Observations From $15k Futures Event

From what I've seen, it depends on the tournament. In some places like the US or France the good open player (5.5 I assume) could lose in the 1st round of qualies.

In other places the good open player could sneak into the main draw and possibly win a match if he gets lucky.

I agree with this. In the UK the qualies don't fill up so in theory you could easily get a softer game in the first round. If we define a good open player as a strong-ish 5.5 I think they would struggle to win a main draw match but wouldn't be embarrassed in the qualies (although would be very unlikely to win more than one match).

Obviously there is a massive difference between countries though.

and some top 35s guys are competitive with those two guys from canada.

so moz i dont think you will should be as non competitive as you imagine.

i mean you have to believe you belong. i think your record backs that up.

If you enter a futures you definitely have to believe you belong, as in any tournament, to be successful. But belief won't get you far if you don't actually belong!

I would definitely not belong as it stands now - I'd be beaten easily by guys who would be beaten easily in a genuine qualifying match. That is the truth as I stand by watching thinking they don't look like world beaters, while my results emphatically suggest otherwise. A bit depressing really.

There are quite a few players in the 35's who can be competitive. The winner of the world champs last yr (beating Cherkasov in the final) absolutely walked a Spanish futures last year (rather strangely he is a serve and volleyer!):

http://www.itftennis.com/mens/players/player.asp?player=10001148

But these are very much the exceptions - most of the top 10 in 35's would be very strongly tested in qualifying. Those that previously held high world rankings could still do well.

If I'm fit I will play a couple next year and post a video to put things in perspective. It won't be pretty.
 
Last edited:
just looked at the draw

adil is a good open player where i m

i think that proves my point

Curious - is he a good open player or one of the top open players?

I looked at his results. He has beaten some very good British players. He'd probably be forcefeeding me bagels.
 
isn't it crazy that the prize money for challengers and futures hasn't gone up since the 80's? Shouldn't these be at least $50-100K challengers by now?
 
Ed, I played and taught Ekaterina Gordeeva for a little while, she was natural in tennis. Even thought she had just started playing tennis she moved (more like floated) better than tour players on the court. There is something about gold medal Olympians. Her husband Ilia Kulik (who started playing tennis recently ) was giving a former division 1 college player a hard time.

It is the feet and how they move that is most important IMO.

yo..i respectfully dont know those names, but agree w. you. the thing w. tennis now is about who can hit the last ball into the court....flashback to when it was who could be the first to end the point..in my mind, that is how tennis is diff today..laver was amazing..in some ways like federer, but the tennis was much more high risk then..fed seems to be an amalgum of old and new, and the only one who can pull both the old and new off

fed floats..no one else i've seen on tour does like that..that diff is huge......that's why he is so amazing..the feet..lots of people are obsessed w. stroke production..i am more into movement production, then you have a much better chance to put a good move on the ball

so for anyone looking to improve their tennis, think feet first....pretty looking strokes that are rushed or late, dont work so well for anyone
 
Last edited:
Curious - is he a good open player or one of the top open players?

I looked at his results. He has beaten some very good British players. He'd probably be forcefeeding me bagels.

one of the top. but there are a quite a number of players that are competitive with him.

same applies for milan. the sixth seed.

you know Karrasch. he is over35. he is very competitive at the open level here.

there are bagels and then there are 1 and 2s where you gained the other player's respect. there are many levels of bagels.

tonlars has beaten some of the top open players from my region.
 
Last edited:
What are everyone's thoughts on what is an all courter? IMO I don't think of baseliners who come in sometimes and finish off a point at the net or even throw in the odd S&V as all courters.
 
What are everyone's thoughts on what is an all courter? IMO I don't think of baseliners who come in sometimes and finish off a point at the net or even throw in the odd S&V as all courters.

I associate an all court type player with someone who can play all the shots, and chooses how they play based on opponents, and conditions.

So some matches they may stay back more, or attack more.

Whereas a pure baseliner would stay back until they got a very weak ball to attack and come in behind, and a true attacking/S&V player would come in against anyone.

Most players that I would categorize as "Aggressive Baseliners" are looking for an opportunity to get to the net and finish the point, but that doesn't make them "All Court Players"

Moreso that a style of play, I think it is where you feel comfortable. If you are just as comfortable at net, in the mid court, and in the back court, then you are an all court player, and where you choose to play a certain match doesn't change that.

If you are more comfortable attacking the net, and trying to get in every chance you get, then you are an attacking player, even if circumstances dictate that you have to stay back the majority of time in certain matches.

