Practice for Smarter Targets

[5263]

@5263
Been reading through this thread. I like the idea of having statistically supported, optimal areas to hit to on the court. If I can learn to do it, then I think it will give some precision to my game that has been severely lacking.

Glad you found it helpful. I am really happy with how it's helped me to have a firm idea of what I want to routinely do on the court. Of course if I'm looking to do something different for a specific reason, I go with the new plan, but this has really helped to organize and focus my intent for routine situations.

It's also amazing how much better I've gotten at hitting near these targets after using them for awhile. Having a more clear idea where to go has been much better than the general side to side mindset, which does not address margin for error as clearly as these more defined targets.

 

[psv255]

This is a cool idea, definitely a refreshing way to look at match tactics. Thanks!

 

[Ballinbob]

I have the exact same problem Tom. I always think "Hit as deep as possible and as often as possible" and I usually end up just hitting deep down the middle. The trick is to start incorporating smart targets into match play... With some practice it can be done though

I was watching this highlight video and noticed Djokovic using the smart targets a lot. Check out the point at 2:25

http://youtu.be/m0dDL0Jzknk

 

[sundaypunch]

I have the exact same problem Tom. I always think "Hit as deep as possible and as often as possible" and I usually end up just hitting deep down the middle. The trick is to start incorporating smart targets into match play... With some practice it can be done though

I was watching this highlight video and noticed Djokovic using the smart targets a lot. Check out the point at 2:25

http://youtu.be/m0dDL0Jzknk

"Smart targets" are useful but have been around for years as part of the much more comprehensive Wardlaw Directionals. That video (as with most pro matches) is a classic example of employing the Wardlaw directionals.

The best discussion of this I have found is in Chuck Kriese's "Coaching Tennis" book. There is a full chapter written by Paul Wardlaw. A quote from this chapter regarding the 'smart targets' theme-

"Location and depth are the essential areas when hitting outside ground strokes. Outside ground stroke rallies need to be diagonal rather than vertical with shots landing out of the middle third of the court. The concept of changing the rally from a vertical rally to diagonal rally is called Shifting the Court. Tennis is a diagonal game, not a vertical one. Typically, less advanced play involves vertical rallies - rallies that take place in the middle third of the court. Effective high level tennis requires diagonal rallies, those which take place outside the middle third of the court..... Most importantly, the Wardlaw Directionals are more effective when the court has been shifted diagonally."

 

[DefensiveTennis]

The only targets on the court you should consciously aim for the majority of the time are....

Deep cc, short cc on both sides.

If you have time and feel comfortable, hit deeper and closer to the lines.

There are some exceptions though.

 

[5263]

"Smart targets" are useful but have been around for years as part of the much more comprehensive Wardlaw Directionals. That video (as with most pro matches) is a classic example of employing the Wardlaw directionals.

The best discussion of this I have found is in Chuck Kriese's "Coaching Tennis" book. There is a full chapter written by Paul Wardlaw. A quote from this chapter regarding the 'smart targets' theme-

"Location and depth are the essential areas when hitting outside ground strokes. Outside ground stroke rallies need to be diagonal rather than vertical with shots landing out of the middle third of the court. The concept of changing the rally from a vertical rally to diagonal rally is called Shifting the Court. Tennis is a diagonal game, not a vertical one. Typically, less advanced play involves vertical rallies - rallies that take place in the middle third of the court. Effective high level tennis requires diagonal rallies, those which take place outside the middle third of the court..... Most importantly, the Wardlaw Directionals are more effective when the court has been shifted diagonally."

Interesting perspective with how generous you are attributing things to Directionals, but with such a miserly view of the Smart Targets. I'd guess you didn't give much time to the thread on the Targets due to your assumptions. Actually the Smart Targets encompasses the Directionals as one of the aspects contained in the approach, but in a more simple way...deal with a much wider array of issues. But thanks for your input and verifying how the Smart Targets comply with the Directionals as well.

 

[Topspin Shot]

For anyone interested, my personal preferred way to pick which smart target to aim for (assuming I'm facing a relatively conventional opponent) is to set the default option as hitting to the other guy's backhand side and then adjust accordingly. So if the forehand side is significantly open, or if their shot is too good for me to hit a percentage play to the backhand, then I'll go to the forehand. Otherwise, it's just a relentless attack on the backhand.

