Old school to beat new school

OK, this post is inspired by my observations and the first-hand experience.
I am an “equal opportunity” player who plays with everyone and at every occasion — social leagues, club clinics / mixers, USTA leagues, flex leagues, challenge plays, with juniors, 18+, 40+, 55+, mixed doubles …

One observation I have is that:

a) (male) juniors tend to almost exclusively play only one style — aggressive baseliners with a big topspin forehand, big first serve, second kick, flatter and deep DHBH, … and either hit big or miss big.

b) (good) older players can often be very crafty and tough to beat displaying variety with good slice serves, simple flat serves, flat shots, deep slices, chip and charge, passing shots, half volleys, good net skills …

So, a question for many of us here is:

What old school stuff, ala Vic Braden and 80s tennis is, in your opinion, still relevant and somewhat obscure to “new school” players and that can be deployed as a “surprise” style and an effective tactic?

(I thinking how Alcaraz’ resurrected drop shots to a bit of a shock effect)
 

socallefty

G.O.A.T.
OK, this post is inspired by my observations and the first-hand experience.
I am an “equal opportunity” player who plays with everyone and at every occasion — social leagues, club clinics / mixers, USTA leagues, flex leagues, challenge plays, with juniors, 18+, 40+, 55+, mixed doubles …

One observation I have is that:

a) (male) juniors tend to almost exclusively play only one style — aggressive baseliners with a big topspin forehand, big first serve, second kick, flatter and deep DHBH, … and either hit big or miss big.

b) (good) older players can often be very crafty and tough to beat displaying variety with good slice serves, simple flat serves, flat shots, deep slices, chip and charge, passing shots, half volleys, good net skills …

So, a question for many of us here is:

What old school stuff, ala Vic Braden and 80s tennis is, in your opinion, still relevant and somewhat obscure to “new school” players and that can be deployed as a “surprise” style and an effective tactic?

(I thinking how Alcaraz’ resurrected drop shots to a bit of a shock effect)
It doesn’t match my experience at my tennis club in the tennis hotbed of Southern California where we have thousands of adult members and a large Junior academy in addition to hosting many USTA junior tournaments and occasional adult UTR tournaments. There are juniors at all rating levels from beginner to UTR of 10-11 and there are adults at all levels - mostly low but a few going up to 8-9 UTR. The top ranked players whether juniors or adults can execute many different kinds of shots and will clobber anyone at a lower level whatever their style is because they will quickly figure out what they need to do including on serves/returns to get the point patterns they want. The lower level players whether juniors or adults can beat only players at their level or lower and are more one-dimensional in terms of playing only one style whatever it might be.

If you are an advanced player, you probably have been coached a lot and practiced a lot with the ability to execute different shots as needed to beat others. If you are self-taught and learned tennis as an adult, you are likely more limited in your repertoire and have a lower ceiling. I don’t think any coach with a reputation of developing top juniors is not going to teach juniors on a long-term development program all the shots including slices, finesse shots, volleys, different spins on serves etc. as their juniors will have a low ceiling otherwise. Most of the good adult 4.5+ players I know are good because they were once top juniors.

In 18+ USTA leagues and tournaments, it is mostly younger guys playing a power baseline game who win a lot in singles against the older guys with limited firepower. Maybe in doubles, the older players who are good match up well against young guns mostly because they have decades more experience with doubles strategy/tactics and playing well with different partners.
 
Last edited:

fuzz nation

G.O.A.T.
OK, this post is inspired by my observations and the first-hand experience.
I am an “equal opportunity” player who plays with everyone and at every occasion — social leagues, club clinics / mixers, USTA leagues, flex leagues, challenge plays, with juniors, 18+, 40+, 55+, mixed doubles …

One observation I have is that:

a) (male) juniors tend to almost exclusively play only one style — aggressive baseliners with a big topspin forehand, big first serve, second kick, flatter and deep DHBH, … and either hit big or miss big.

b) (good) older players can often be very crafty and tough to beat displaying variety with good slice serves, simple flat serves, flat shots, deep slices, chip and charge, passing shots, half volleys, good net skills …

So, a question for many of us here is:

What old school stuff, ala Vic Braden and 80s tennis is, in your opinion, still relevant and somewhat obscure to “new school” players and that can be deployed as a “surprise” style and an effective tactic?

(I thinking how Alcaraz’ resurrected drop shots to a bit of a shock effect)
I believe that the old school stuff is entirely relevant for countering one-dimensional baseliners who hit big and also move okay. If that sort of opponent is at least as good at that style of play as you are, you need to be able to do something else to get an edge or else your matches against that style of opponent will be too easy to predict. And if anybody wants to be a competent doubles player, that requires doing a whole lot more than just hitting a solid forehand, backhand, and using half-decent lateral movement.

When I think of old-school stuff, I'm primarily including the ability to hit with variety - slice and tospin - along with the basic skills to attack a short ball (including half-volleys) to get to the net. I don't include Alcaraz style drop shots from the baseline here. It takes all-world skill to produce those drop shots with any sort of consistency, but I'll note that I am rather big on drop volleys that are much higher percentage shots for most mere mortals to hit compared with those mini miracles that Alcaraz can do again and again.

I coach local high school teams and at 58, I can still workout with pretty much all the girls and boys I coach, but here and there it's tougher for me to hang with the strongest boys who can take man-sized turns on the ball from the baseline. But even there if we're playing points, I can generally neutralize those guys with my strokes and as long as I'm not completely scrambling into a corner to run down a drive, I can keep them off balance with some variety and jump on any ball that's short or off-speed that gives me a window to attack the net.