If you are more comfortable on or behind the baseline, then you are a baseliner, even if you come in when your opponent serves up a short ball, or to finish off a point. If you S&V to change pace, or because your opponent is just blocking your serve back deep, that doesn't make you a S&V player.

Of course this is just how I categorize things in my own little world.

J
 
I agree with this. In the UK the qualies don't fill up so in theory you could easily get a softer game in the first round. If we define a good open player as a strong-ish 5.5 I think they would struggle to win a main draw match but wouldn't be embarrassed in the qualies (although would be very unlikely to win more than one match).

Obviously there is a massive difference between countries though.



If you enter a futures you definitely have to believe you belong, as in any tournament, to be successful. But belief won't get you far if you don't actually belong!

I would definitely not belong as it stands now - I'd be beaten easily by guys who would be beaten easily in a genuine qualifying match. That is the truth as I stand by watching thinking they don't look like world beaters, while my results emphatically suggest otherwise. A bit depressing really.

There are quite a few players in the 35's who can be competitive. The winner of the world champs last yr (beating Cherkasov in the final) absolutely walked a Spanish futures last year (rather strangely he is a serve and volleyer!):

http://www.itftennis.com/mens/players/player.asp?player=10001148

But these are very much the exceptions - most of the top 10 in 35's would be very strongly tested in qualifying. Those that previously held high world rankings could still do well.

If I'm fit I will play a couple next year and post a video to put things in perspective. It won't be pretty.

I agree. That Spanish guy is a tour player who basically didn't stop playing and now happens to be over 35. Those types can do well in futures because its nothing new to them. If you take a top senior player who started late (and they do exist especially in the older age groups) there's no way they would get through. They would also lose to this guy in a senior event, probably badly. I wouldn't bet money on the former "average" junior or college player who is now a senior player either (it would have to be an elite junior and/or player from a school like UCLA or something, but many of them went on to have pro careers anyway so they would go into the first group).

Unrelated to futures, I think some of the players who started late can have an advantage in senior play because they are still motivated and not beaten up. They also learn and adapt a game that works with what they have now versus trying to play a style that worked for them fifteen years ago. But they'll still lose badly in senior events whenever one of the former pros shows up.
 
fed floats..no one else i've seen on tour does like that..that diff is huge......that's why he is so amazing..the feet..lots of people are obsessed w. stroke production..i am more into movement production, then you have a much better chance to put a good move on the ball

so for anyone looking to improve their tennis, think feet first....pretty looking strokes that are rushed or late, dont work so well for anyone

Absolutely. It is really painful to teach my fiancee... She'll move her feet and hit an excellent ball, then on another she will plant and hit off balance... I ask why, and she claims 'I was working on my stroke!'... Arg! I think it's hard to understand for people who haven't been playing very long. I think movement/preparation is by far the most important part of the game.
 
yo..i respectfully dont know those names, but agree w. you. the thing w. tennis now is about who can hit the last ball into the court....flashback to when it was who could be the first to end the point..in my mind, that is how tennis is diff today..laver was amazing..in some ways like federer, but the tennis was much more high risk then..fed seems to be an amalgum of old and new, and the only one who can pull both the old and new off

fed floats..no one else i've seen on tour does like that..that diff is huge......that's why he is so amazing..the feet..lots of people are obsessed w. stroke production..i am more into movement production, then you have a much better chance to put a good move on the ball

so for anyone looking to improve their tennis, think feet first....pretty looking strokes that are rushed or late, dont work so well for anyone

Hey Mojo,

I agree. And that's why it all starts with fitness. :)

Ian spends time every time I take a lesson working to 're-cement' (his words) the basics of footwork. He does the same with his (highly ranked) DI tennis team.

My best friend, a former top 200 ATP player commented to me recently, "You are playing so well late in life because lots of subtle footwork stuff is just automatic for you."

When one become ultra-fit, the ability to use those skills late in a match to set up and maintain the 'structure' of the shot you aim to make emerges. Then, well then it's bad news for many of your opponents. ;)

BTW, can you give the details of your BB 11 light customization?

Best,

Craig
 
Lol!
Seriously, stop watching those 2004 videos. Otherwise what is "aint pretty" about anything? Granted my serve isnt probably but the rest of things dont look any different than Hach. By the way, I have posted some doubles clips of the same tournament where I beat Hach.

lol
just teasing you.

new hans video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q579ilJ6oGY&feature=related

why would a player like hans have to promote himself on youtube? i'd imagine the colleges would be all over him.

you serve looks fine. its your forehand. it looks really stiff. but obviously, it works.

how would you do against a player around 1000?
 
thanks that was a really good read. reminds all us club players to get our priorities straight, percentage tennis always wins
 
What are everyone's thoughts on what is an all courter? IMO I don't think of baseliners who come in sometimes and finish off a point at the net or even throw in the odd S&V as all courters.