 

[Power Player]

If you loop that high to someone's backhand, they should be running around it after a while.

 

[Topspin Shot]

If you loop that high to someone's backhand, they should be running around it after a while.

That's when I've got to either flatten it out or go to his forehand to re-open the court.

 

[5263]

That's when I've got to either flatten it out or go to his forehand to re-open the court.

Exactly,...well played, especially if you were able to angle it off a bit on the Fh side as well.

 

[Ballinbob]

That's a good strategy Topspin. That's essentially what Nadal does as well. I think variety is overrated to be honest. Just find the weaker wing and put pressure on it. Make them beat you with their weaker stroke. Doesn't matter if they know it's coming as long as you're executing your shots well

 

[5263]

That's a good strategy Topspin. That's essentially what Nadal does as well. I think variety is overrated to be honest. Just find the weaker wing and put pressure on it. Make them beat you with their weaker stroke. Doesn't matter if they know it's coming as long as you're executing your shots well

And the other aspect of this is how it softens up the strong side over time if you are effective against the weak side. You can often see it in the Fed vs Nadal matches, where Nadal continues to attack the Bh so much that he open up the Fh and even gets Fed to press so that he misses even routine shots at times with his strong Fh.

 

[5263]

This is a cool idea, definitely a refreshing way to look at match tactics. Thanks!

Glad you like the idea psv...watching the AO with these in mind tends to point out how they take control of points. When both are hitting them pretty will, it tends to be the better points and a battle to see who can gain an edge first. When only one player is working those areas, they tend to control most of the rallys like with Anna vs Serena. You see lots of shots in these areas in highlight vids.

 

[TomT]

I'm going to watch for this (the pros hitting to the Smart Target areas during rallies) from now on. Doing that should also help me to keep it in mind when I'm playing (until it becomes a habit), I think.

My experience with it at my level so far is that it does make a positive difference for the player who does it first and most. It also makes for a much more interesting (and esthetically pleasing) game than hitting most everything down the middle, which (in my case anyway) is mostly due to laziness.

 

[OTMPut]

That's a good strategy Topspin. That's essentially what Nadal does as well. I think variety is overrated to be honest. Just find the weaker wing and put pressure on it. Make them beat you with their weaker stroke. Doesn't matter if they know it's coming as long as you're executing your shots well

This presumes you have a very good i/o, dtl forehands and dependable cross court b/h and decent movement yourself.
Otherwise, a semi-intelligent player can easily "reset" the point play into his forehand wing.

 

[teachestennis]

That's a good strategy Topspin. That's essentially what Nadal does as well. I think variety is overrated to be honest. Just find the weaker wing and put pressure on it. Make them beat you with their weaker stroke. Doesn't matter if they know it's coming as long as you're executing your shots well

Just read Nadal's book and "The Greatest Match ever Played" and when he finally beat Federer at Wimbledon, Nadal admitted, as was observed, he went in to pound Federer's BH constantly. I think the point of then changing direction and going crosscourt to the FH side once they are running around the bh is important but I would not hit the crosscourt FH deep, I would play the corner of the deuce service court, giving me greater margin of error and forcing the player to run the greatest distance within that margin of error. I think 5263's ideas here are excellent and am featuring some of his concepts in The Real History of USA Tennis Instruction in a chapter on great unknown coaches and in the chapter on coaching misconceptions. 5263 has a tennis coaching accomplishment very few coaches in the game can ever claim (not Nicky B nor Lansdorp or Macci) and I will be pointing that out in my book. He is too modest to mention it.

I mention this only because I am looking to interview other great coaches from this site who I and many of you know are terrific. Some of you I will be sending private emails to asking for an interview. If anyone wants to nominate someone from here to ensure they get mentioned (this message board has it's own chapter as a credit and asset to the game) for their great contributions, please feel free to send me a message through my profile or to mtmcoach at the yahoo. Advocacy of MTM is not necessary. I named one coach as the best example in The Video Kings chapter and I had never talked to him or knew of his coaching mentors when I got him on the phone to interview him. He was going to be featured even if he hated Oscar Wegner, lol. I also credit Johnny Yandell a lot in the book and it's unfortunate those two don't work together because both add a lot. My book seeks to tell the unsaid truths of why USA tennis is so divided, especially because of the three alphabet soups and so full of contradictory data that the popularity of the game is the real victim. Send me those nominations if you think they deserve to be mentioned in this book. Thanks!