There are many unfortunate reasons that the old-school skill sets have been pushed to the back burner, but getting into that would probably derail your thread. It's encouraging when an occasional kid comes along who has learned some of the old-school dimension of the game or is at least hungry to learn how to slice for variety or maybe attack the net to shorten points. Especially among the better girls I've seen through the last 12-15 years, the ones with some all-court skills are typically much more capable of making trouble for more opponents. Not many of them though...
 
I believe that the old school stuff is entirely relevant for countering one-dimensional baseliners who hit big and also move okay.

I coach local high school teams and at 58, I can still workout with pretty much all the girls and boys I coach, but here and there it's tougher for me to hang with the strongest boys who can take man-sized turns on the ball from the baseline. But even there if we're playing points, I can generally neutralize those guys with my strokes and as long as I'm not completely scrambling into a corner to run down a drive, I can keep them off balance with some variety and jump on any ball that's short or off-speed that gives me a window to attack the net.
The things you describe are the things I observed too and are a motivation for my original post.

I am not taking a black-and-white stance on this topic. I just think that there are some really good “old school” techniques left behind that can give modern players edge and that I rarely see on the courts.

I really do get it that power baseline tennis has lots of advantages, but I also see old school players still giving this style hard time.

One of the toughest players I play with is 4.5+, 70-year old, originally from SoCal.

He challenges a whole variety of players, at all levels. He serves flat and slice serves that are outside/below of strike zone, especially for semi-western or western grips.

He hits super precise flat forehand from baseline and it is a laser shot.

His passing shots and half-volleys are deadly.

So, I bought me Tennis 2000 by Vic Braden and I realized that there is so much wisdom in that book that might be neglected by modern players, especially at the intermediate and junior level.
 

Bill Lobsalot

Hall of Fame
It doesn’t match my experience at my tennis club in the tennis hotbed of Southern California where we have thousands of adult members and a large Junior academy in addition to hosting many USTA junior tournaments and occasional adult UTR tournaments. There are juniors at all rating levels from beginner to UTR of 10-11 and there are adults at all levels - mostly low but a few going up to 8-9 UTR. The top ranked players whether juniors or adults can execute many different kinds of shots and will clobber anyone at a lower level whatever their style is because they will quickly figure out what they need to do including on serves/returns to get the point patterns they want. The lower level players whether juniors or adults can beat only players at their level or lower and are more one-dimensional in terms of playing only one style whatever it might be.

If you are an advanced player, you probably have been coached a lot and practiced a lot with the ability to execute different shots as needed to beat others. If you are self-taught and learned tennis as an adult, you are likely more limited in your repertoire and have a lower ceiling. I don’t think any coach with a reputation of developing top juniors is not going to teach juniors on a long-term development program all the shots including slices, finesse shots, volleys, different spins on serves etc. as their juniors will have a low ceiling otherwise. Most of the good adult 4.5+ players I know are good because they were once top juniors.

In 18+ USTA leagues and tournaments, it is mostly younger guys playing a power baseline game who win a lot in singles against the older guys with limited firepower. Maybe in doubles, the older players who are good match up well against young guns mostly because they have decades more experience with doubles strategy/tactics and playing well with different partners.
I think this is true for singles. But not for doubles at any age or level. Many tour players suck at doubles. See Tommy Paul.
 

10sbeast888

Hall of Fame
holistically.. think of it this way.

what has changed that has made the old school old school? mainly just the polys, and self feeding cycle of amateurs monkey see monkey do copying the pros.

say if we had a time machine. and before the polys you have a group of old school players mostly hitting flat/slice/volleys against a group of aggressive baseliners and they were 50/50 win loss.

fast foward 20 years now the baseliners group can use polys... I'd say the result would skew to something like 40/60.... noticeable, but not lopsided.
 

socallefty

G.O.A.T.
I think this is true for singles. But not for doubles at any age or level. Many tour players suck at doubles. See Tommy Paul.
Agree that doubles puts a premium on different skills and is a different sport from singles. A more experienced doubles player will do better against singles specialists and that is true where I live also. But have you seen top junior doubles teams that win tournaments at college, junior age group and high school levels? They have all the necessary doubles skills and being good at doubles has nothing to do with age, but more to do with experience.

When my club hosted a lot of Open UTR tournaments during the COVID years, the guys who made the semis and finals in singles and doubles were all young guys in their late teens or twenties with many active or recent college players - but the guys who did best in doubles were not necessarily the same as the singles winners. The doubles teams that did well were all fantastic at the net and at hitting accurate serves, returns and shots.
 
Last edited:
There is a whole set of sidespin and touch focused forehands that seem beyond the shot manifold of the average power focused player. As I will always say, this is a huge point of distinction between Alcaraz (and Nadal before him) and lesser ATP competitors.
 

sureshs

Bionic Poster
My club hosts a USTA Open tournament every year. The winners and finalists are always college or older junior players or former versions of them with big serves, forehands and topspin.

Not the crafty old guys.

Alcarez having superb touch is only relevant at the level that he plays.
 

Roforot

Hall of Fame
I haven't read Tennis 2000 in a while... but I don't recall Vic Braden saying anything against a big FH, flat serve, reliable kick second serve! I think he supported all the "modern" tennis games including using topspin as opposed to hitting flat laser shots. I do agree though that junior players could shorten some points by coming up to the net to finish (much like Rafa would).
 

socallefty

G.O.A.T.
I do agree though that junior players could shorten some points by coming up to the net to finish (much like Rafa would).
The good ones do once they get taller and have better reach and better overheads. Until then they get passed and lobbed too easily if they are playing Under-12s.
 
Top