Reading yours and Jolly's interpretations of an all-courter I would reclassify them as aggressive baseliners - certainly most of them weren't actively waiting to close the net.

I agree. That Spanish guy is a tour player who basically didn't stop playing and now happens to be over 35. Those types can do well in futures because its nothing new to them. If you take a top senior player who started late (and they do exist especially in the older age groups) there's no way they would get through. They would also lose to this guy in a senior event, probably badly. I wouldn't bet money on the former "average" junior or college player who is now a senior player either (it would have to be an elite junior and/or player from a school like UCLA or something, but many of them went on to have pro careers anyway so they would go into the first group).

Unrelated to futures, I think some of the players who started late can have an advantage in senior play because they are still motivated and not beaten up. They also learn and adapt a game that works with what they have now versus trying to play a style that worked for them fifteen years ago. But they'll still lose badly in senior events whenever one of the former pros shows up.

This is 100% accurate - good post.
 
Hey Mojo,

I agree. And that's why it all starts with fitness. :)

Ian spends time every time I take a lesson working to 're-cement' (his words) the basics of footwork. He does the same with his (highly ranked) DI tennis team.

My best friend, a former top 200 ATP player commented to me recently, "You are playing so well late in life because lots of subtle footwork stuff is just automatic for you."

When one become ultra-fit, the ability to use those skills late in a match to set up and maintain the 'structure' of the shot you aim to make emerges. Then, well then it's bad news for many of your opponents. ;)

BTW, can you give the details of your BB 11 light customization?

Best,

Craig

Hi Craig...sorry, but I am unable to tell you what i've done w. my B11L's..it's a secret ;) This started for me, never having been much of a customizer, when I was given a couple of Bogomolov's racquets ,which are surprisingly light by the way>. I hit one and really liked how it came through the ball and how you could put the hurt on the ball in spite of its light weight.
So here is what I did to mine....removed the squishy butt, swapped the becker pallet for a Volkl one, and put on a hard buttcap w. Volkl calfskin over top. Put a lot of lead covering the entire area between the DNX bracelets in the hoop, and stopped adding when the balance felt right ..they are sitting at about 11.5 and 4 points headlight ,the same as the Bogomolov's, but mine swing a bit quicker..

on the footwork thing....yes, at high levels the fitness really comes into play. you've got the stroke production and the footwork is there, and now you must be fit enough to repeat it enough times w.o it breaking down. when people here say how they can play for 3 or 4 hours, how they can hit off the wall for 1.5 hours etc, that tells me they are either amazingly fit or they just arent moving their feet.....moving your feet the right way is VERY exhausting as i am sure you know. on tour, i think the fitness trainer is more impt than the coach.

don't take ID's expression of re-cementing your feet literally.................
 
Last edited:
lol
just teasing you.

new hans video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q579ilJ6oGY&feature=related

why would a player like hans have to promote himself on youtube? i'd imagine the colleges would be all over him.

you serve looks fine. its your forehand. it looks really stiff. but obviously, it works.

how would you do against a player around 1000?

Cool video. Yeah he definitely has talent and the shots, but between the ears he has a long ways to go. Unless a kid is top stuff people arent really getting recruited much, so one has to seek the colleges and have a visit.

Ive played many many players ranked anywhere from 400-1000 and theyre all basically the same; good players. Beat some and lost close matches to some. The ranking doesnt mean much because people are playing different amounts of tournaments over different spans of time, and are on their way up or stagnant. I dont play those tournaments because there arent any nearby where I live, but I have done 2 in the past couple years and Ive won 2 matches and lost 1, and had to default from a next round due to my injury. If its not for fun and the challenge then I dont know what its for because almost none of these players are going to make it playing.
 
Reading yours and Jolly's interpretations of an all-courter I would reclassify them as aggressive baseliners - certainly most of them weren't actively waiting to close the net.



This is 100% accurate - good post.
thanks!

The reason I bring it up is that I wonder how much all court style is actually showing up in 15Ks, but these guys aren't making it through and onto the pro ranks. I know with the ladies, it is not unusual to see retrievers, counter punchers and in some cases good moonballers doing well in 10Ks (I think more guys are all courters, sorry ladies). They beat a lot of the agressive baseliners at that level. But there's a point where their numbers get thinner and thinner. I also think that all court style is more common outside of US. So it wouldn't surprise me if you were seeing this style. I know an all courter who is well I guess he would be in the 35 now (heaven help the guys if he starts playing) but he maxed out in college and at the $15K level.
 