 

[teachestennis]

The only targets on the court you should consciously aim for the majority of the time are....

Deep cc, short cc on both sides.

If you have time and feel comfortable, hit deeper and closer to the lines.

There are some exceptions though.

A great author brought up on the closing of the racket face thread recently is Rod Cross. This book was not brought up yet but should have been. Cross has a 2005 book Technical Tennis, Racquets, Strings, Balls Courts and Bounce with Crawford Lindsay that deals with a ton of tennis misconceptions and one is appropriate for this thread and believe me, this guy is right on. On first page of preface, “In fact, it is amazing how many of today’s top players appear to be unaware of the basics. Watch them when they change ball direction back over the net. They are very good at returning the ball straight back to their opponent, but as soon as they hit away from their opponent, their error rate increases dramatically. There is a simple reason for this. It is always safer to hit the ball straight back to your opponent because the ball will travel in that direction no matter how hard you hit it. If you try to change the direction of the ball, then the angle of the ball off the strings depends on how fast the ball is traveling toward you and how hard you hit it. If you know about this, you will be less likely to aim for the sideline. Chances are, if you aim for the lines, the ball with go out." end of quote

Pros hit with topspin because of the margin or error provided and I believe the overemphasis in USA coaching of hit deep to the corners is what ruined many of our juniors. Spanish and Europeans were aiming for "smarter" targets nearer the corners of the service box. The Wardlaw Directions are good to a point but pros are good enough to break them and keep certain percentage shots in with great topspin and ball rotation (slice can be just as effective, it decreases margin of error on your opponents strings).

 

[5263]

Pros hit with topspin because of the margin or error provided and I believe the overemphasis in USA coaching of hit deep to the corners is what ruined many of our juniors. Spanish and Europeans were aiming for "smarter" targets nearer the corners of the service box. The Wardlaw Directions are good to a point but pros are good enough to break them and keep certain percentage shots in with great topspin

and net clearance margin.

Thanks Teaches, because I know of your extensive on court experience with quite a few top players at different echelons of the game and that lends great credibility to your endorsement of the Smart Targets. I know some have commented on how Simple they are, but that was the intent and reminds me of one of your favorite quotes by Di Vinci..."Simplicity is the Ultimate Sophistication."

 

[Lukhas]

That's when I've got to either flatten it out or go to his forehand to re-open the court.

In short, Nadal vs. Federer/Dimitrov. Pound the BH. When they try to run around the BH, hit in the open court. Rinse and repeat. It's simple, but if the execution is great it's more than enough against many opponents.

EDIT: And then I notice someone already talked about it. This said, this is the kind of strategy that is perfect for people with "beautiful strokes" but who lack strategic abilities. It's simple so they can concentrate on execution and not think too much about what to do.

 

[sureshs]

Dimitrov did the same attack against the Nadal backhand and it worked to some extent. People forget that in theory Nadal should face the same problem from righties as he gives to them. The reason Nadal troubles baby and grandpa Feds is the extreme spin which results in a high bounce. Dimitrov was pushed into the shadows near the back of the court trying to reach those. In another subtlely, he jammed himself trying to hit an inside out forehand off Nadal's slice. After the commentator pointed it out, I noticed what happened. The spin was in the opposite direction coming from a lefty. It moved so much that it defeated the allowance Dimitrov had made for the spin, which itself he might have subconsciously expected to turn the other way. He hit it out I believe.

A two hander like Nishikori could easily handle Nadal's balls to his backhand, but he lacked the firepower of Dimitrov.

I don't think any 1 hander today, be it Dimitrov, Fed or Wawrinka, can withstand more than two stokes to the backhand from Nadal.

 

[5263]

Dimitrov did the same attack against the Nadal backhand and it worked to some extent. People forget that in theory Nadal should face the same problem from righties as he gives to them.

Yes, good points.
Nadal clearly poses special problems for all opponents, but the big problem for righties with lefties is that it often puts a strength where the righty's patterns are designed to attack a softer target.

