yes, you can stop wasting your time here and move on. I don't recall posting "Drak, and others: Please help me get better, and also learn to stick with the directonals!"

 

[heycal]

I know, hilarious. Good insight and point well taken. I spent a good amount of time trying to get this guy to see that the Directionals are not the issue.

Obviously, I could use tons of practice and improvement. God knows you could too. Or anyone. But since I'm not interested in drilling or practicing, but mostly playing matches and winning them, I will toss the proven losing strategy of Wardlaw directionals and play my own sweet game.

 

[Djokovicfan4life]

Obviously, I could use tons of practice and improvement. God knows you could too. Or anyone. But since I'm not interested in drilling or practicing, but mostly playing matches and winning them, I will toss the proven losing strategy of Wardlaw directionals and play my own sweet game.

And not practicing leads to winning, HOW???????????

 

[Bungalo Bill]

I looked up the Wardlaw directionals last night and found just that it says the following three principles:

- If receiving an outside shot, then hit it cross court back in the same direction
- If receiving an inside shot, then change the direction
- Only change direction on an outside shot when you have an easy ball to work with because of the 90 degree change

This doesn't seem like anything revolutionary but something that people would do naturally without even thinking. Is there more to it than this? What about this strategy makes it only suitable for advanced players?

Also I don't get the 90 degree change. I don't see anything 90 degrees. To change 90 degrees would mean the outgoing ball would send the ball perpendicular to the incoming ball, which would mean straight into the neighboring court.

It means that considering your body position along with considering your stroke rotation, the more natural shot would be to hit it straight. It means it is the path of least resistance if you will and you are not fighting your body.

1. It does not mean go for the lines which some end up intepreting.

2. It does not mean you can't decide to do something else as some end up interpreting.

3. It does not mean that if you get a ball that you know you can handle that you can't do something else as some end up interpreting.

4. It does not mean you can't hit an inside-out forehand and work the ball differently as some end up interpretting.

5. It does not mean you need to keep doing it over and over again until you become pro while being predictable as some end up interpreting.

6. It does not mean it is law and from now on you are locked into this as some end up interpreting.

7. It does not mean you can only hit groundstrokes from now on and never use another shot choice or introduce a surprise shot that may be more risky, like setting up your point for a drop shot as indicated in my example a few posts up as some end up interpreting.

It simply means that, in general, based on your body position, the angle of the incoming ball, and the rotation of your stroke, that the more natural stroke is to hit it straight in this case. Also, if you are looking to get a better matchup, that this is the ball that gives you the highest precentage chance to not error and execute that change.

This does not take into account the different weapons people have, the different level of risk people are willing to take, and so on. The additional stuff is what you build your points around OVER the fundamentals of high-percentage play.

 

[Kokopelli]

There are threads that ask for instructions, and then there are threads that share personal experience. I think this is the "sharing my experience" thread.

I think it's valid to suggest that Heycal should give the Wardlaw strategy more time (with practice) before dismissing it so quickly. I'm happened to be on this side of the argument.

But I also think it's okay for Heycal to disregard the suggestions above. After all, he's not advocating that Wardlaw is bad for everyone. In fact, he stated very clearly that with HIS LIMITED experience and implementation with the Wardlaw strategy, he came to the conclusion that Wardlaw is not for HIM (only). The man was just sharing his personal experience.

No big deal!!! So be it!!! No need to resort to personal attacks and name callings (from both sides).

 

[heycal]

You know...I almost used Agassi as an example in my previous post...

I can assure you that after Agassi started working with Gilbert he knew where he was going to serve before he tossed the ball up and why he was going to serve there...not to mention what he was going to do after that.

Pop quiz...how many grand slams did Agassi win before he worked with Gilbert? How many did he win after?

Pop quiz: Can you tell me how many matches Agassi won and how many millions of dollars he made from tennis playing his own sweet improvisational game and deciding where he was going to serve during his toss?

 

[drak]

Hate to say it, but I would guess a solid majority of the 3.5 league players in my area don't care to do drills or even change their stroke technique to improve their game.

Then guess what? they will likely not improve and remain 3.5's forever, which by the way is totally fine. But if one wants to improve and win more then guess what - like anything else in life one MUST PUT IN THE WORK!

 

[raiden031]

It means that considering your body position along with considering your stroke rotation, the more natural shot would be to hit it straight. It means it is the path of least resistance if you will and you are not fighting your body.

Wait are you only addressing here when hitting an outside shot? Because it says not to hit it straight on an inside shot. But also how is this an advanced player's strategy unsuitable for intermediates? I would think intermediates are better off hitting more high-percentage shots and less high-risk shots.

 

[raiden031]

I will toss the proven losing strategy of Wardlaw directionals

Statements like this are why you are being attacked in here.

 

[Kokopelli]

Statements like this are why you are being attacked in here.

Yes, Heycal should not have written "I will toss the proven losing strategy of Wardlaw directionals." But notice, he wrote "I will..." and not "YOU and EVERYONE should..."

Also to be fair, this statement came about after several heated exchanges PRIOR to this post - from both sides.

This is all unnecessary.