.....moving your feet the right way is VERY exhausting as i am sure you know. on tour, i think the fitness trainer is more impt than the coach.

don't take ID's expression of re-cementing your feet literally.................

I completely agree. The fitness trainers and recovery specialists are the most important parts of the modern player entourage.
 
I associate an all court type player with someone who can play all the shots, and chooses how they play based on opponents, and conditions.

So some matches they may stay back more, or attack more.

Whereas a pure baseliner would stay back until they got a very weak ball to attack and come in behind, and a true attacking/S&V player would come in against anyone.

Most players that I would categorize as "Aggressive Baseliners" are looking for an opportunity to get to the net and finish the point, but that doesn't make them "All Court Players"

Moreso that a style of play, I think it is where you feel comfortable. If you are just as comfortable at net, in the mid court, and in the back court, then you are an all court player, and where you choose to play a certain match doesn't change that.

If you are more comfortable attacking the net, and trying to get in every chance you get, then you are an attacking player, even if circumstances dictate that you have to stay back the majority of time in certain matches.

If you are more comfortable on or behind the baseline, then you are a baseliner, even if you come in when your opponent serves up a short ball, or to finish off a point. If you S&V to change pace, or because your opponent is just blocking your serve back deep, that doesn't make you a S&V player.

Of course this is just how I categorize things in my own little world.

J

That's what I think too. It's the thinkers and the analyzers. The kind that can think, "I'm going to net rush on this clown" or "this one I have to move around" etc.. And of course they can actually do this!!!

Clay court baseliners come in a lot more than people think, and have better feel around the net than people think (which is why sometimes they do well on grass, that whole soft surface thing) but yeah, they aren't all courters.
 
^^^ Somebody like a Tommy Robredo, who gets no credit for it, but is very handy around the net. When he comes in he usually gets the job done.

J
 
Thought I’d stick this here as it’s as good a place as any….

I popped down to watch the above today and thought I would share some random observations on the play in no particular order. Some of the observations may seem simplistic but they might prove useful when applying to your own games – particularly with regard to hitting winners and hitting the ball hard.

Location: Nottingham Tennis Centre, UK
Event: $15000 futures
Draw: Second round (round of 16) Main Draw
Top Seed: Ranked 253 in the world.
Surface: Hard acrylic – outdoor (medium pace)
Weather: Windy / overcast

Link: http://www.atptennis.com/en/common/...www.atptennis.com/1/posting/2008/3378/mds.pdf


General:

1. Players: All heights and sizes – ranging from think to skinny and from 5’6” to about 6’3”. Out of the 16 players there were a disproportionate number of left handers.

2. Movement: The overriding impression of the day was that nearly all the players moved exceptionally well – and covered the court very well. Some players had excellent foot speed, those that didn’t always seemed to be in the correct position.

3. Unforced Errors: It was noticeable that whenever there were unforced error it was either due to going for too big a shot or from a breakdown in footwork due to laziness. More of the former than the latter.

4. Winners: Because of the players movement winners from the back were extremely rare. The players that hit winners from the baseline often seemed to lose the matches – probably because this is a high risk strategy at this level and produces too many errors. Half court balls were punished but again the speed of the players usually produced some sort of reply.

5. Point Construction: Most of the point construction seemed to be mindless. Each player seemed to hit the ball the way and direction that was comfortable to them. None of the players utilised the front half of the court with their ball placement, i.e. bringing people into the net. It was a groundstroke slugfest.

6. Playing styles: Nearly everyone was an all-courter. Most players only came to the net when they could hit an approach off a short ball. Everyone hit with heavy topspin on the forehand side and most players ran round their backhand. The players with one-handed backhands (not many of them) were apt to hit slice most of the time. Nobody seemed to hit with heavy topspin on the backhand side. Those few players who attacked on the backhand side did it with a double handed backhand and did it by taking it early and hitting very flat. I didn’t see anyone creating angles on the backhand side.

7. North to South: From the back the play was all surprisingly north to south with little use of angles. The focus was on depth so much that players didn’t seem to hit towards the sidelines at all meaning most of the balls were being taken after the bounce within the boundaries of the singles court.

8. Pace of Ball: The vast majority of rally balls were reasonably heavy with a fair bit of spin and fairly deep. No one was consistently clubbing the ball. I have seen 4.5 / 5.0’s trying to club the crap out of the ball more than these guys. Their focus was on spin and depth. Lesson there for all of us perhaps.