 

[sureshs]

Yes, good points.
Nadal clearly poses special problems for all opponents, but the big problem for righties with lefties is that it often puts a strength where the righty's patterns are designed to attack a softer target.

Is it just because of less exposure to lefties as Martina claims?

Theoretically, Nadal should face the same problem on his backhand from righty opponents. Why doesn't he?

 

[DefensiveTennis]

Is it just because of less exposure to lefties as Martina claims?

Theoretically, Nadal should face the same problem on his backhand from righty opponents. Why doesn't he?

Nadal has spent all his life dealing with a righty hitting crosscourt to his weakness.

Righties have spent very little of their lives dealing with a lefty hitting crosscourt to their backhand.

 

[5263]

Is it just because of less exposure to lefties as Martina claims?

Theoretically, Nadal should face the same problem on his backhand from righty opponents. Why doesn't he?

I think DT addresses your first point, but I would say no....not JUST that.

Imo, it has more to do with patterns of play. Subtle difference and very related to above, ...but more to it.

Nadal does not face the I/O to his Bh. As a righty, the I/O goes to the AD ct and that is the Bh for most players and a 2 hander at that most of the time. The I/O is such a nasty shot for good players. Ad ct is going a strong target to work a pattern on since it focuses in on a softer target with most players that is tougher to defend on the run. If you can't break it down directly, it will usually open up other targets. Fed is awesome, but he has built his career on this central pattern. Imo that is why he has struggled his whole career, not only with Nadal, but with players like Murray and DJ who have excellent Bhs. With these guys, Fed is playing into a strength instead of a softer target.

Sure he can change his tactics a bit, but that is very tough to do when you are also facing the best players the game has to offer. That's a time to go with what got you there and where your confidence lies. That is why if I had a chance to work with him, I'd look to have him win the early rounds with good tactics that are not as Bh dependent (and this seems to be a bit of what Edberg has done). If Fed can work some of his strengths more towards the deuce side, it could avoid their strengths some and open up the ct a bit. It represents a risks to some extent, as it makes it tougher to beat the lower players, but they also give you a great chance to develop these patterns to be ready for the top 5 or so. Nadal works the Bh well with his bolo and I/In shots.

 

[mightyrick]

Yes, good points.
Nadal clearly poses special problems for all opponents, but the big problem for righties with lefties is that it often puts a strength where the righty's patterns are designed to attack a softer target.

Anybody who can consistently hit a solid down-the-line shot off of both wings is Top-10. It sounds simple, but that's pretty much how it breaks down.

I know people don't think of guys like Del Potro, Ferrer or Tsonga having good backhands... but actually... they have very underrated backhands. All three of those guys have the DTL backhand shot at their disposal and use it.

 

[5263]

I know people don't think of guys like Del Potro, Ferrer or Tsonga having good backhands... but actually... they have very underrated backhands. All three of those guys have the DTL backhand shot at their disposal and use it.

I agree they have VERY good Bhs and was not aware they were underrated.

 

[sureshs]

I think DT addresses your first point, but I would say no....not JUST that.

Imo, it has more to do with patterns of play. Subtle difference and very related to above, ...but more to it.

Nadal does not face the I/O to his Bh. As a righty, the I/O goes to the AD ct and that is the Bh for most players and a 2 hander at that most of the time. The I/O is such a nasty shot for good players. Ad ct is going a strong target to work a pattern on since it focuses in on a softer target with most players that is tougher to defend on the run. If you can't break it down directly, it will usually open up other targets. Fed is awesome, but he has built his career on this central pattern. Imo that is why he has struggled his whole career, not only with Nadal, but with players like Murray and DJ who have excellent Bhs. With these guys, Fed is playing into a strength instead of a softer target.

Sure he can change his tactics a bit, but that is very tough to do when you are also facing the best players the game has to offer. That's a time to go with what got you there and where your confidence lies. That is why if I had a chance to work with him, I'd look to have him win the early rounds with good tactics that are not as Bh dependent (and this seems to be a bit of what Edberg has done). If Fed can work some of his strengths more towards the deuce side, it could avoid their strengths some and open up the ct a bit. It represents a risks to some extent, as it makes it tougher to beat the lower players, but they also give you a great chance to develop these patterns to be ready for the top 5 or so. Nadal works the Bh well with his bolo and I/In shots.