 

[Bungalo Bill]

Wait are you only addressing here when hitting an outside shot? Because it says not to hit it straight on an inside shot. But also how is this an advanced player's strategy unsuitable for intermediates? I would think intermediates are better off hitting more high-percentage shots and less high-risk shots.

I getting a bit tired of typing my explanations of the Directionals and my position on them. I hope you can understand.

I am going to give you a present since you are interested, asking reasonable questions, and I consider it a joy helping people truly interested in getting better.

Carefully listen to this video. Listen to every word because it is the same information that I (and others) have sprinkled around this board.

Whether you want to use them or not, that is up to you. However, if you are going to use them, use them to improve your game by trying to understand what glaring weakness it will draw out (the HOW). Then you can setup your practices and goals to shore them up to make you a better player. As you progress, you will soon surpass them and move on to higher play.

So here you go: Review all of these videos but Lesson 5, 6, and a little bit on 7 is on the Directionals from Coach Kriese whom I respect.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7PJ73e-iVU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbsDnSmsod8&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wEwdLMhhiZ4&feature=related

Let me know what you think.

CAREFULLY LISTEN TO THE BEGINNING OF THE VIDEO. HE TALKS ABOUT THE "HOW" TO HIT A TENNIS BALL AND THE FOOTWORK.

This is exactly what I was trying to tell HeyCal but he refused to listen.

 

[Kokopelli]

...
So here you go: Review all of these videos but Lesson 5 is on the Directionals from Coach Krieses whom I respect.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7PJ73e-iVU

...[/B]

I watched the entire series numerous times and found them to be very helpful.

 

[raiden031]

Yes, Heycal should not have written "I will toss the proven losing strategy of Wardlaw directionals." But notice, he wrote "I will..." and not "YOU and EVERYONE should..."

Also to be fair, this statement came about after several heated exchanges PRIOR to this post - from both sides.

This is all unnecessary.

I don't think it matters who should toss the strategy, but he is stating that it is a "proven losing strategy", which means he is stating a fact about the strategy without really any evidence to back it up.

 

[Bungalo Bill]

I don't think it matters who should toss the strategy, but he is stating that it is a "proven losing strategy", which means he is stating a fact about the strategy without really any evidence to back it up.

I find this entire thread interesting because it is such a simple thing causing so much fuss from players who are still at club level or recreational play.

 

[MordredSJT]

Pop quiz: Can you tell me how many matches Agassi won and how many millions of dollars he made from tennis playing his own sweet improvisational game and deciding where he was going to serve during his toss?

He won a lot. He also lost a lot of matches that he could have won. He lost a lot of matches that by all rights he should have won. He was not living up to his full potential. Again, if that is ok with you and you would rather go on ignoring the mental disciplines of the game, then that is your choice...it is a choice that will limit the effectiveness of your game.

Incidentally, I find it kind of silly that you are using a quote from Bill Tilden over and over in reference to your "own sweet game". Bill Tilden was a master strategist and tactician. He always had a plan and went about putting that plan into action. The man wrote books on strategy and tactics that still have relevance today...you should read them sometime.

 

[Kokopelli]

I don't think it matters who should toss the strategy, but he is stating that it is a "proven losing strategy", which means he is stating a fact about the strategy without really any evidence to back it up.

Well, to HIM, according to HIS perception, and from HIS personal experience of implementing it in a very limited manner, it is a "proven losing strategy." The guy was just sharing what works and doesn't for him. He's not advocating that others should follow.

You, on the other hand (and myself included), might have perceptions and personal experiences with the Wardlaw strategy that are on the contrary to that of Heycal. So, to YOU, according to YOUR perception, and from YOUR personal experience, Wardlaw is not a "proven losing strategy."

I just don't see the need for attacking people (from both sides) for having different personal experiences.

 

[Kokopelli]

I find this entire thread interesting because it is such a simple thing causing so much fuss from players who are still at club level or recreational play.

Well, probably because at the club/recreational level, minor changes could have an exaggerated effect due to the skill sets of these players. IMO, Wardlaw is not as simple as you put it. It's something new to people at this level and it's a complete new way to thinking and a new approach to the game. I venture to say that most club/recreational players are not familiar with the Wardlaw strategy, so implementing it is a huge adjustment - thus so much fuss.

 

[Bungalo Bill]

Well, probably because at the club/recreational level, minor changes could have an exaggerated effect due to the skill sets of these players. IMO, Wardlaw is not as simple as you put it. It's something new to people at this level and it's a complete new way to thinking and a new approach to the game. I venture to say that most club/recreational players are not familiar with the Wardlaw strategy, so implementing it is a huge adjustment - thus so much fuss.

That is not where the fuss is, at least not the majority of it.

The fuss is in the expectations and misinterpretations of the Directionals. I have over and over again tried to manage the expectations of it by explaning that it is a guideline and they are prinicples. It isn't law. I have also explained that it needs to be practiced and worked into your game plan as a fundamental underlying way to improve your shot selection skills and your tennis strategy.

The Directionals are simple. However, the execution part (the HOW) is what falls short which is seperate from the simplicity of the Directionals, it isn't the Directionals itself.

Wardlaw strategy is so darn simple it makes me a bit sick. It is a way to raise a persons game play if practiced like anything else.