9. Whiny *****es: A lot of the players were whiny little *****es and they were usually the ones that lost (cause v effect?). The higher ranked players seemed to be more focused on the game. It was disappointing to hear at least 3 of the players shout things like “this is boring”, “kids tennis” as you’d expect from a club player playing against a pusher. The players with a more professional attitude were noticeable by their on court demeanour and by the fact they progressed to the next round.

Strokes:

10. First Serves: Saw very few flat first serves – the vast majority of serves were topspin serves. I’m not an expert on serve speeds but I’d guess the average first serve speed was no more than 100mph and I don’t think I saw any in excess of 110 mph – that’s one in the balls for all the TT people serving at 130. Most of the serves came back – a surprisingly high number. It seemed to be the serves out wide on both sides that got the most lame duck replies. The left-handed players hit a lot of slice serves on the ad side and these were by far the most effective serves I saw.

11. Second Serves: As you’d expect these were nearly all topspin or kick serves. They were hit with a lot of pace and when a player hit a topspin first and second serve they were indistinguishable from each other. A free point on second serve was pretty rare. Very few double faults.

12. Overheads: I didn’t see one player miss an overhead. Every overhead I saw ended the point there and then. This is partly because of good footwork but mostly because the lob was typically a last resort shot when people were completely out of position. If a player was close to the ball they’d go for the passing shot.

13. Approach shots: Off a mid court ball these were hit with topspin – slice approaches were rare and usually only hit off short slice shots from the baseline opponent. Slices were effective when used. It was noticeable that if the approach shot did not stretch the opponent the player at net nearly always lost the point. If you weren’t hitting a good approach you were dead in the water.

14. Volleys: Very few players could execute difficult volleys – most of them resulted in the loss of a point. It seems that the players rely heavily on their approach shots being good and use their volleys as a means to cut off passing shots and blocking the ball into space. They didn’t miss these but when the baseline guy had time and drilled a ball it usually produced a missed volley. The volleying was disappointing.

15. Returns: On first and second serves the return was typically used to just get the serve back. There were quite a few attackable second serves but players opted to block them back 90% of the time. When they attacked the second serves they usually bunted them long. Typically the returners were just stepping in off a short takeback.

One more thing. I now realise why you get so many people on here laughing at players’ videos. I found myself watching these guys thinking I could probably step on court and not totally embarrass myself. From experience though I know I would get absolutely crushed. Perhaps that explains the scorn placed on peoples vids - the game looks so easy when you’re not playing it……

Any questions let me know. Sorry for the stream of consciousness.

P.s. One umpire and one line judge per court. Balls changed every 11 games (I think).

Seems to me that the main factors that we TWer's can learn is consistency, pace, footwork, and utilizing angles. What these lads can do to improve is their "professionalism", use of the entire court, angles, and attacking strategy to get themselves into net.

(I put in a huge reply only to have my browser crash on me so I will put this quick comment for now).
 
Seems to me that the main factors that we TWer's can learn is consistency, pace, footwork, and utilizing angles. What these lads can do to improve is their "professionalism", use of the entire court, angles, and attacking strategy to get themselves into net.

(I put in a huge reply only to have my browser crash on me so I will put this quick comment for now).

I would say for us mere mortals it would be depth, consistency, footwork and the fitness to sustain the footwork.

I'm not one to tell them what to improve....but if pressed I would say use of angles, utilizing the front court and mental focus.

Hope you get the long reply typed up again - looking forward to seeing it.
 
I would say for us mere mortals it would be depth, consistency, footwork and the fitness to sustain the footwork.

I'm not one to tell them what to improve....but if pressed I would say use of angles, utilizing the front court and mental focus.

Hope you get the long reply typed up again - looking forward to seeing it.

When watching the pros at Miami and especially Fed... i noticed that footwork, angles .. then pace won matches.

Tennis can still be a thinking man's game. Just need the footwork to give you options.

P.S. Moz... hows the elbow?
 
I think there is a misunderstanding. These folks could rip apart the vast majority of 5.0 and 5.5 players while heavily utilizing the net... The problem is that when they come up against a similarly skilled opponent, getting into net can be very difficult. Unless you hit a very nice approach shot, you open yourself up to a winner when approaching. At this level, if a player goes for a bit more, there is a good chance it will still go in. Thus, during a normal point, you see calculated, less risky groundstroke duels... If someone were to hit even a good approach shot, this will encourage the opponent to go for a 'calculated' yet more risky and powerful passing shot. Against any old 5.0 or 5.5 schmuck, this might result in a miss or easy volley more often than not... But at their level, they have the fitness, footwork, and groundstrokes to raise the ante and hit the passing shot or forcing shot more often than not.