Nadal does not get an I/O to his backhand, but he cannot hit an I/O to his righty opponent's backhand either, so I don't see the advantage there. He can hit an inside-in to his opponent's backhand, but the opponent can do the same to him too.

I think what you are saying is that a righty does not develop the skills to hit inside-in forehands as most of the time it would go to the forehand of his opponent.

 

[5263]

Nadal does not get an I/O to his backhand, but he cannot hit an I/O to his righty opponent's backhand either, so I don't see the advantage there. He can hit an inside-in to his opponent's backhand, but the opponent can do the same to him too.

I think what you are saying is that a righty does not develop the skills to hit inside-in forehands as most of the time it would go to the forehand of his opponent.

yes and that righties will still hit into lefty Fh because it is a strength for them. It creates matchup problems due to skills and confidence shots. Even though it should pose the mirror situation, it doesn't if you take into account normal patterns and developed strengths in most cases.

Now if some righty was great with his backhand (DJ) and very good with his crosscourt Fh and I/In & I/O Fh.....then it is game on

 

[sureshs]

yes and that righties will still hit into lefty Fh because it is a strength for them. It creates matchup problems due to skills and confidence shots. Even though it should pose the mirror situation, it doesn't if you take into account normal patterns and developed strengths in most cases.

Now if some righty was great with his backhand (DJ) and very good with his crosscourt Fh and I/In & I/O Fh.....then it is game on

Same question being raised here:

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=489241

 

[5263]

Same question being raised here:

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=489241

Maybe odd for this thread, but not really if it is understood, ........that thread misses it due to looking at how to approach on Nadal. The key is to keep approaches to a min against Nadal and only do it when you can make it a top notch approach. That should generally be low short skidder to the Bh if you you must approach and not wide unless it is an awesome wide one. Wide and deep just help him out. Deep gives him more time to chase as he prefers, more power for him to redirect, and wide lets him bash across his body even to go dtl.

Otherwise, win points with your serve and mid ct attacks. Like DJ, you must make him play and earn it ......and since Nadal is prone to leaving attackable short balls...you should get more chances to attack than he does if you are good like Fed, DJ, and Murray.... Don't waste any points by UE's from BL or trying to approach...Focus on serving well, rally consistent and beat him with mid ct attacks..imho and use the Smart Targets on the attacks....taking him wide and shallow...which is not where he likes to run...and not having come in behind the attack, you can defend, forcing his shots to be near perfect or you take him back wide and short the other direction(or hit behind him)

 

[tlm]

Maybe odd for this thread, but not really if it is understood, ........that thread misses it due to looking at how to approach on Nadal. The key is to keep approaches to a min against Nadal and only do it when you can make it a top notch approach. That should generally be low short skidder to the Bh if you you must approach and not wide unless it is an awesome wide one. Wide and deep just help him out. Deep gives him more time to chase as he prefers, more power for him to redirect, and wide lets him bash across his body even to go dtl.

Otherwise, win points with your serve and mid ct attacks. Like DJ, you must make him play and earn it ......and since Nadal is prone to leaving attackable short balls...you should get more chances to attack than he does if you are good like Fed, DJ, and Murray.... Don't waste any points by UE's from BL or trying to approach...Focus on serving well, rally consistent and beat him with mid ct attacks..imho and use the Smart Targets on the attacks....taking him wide and shallow...which is not where he likes to run...and not having come in behind the attack, you can defend, forcing his shots to be near perfect or you take him back wide and short the other direction(or hit behind him)

This is a great description of the best way to play against rafa that I have heard on this site. It is usually the same old school S+V run to the net and get burned just like fed did today. Or play guns out and try to rip winners, which again will rarely if ever work.

 

[sureshs]

The only people who have consistently defeated Nadal are Federer (10 times) and Djokovic (17 times). Djokovic is a year younger than Nadal, an inch taller, and one of the supreme athletes of the sport now. Federer is 5 years older than Nadal and about to have his third kid.

Dimitrov was pulling Nadal wide all the time and managed to get one set off him.

Whoever other than Djokovic has tried to get into a neutral rally with him has not been successful. Nishikori tried that very well and his 2 hander was very good, but still it all amounted to nothing. Same with Ferru last year.