I consider this a more likely explanation, given the fact that you will see these people attacking the net when conditions (court surface, etc.) are optimal. On normal surfaces though, their groundstrokes are just too solid.

/opinion.
 
Last edited:
When watching the pros at Miami and especially Fed... i noticed that footwork, angles .. then pace won matches.

Tennis can still be a thinking man's game. Just need the footwork to give you options.

P.S. Moz... hows the elbow?

Slightly better every day - thanks for asking.

I think there is a misunderstanding. These folks could rip apart the vast majority of 5.0 and 5.5 players while heavily utilizing the net... The problem is that when they come up against a similarly skilled opponent, getting into net can be very difficult. Unless you hit a very nice approach shot, you open yourself up to a winner when approaching. At this level, if a player goes for a bit more, there is a good chance it will still go in. Thus, during a normal point, you see calculated, less risky groundstroke duels... If someone were to hit even a good approach shot, this will encourage the opponent to go for a 'calculated' yet more risky and powerful passing shot. Against any old 5.0 or 5.5 schmuck, this might result in a miss or easy volley more often than not... But at their level, they have the fitness, footwork, and groundstrokes to raise the ante and hit the passing shot or forcing shot more often than not.

I consider this a more likely explanation, given the fact that you will see these people attacking the net when conditions (court surface, etc.) are optimal. On normal surfaces though, their groundstrokes are just too solid.

/opinion.

I would agree with all this. I would just have expected the same variety of styles at this level than at any other level. I will try and get to a couple in the future in different surface types to see if there is any difference in style.
 
How do they play doubles? if they play doubles then there is a 98% of probability that they can do the shots. I think the problem is getting the right shot from your opponent that allows you to attack, so they do it in any shot and the shot they are waiting doesnt come that often. JMO.
 
have u seen tonlars? it aint pretty. its all mental

I hit with TonLars on a semi-weekly basis, and I can tell you that his strokes now are definitely better than they were in that video. He's a human ball machine - it's rare that he misses, and hitting a ball past him takes a feat or a mishit for most players.

Actually, if he OK's it, maybe I'll post part of the video we got of his groundies with mine from last week. :D

you serve looks fine. its your forehand. it looks really stiff. but obviously, it works.

Tony's forehand isn't anything to sneeze at - having seen it blow past me probably a dozen times last time we hit, there's plenty of heat and spin on it.
 
Last edited:
I hit with TonLars on a semi-weekly basis, and I can tell you that his strokes now are definitely better than they were in that video. He's a human ball machine - it's rare that he misses, and hitting a ball past him takes a feat or a mishit for most players.

Actually, if he OK's it, maybe I'll post part of the video we got of his groundies with mine from last week. :D

Tony's forehand isn't anything to sneeze at - having seen it blow past me probably a dozen times last time we hit, there's plenty of heat and spin on it.

Haha thanks PJ! How did the video turn out for you, was it interesting to see, learn anything particular?

Truth in what this guy says is that my forehand in those older videos was really stiff. The thing is, and like you said, that was 4 years ago when my forehand was alot different, and my game play was alot different. Maybe I shouldnt have posted them, but at the same time it goes to show that a player can improve over time. I didnt spend any time working on the stroke, I just made the mentality that Im going to play aggressive and make it into a weapon rather than just be a ball machine. And over the last three years Ive built a forehand weapon into my already consistent base and good movement. Instead of just trying to get it deep and in play as before, Im looking to rip the forehand for a winner or forcing error on almost every forehand now. Thats why I teach players to hit about 85% and keep the ball in play, and gradually over time once they have achieved consistency to raise the pace of their shots. Thats what I did I guess.

You can post the clip of me if you want, although I was just keeping the ball in play for you and not letting loose on anything so people will probably say ive got no heat:) It might show the difference in the technique better though than my newer videos I suppose.
 
Haha thanks PJ! How did the video turn out for you, was it interesting to see, learn anything particular?

Truth in what this guy says is that my forehand in those older videos was really stiff. The thing is, and like you said, that was 4 years ago when my forehand was alot different, and my game play was alot different. Maybe I shouldnt have posted them, but at the same time it goes to show that a player can improve over time. I didnt spend any time working on the stroke, I just made the mentality that Im going to play aggressive and make it into a weapon rather than just be a ball machine. And over the last three years Ive built a forehand weapon into my already consistent base and good movement. Instead of just trying to get it deep and in play as before, Im looking to rip the forehand for a winner or forcing error on almost every forehand now. Thats why I teach players to hit about 85% and keep the ball in play, and gradually over time once they have achieved consistency to raise the pace of their shots. Thats what I did I guess.

You can post the clip of me if you want, although I was just keeping the ball in play for you and not letting loose on anything so people will probably say ive got no heat:) It might show the difference in the technique better though than my newer videos I suppose.

I'm actually coming to pick it up tonight - Tim had to get it converted into a DVD.

You may not have been letting loose, but I'd venture a guess that for "4.0" level exchanges, there was more pace than 75% of the 4.0 level players around this area at the very least.
 
isn't it crazy that the prize money for challengers and futures hasn't gone up since the 80's? Shouldn't these be at least $50-100K challengers by now?
They have $50,000 and $100,000 challengers already. The satellites and futures are the entry level of professional tournaments. Many of these tournaments are played at high schools and have very low budgets. This is the place to start. Those that make it here move up to the challengers.
 
interesting, lol oh well. SlapShot got his DVD of his strokes today and it looked like it turned out pretty good, although a little fuzzy so we are going to try to get him a clearer copy soon.
 
I just realized that Ryler DeHeart played in the Futures that's right near my home town, and he actually got to the finals, but lost 1-6 6-7(0)... back in April.

It would certainly be fun to play against someone who gave Nadal a bit of a struggle. There were a handful of byes, although this was months ago...
 
tonlars, moz


how many levels of double bagels are you away from an atp player who would barely qualify for a weak international series event?

i m guessing that would be player ranked around the 300s.
 
tonlars, moz


how many levels of double bagels are you away from an atp player who would barely qualify for a weak international series event?

i m guessing that would be player ranked around the 300s.

I dont really understand the question to be honest, sorry. But I dont see myself being "double bageled" by basically anyone except the top 100 players maybe. I have no idea really though since ive never played them obviously.

Ive played players in the 400-500 range and had competitive close matches with them, some lost and won. Never played anyone higher than that though.
 
I dont really understand the question to be honest, sorry. But I dont see myself being "double bageled" by basically anyone except the top 100 players maybe. I have no idea really though since ive never played them obviously.

Ive played players in the 400-500 range and had competitive close matches with them, some lost and won. Never played anyone higher than that though.

generally, how would a 400-500 player do against a 300 player?


for example, i lost double bagels first round. my opponent lost double bagels to the winner of the tournament. let say his matches between the first round and the finals were all close. i m 2 double bagels away from the level of the winner.

just wondering how many bagels i am away from the pro tour.
 
you're talking about the Anti Grand Slam.

You lose in the first round of qualifying to the guy who lost in the next round of the qualifying to the guy who lost in the next round of qualifying who lost to the guy in the first round of the main draw to the guy who lost in the the round of 32 to the guy who lost in the round of 16 to the guy who lost in the quarterfinals to the guy who lost in the semifinals to the guy who got a big fat check for losing the final.

lol
 
you're talking about the Anti Grand Slam.

You lose in the first round of qualifying to the guy who lost in the next round of the qualifying to the guy who lost in the next round of qualifying who lost to the guy in the first round of the main draw to the guy who lost in the the round of 32 to the guy who lost in the round of 16 to the guy who lost in the quarterfinals to the guy who lost in the semifinals to the guy who got a big fat check for losing the final.

lol


lol
i m probably 10 tournament anti grand slam away from federer
 
I think there is a misunderstanding. These folks could rip apart the vast majority of 5.0 and 5.5 players while heavily utilizing the net... The problem is that when they come up against a similarly skilled opponent, getting into net can be very difficult. Unless you hit a very nice approach shot, you open yourself up to a winner when approaching. At this level, if a player goes for a bit more, there is a good chance it will still go in. Thus, during a normal point, you see calculated, less risky groundstroke duels... If someone were to hit even a good approach shot, this will encourage the opponent to go for a 'calculated' yet more risky and powerful passing shot. Against any old 5.0 or 5.5 schmuck, this might result in a miss or easy volley more often than not... But at their level, they have the fitness, footwork, and groundstrokes to raise the ante and hit the passing shot or forcing shot more often than not.

I consider this a more likely explanation, given the fact that you will see these people attacking the net when conditions (court surface, etc.) are optimal. On normal surfaces though, their groundstrokes are just too solid.

/opinion.


So basically you're saying that because the future players are so good, when they think they are in trouble they just blast the ball and more times then not, it goes in. Got it :)


JK. That's an oversimplification of what you said. But yes, getting to the net on these players is very difficult. For some reason, they have a FOV (Field of Vision) that is just utterly ridiculous. You'd think they have like 8 eyes or something.
 
tonlars, moz


how many levels of double bagels are you away from an atp player who would barely qualify for a weak international series event?

i m guessing that would be player ranked around the 300s.