You just don't need to serve well, you need to serve supremely well. And you need to react and execute and hit hard enough so that Nadal cannot get to the ball in time. We look at his strokes and forget how he got there. He is on one side stretched wide, and in the next shot he is hitting a winner from the opposite side of the court. How did he get there? And when he hits, his balls rise on an average 10 centimeters (4 inches) more than others and with about a third more spin. So it is not like you have seen this before and can play as usual. Only the much taller players like Birdie or DP are not bothered by this, but they are not the best players around and often falling in early rounds.

 

[5263]

We look at his strokes and forget how he got there. He is on one side stretched wide, and in the next shot he is hitting a winner from the opposite side of the court. How did he get there?

You make a bunch of excellent points in your post here. I can't speak for others, but I'm always amazed how Rafa covers the court and think it is actually the most incredible thing he does. I hope that is not truly lost on others. I also think the age thing is way over done with Fed....most thought he would be out of the game at the age, but he still is doing amazing things. It's hard to compare the wear and tear, but I feel that Nadal's game may be more demanding on him than Fed's is on him. All players have had bad matchups and this is the worst for Fed. Main thing that has changed here is that Rafa just keeps getting better more than Fed has.

I also really like your point about the wife and kids and don't think that can be underestimated

 

[5263]

This is a great description of the best way to play against rafa that I have heard on this site. It is usually the same old school S+V run to the net and get burned just like fed did today. Or play guns out and try to rip winners, which again will rarely if ever work.

Thanks tlm...Imo it gives Fed his only real shot. Rafa may be just too much to handled these days though.

I just watched Fed hit a 94mph Bh crosscourt where Rafa took it up the line for a clean winner. Most would say wow and what more can Fed do? Well when pulled wide and well behind the BL, you just set Rafa up by hitting that hard, which opens Feds court!....there is only a very small chance of hitting a winner from back there and Feds pace gave him no time to recover to cover the court. Behind the BL is the place to rally (not risk a 94mph ripper) and gain a position where you can get better position to attack where your odds are much stronger for winners and forcing errors. Rafa exposes these tactical errors from Fed.

 

[5263]

Anyone catch the Fh shot placement chart for Rafa's xct and dtl against Fed? He was pounding the Smart target areas pretty good there!

 

[sureshs]

You make a bunch of excellent points in your post here. I can't speak for others, but I'm always amazed how Rafa covers the court and think it is actually the most incredible thing he does. I hope that is not truly lost on others. I also think the age thing is way over done with Fed....most thought he would be out of the game at the age, but he still is doing amazing things. It's hard to compare the wear and tear, but I feel that Nadal's game may be more demanding on him than Fed's is on him. All players have had bad matchups and this is the worst for Fed. Main thing that has changed here is that Rafa just keeps getting better more than Fed has.

I also really like your point about the wife and kids and don't think that can be underestimated

Struggling to manage here with 1 wife and 1 kid, 3 is a lot.

 

[5263]

Struggling to manage here with 1 wife and 1 kid, 3 is a lot.

Yes, I have a wife and 3 kids...thank goodness all 3 play tennis, but even that has it's challenges to keep them trained up ....good for getting to the courts though!

 

[5263]

This is a great description of the best way to play against rafa that I have heard on this site. It is usually the same old school S+V run to the net and get burned just like fed did today. Or play guns out and try to rip winners, which again will rarely if ever work.

As I said, I appreciate to compliment and wanted to share this.....

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/25/s...oter&module=MoreInSection&pgtype=article&_r=0

See what you think, but seems it sums up pretty similar to what has been said here.

 

[Topspin Shot]

As I said, I appreciate to compliment and wanted to share this.....

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/25/s...oter&module=MoreInSection&pgtype=article&_r=0

See what you think, but seems it sums up pretty similar to what has been said here.

Yep, that just about sums it up.

 

[5263]

Nice view of a drop point played out using these targets.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tkNJ110wbiI

Very strong point played in the video and good example...

 

[5263]

Can someone give me a quick overview of what smart targets are?
I don't follow that thread so I don't know what it's about. I've seen the graphic and I know it's something about hitting cross court. Are there tactics involved? Or patterns or something? I have no idea.

While not intended to aim or steer the shot, the Smart Targets are designed to serve as a reference in the sense of the phrase, "he hits great passing shots because he loves a target!" The initial idea for the Smart Targets was to satisfy several requirements for a Reference Target in stacking my drills.

The overriding Principle was a very simple belief I have that winning tennis is about #1.Making your shots....#2. to the Right Areas. If you can add pace or other qualities of amplitude, then all the better, but the main thing is to Make those shots. Go for shots you can make....make shots that will either hurt the opponent or at least keep you safe. TRAIN to hit those shots every day! I wanted a simple way to represent the areas that offered the best gain with the least risk.

The main issue that is often missed with Smart Targets is...What we ARE NOT doing. What we are not suggesting is you should hit to Either Smart Target if you have a better idea or plan. There are many reasons to do things different. I can likely write 2 pages on reasons to hit to other targets at times. My favorite example is how I like to take the fastest serves and rtn them right back at the server's feet to try to jam him while he is still in his follow thru; Especially since that is the easiest target against a big serve Imo. I even call it the 3rd target sometimes.

I settled on triangles for many reasons. They give me a nice line of reference to the deepest cone when hitting dtl or x-court, along with everything between those two shallow cones going into the funnel or gate they create, again leading to the deeper cone. You can use the whole triangle as a reference, OR focus on one of the cones that relates to your intentions. The deepest cone is usually the best reference for rallys...to answer that question. If you are big on hitting deeper...then seek to hit that deep cone area or beyond. For short angle volleys the shortest cone works well. I prefer the center of the triangle for attacking mid ct balls.

The Big general idea is that usually you can pick one of the 2 targets that will put your opponent on the move. They are designed to pull them the widest you can, balanced with lower risk due to providing a margin of error. They are designed to be well clear of the lines. They help you to balance your need to hit thru the court strongly with use of biting spin that can keep your ball in play. If neither Smart Target looks more open, you can choose his weakness or your strength to help you pick which Smart Target. For instance, BB and topspin would likely go with the Bh target in many situations. Only having 2 makes it a snap to decide, so you rarely will change your mind mid swing (a big source of UEs).

Honestly at the start I wasn't focused on experienced players, and only with time and working with some other coaches did I find how helpful many experienced players found the Targets.

 

[sureshs]

I keep going back and forth on this. Sometimes it seems to make sense, sometimes I change my mind. I watched Murray-Querrey live today over here, the only thing I can say for sure is that the balls were hit deep, like within a foot from the baseline, or almost painting the sidelines. I saw very little of short angles. In fact, the depth is what sticks out foremost - same as in Indian Wells.

I think the power behind the incoming ball does not make it easy to spin it around for a short angled short. The risk is probably too high, as it could end up being a weak spinny ball which can be put away.

I also did not see much TS on the ball, at least as indicated by the racket head movement. Most of the balls seemed to be solidly hit through towards the target with a small amount of spin. I saw hardly any WW style swings.

 

[Spin Doctor]

I keep going back and forth on this. Sometimes it seems to make sense, sometimes I change my mind. I watched Murray-Querrey live today over here, the only thing I can say for sure is that the balls were hit deep, like within a foot from the baseline, or almost painting the sidelines. I saw very little of short angles. In fact, the depth is what sticks out foremost - same as in Indian Wells.

I think the power behind the incoming ball does not make it easy to spin it around for a short angled short. The risk is probably too high, as it could end up being a weak spinny ball which can be put away.

I also did not see much TS on the ball, at least as indicated by the racket head movement. Most of the balls seemed to be solidly hit through towards the target with a small amount of spin. I saw hardly any WW style swings.

I just don't think this works for most rec players, who would be better off going for more depth. You need a lot of spin, pace and accuracy to get these short angles to work. And yes, there seems to be a higher risk element to the shots as well.

There is just way too much of "the pros are doing it so we should too" on this site. There are things that work at the pro level that just won't work with most adult rec players. I could say that for half the threads in the Tips section.

Depth, depth, depth. Is King.

 

[5263]

I keep going back and forth on this. Sometimes it seems to make sense, sometimes I change my mind. I watched Murray-Querrey live today over here, the only thing I can say for sure is that the balls were hit deep, like within a foot from the baseline, or almost painting the sidelines. I saw very little of short angles. In fact, the depth is what sticks out foremost - same as in Indian Wells.