Ha ha good question. Tough one to answer but I reckon 2 levels maximum. Assuming normal play (and not with the players playing in "safe" mode determined not to lose a game) it is conceivable that a 300 player could double bagel someone who could double bagel me. However I have a feeling I would be avoiding the double bagel the vast majority if the time, but not by much.

Part of it is playing style. Because I'm coming late to serious tennis and I've been struggling with my elbow for months I haven't been able to develop or even practice my serve. Therefore I wouldn't get any free points on it, which hurts my chances. Also because I rarely play people of that standard it would take a long time to get used to returning the serves.
 
Ive played players in the 400-500 range and had competitive close matches with them, some lost and won. Never played anyone higher than that though.

Tony - I may have missed your answer somewhere. I'm puzzled that now your wrist is healed you don't play any futures events. There are lots of players who have started with mixed results at the 400 range and gone on to get high ATP rankings.

You might not make it all the way but you may find it spurs improvement and that you do very well in the futures events at least.

As an observer I feel you have unfinished business (not that it's my business) and when you're old and grey you will really regret not giving it the full effort for a year. Talking about what might have been in any pursuit really hits you in your 30's.....
 
So basically you're saying that because the future players are so good, when they think they are in trouble they just blast the ball and more times then not, it goes in. Got it :)


JK. That's an oversimplification of what you said. But yes, getting to the net on these players is very difficult. For some reason, they have a FOV (Field of Vision) that is just utterly ridiculous. You'd think they have like 8 eyes or something.

The best oversimplification I can come up with is this: These players have a certain level of game. They minimize risk and play safe shots. When they try to approach, the best counter often involves a risky shot, but one within the limits of their game... Just one they wouldn't typically go for. Thus you get many failed net attempts, unless the approach shot was perfect, or hit off a sitter.

This is all subjective though. I don't play at this level so I may be completely off base.
 
Talking about what might have been in any pursuit really hits you in your 30's.....
F'in A. . .does it ever. The beauty of this age is now that you're motivated to play and give it your all, your body says 'Not so fast there, McEnroe.'

I want to play, but right now I have 3 broken bones (all minor breaks: 2 toes and a thumb, and they'll heal on their own), a strained ligament in my right knee, and a blown left shoulder. Ain't life f'ing grand. :mrgreen:
 
Ha ha good question. Tough one to answer but I reckon 2 levels maximum. Assuming normal play (and not with the players playing in "safe" mode determined not to lose a game) it is conceivable that a 300 player could double bagel someone who could double bagel me. However I have a feeling I would be avoiding the double bagel the vast majority if the time, but not by much.

Part of it is playing style. Because I'm coming late to serious tennis and I've been struggling with my elbow for months I haven't been able to develop or even practice my serve. Therefore I wouldn't get any free points on it, which hurts my chances. Also because I rarely play people of that standard it would take a long time to get used to returning the serves.


awesome

when a non tennis player asks you how good you are.

u can simply say, i m two levels from what you see on tv.

thats pretty amazing.
 
Last edited:
Tony - I may have missed your answer somewhere. I'm puzzled that now your wrist is healed you don't play any futures events. There are lots of players who have started with mixed results at the 400 range and gone on to get high ATP rankings.

You might not make it all the way but you may find it spurs improvement and that you do very well in the futures events at least.

As an observer I feel you have unfinished business (not that it's my business) and when you're old and grey you will really regret not giving it the full effort for a year. Talking about what might have been in any pursuit really hits you in your 30's.....

Thanks for this post Moz. Youre right on everything and it gets me thinking. The reason I have not played many Futures tournaments is because theyre a long ways a way, dont pay out much money, and are very very competitive. There are so many good players, and as you know only the top 200 players can really make a living and its incredibly tough to get there. Im honest with myself and know that I am simply not good enough to get to that level unless I were to improve some things in my game. I have a teaching job now too and so im not sure how I can find time to travel to tournaments except during the summer when its on weekends. I do think next summer I may try one or two, but more or less for fun and the challenge to see how well I can do, not to try to make it anywehre.

Another player from around here is traveling around and he has gotten some points, but he basically loses early on in every tournament he plays except the one or two where he has been able to qualify and get points. This is the guy from the Aqautennial video singles final I posted a while back that I beat. So I guess we are somewhat evenly matched, and he is struggling. I think if I work really hard on conditioning, my serve, and everything in general I could maybe play really well, and if I get good draws maybe within a couple years I could get a ranking up there with those 400's if all went well. I dont think I could go any further than that, and I wouldnt have made any money doing it, only lost money from expenses and not having a job. It would be great fun and experience though. So im not sure about doing it other than one or two a year.
 
Back
Top