First let me say that I know that no Pro was ever trained to use the Smart Targets, so any use of them is instinctual or due to some similar training.

Second....I will believe that about those matches when I see a diagram that supports your info. Not that I don't trust you, but just think it is hard to watch and realize the tendencies. Otherwise if you are correct, I expect it is either a sloppy match with high UEs or for me it would be an exception out wide on the bell curve...but that is just my hunch. Thanks!

 

[5263]

You need a lot of spin, pace and accuracy to get these short angles to work.

And yes, there seems to be a higher risk element to the shots as well..

Some solid pace is required, but nothing special for that or spin. Accuracy may be required for YOUR short angles, but smart targets are not short angles.

The whole design is to lessen risks, so where is the extra element of risks? I'm probably the most consistent player you never met and I use these Targets quite rigorously. My students tend to be very consistent as well.

Where do you see extra risks?

 

[5263]

We have shown charts of the 2 best players in the world, Nadal & DJ and both of their shots tend to confirm that best pros don't hit so close to lines. I thought DJ was hitting closer to the lines in the AO and he went out early. Same for Fed when he had mono.

 

[Spin Doctor]

First let me say that I know that no Pro was ever trained to use the Smart Targets, so any use of them is instinctual or due to some similar training.

Second....I will believe that about those matches when I see a diagram that supports your info. Not that I don't trust you, but just think it is hard to watch and realize the tendencies. Otherwise if you are correct, I expect it is either a sloppy match with high UEs or for me it would be an exception out wide on the bell curve...but that is just my hunch. Thanks!

Murray hits flatter than Djoker, Nadal etc. so it makes sense that his shots will be a deeper more penetrating shot. More topspin is needed for the shorter angles you are showing in order to be effective at that level.

These angles exchange the risk of the baseline and replaces it with the risk of the sideline. You need a bit of spin to get the ball to dip so someone who has that style can make this work. I just dont think many rec players can make these targets work, they don't have the spin or accuracy to remove the sideline risk. And they don't have the pace in additon to that to make it a dangerous shot to the opponent (unless the opponent is a horrible mover).

 

[President]

Murray and Querrey both hit flatter than average IMO so it is no surprise that they don't make use of as many angles. Look at Federer and Nadal play live as I have several times and you will see that both players make heavy use of angles in the court.

 

[Ballinbob]

Murray and Querrey both hit flatter than average IMO so it is no surprise that they don't make use of as many angles. Look at Federer and Nadal play live as I have several times and you will see that both players make heavy use of angles in the court.

I agree with this. Novak too, as I can easily pull up like 5 vids showing him drilling the smart targets

 

[5263]

These angles exchange the risk of the baseline and replaces it with the risk of the sideline. You need a bit of spin to get the ball to dip so someone who has that style can make this work. I just dont think many rec players can make these targets work, they don't have the spin or accuracy to remove the sideline risk. And they don't have the pace in additon to that to make it a dangerous shot to the opponent (unless the opponent is a horrible mover).

There may be some truth in what you say about rec use, but I think you make these WaGs based on some misinfo....You say it takes more pace, but I suggest that pace required is relative to the competition for the most part. High level players are great movers, so it takes more pace to hurt them, but generally rec players don't move like pros, so it doesn't take near the pace to give them trouble.

You say you need the spin to dip the ball for this, but not true. The Smart Targets are for slices as well, which don't dip at all. You say more Accuracy is needed, but wrong again Imo and by design. The targets have margin built in as part of the design. Maybe it is lost on you that they are only a reference to use to locate you shots.

MAIN point Imo is the most players, are way better at talking about attacking short balls than actually executing short ball attacks. IF and only IF they actually get up in the ct to attack these shots, then they have to do it and do it well. Rarely happens that they get there and rarer still they execute well enough. It's a challenge at times for players to get there even in drills where you tell them it's coming, then feed them a short ball juicy for attack! Great execution on short ball attacking is still the biggest challenge for Pros and surely tough for recs.

There is more on the depth if anyone is interested.

You have guessed how you think it would go based on faulty info imo, But I challenge your concerns with a couple of years of training and experience using them with my students along with my own play. I also have several other tennis instructors around the country that are using this with great results. Even our own highly respected Ash has stated he finds them useful and good for training. My experience is that your concerns don't hold up in actual play.