Pros don't hit deep near baseline that much

[ByeByePoly]

In a recent discussion with NYTA, the topic of baseline rally depth came up. This was in the context of forcing an opponent into weaker replies, and in my mind, pinning them deep. So say at 4.0 - 4.5 ish singles, maybe 3-4ft from baseline was a good margin for error target.

I watched a lot of pro tennis over the last couple of days ... both WTA and ATP, and I started watching for how many neutral (not stretched on the run) strokes hit within 5ft or so of the baseline. Not many. I watched a 23 stroke rally between Kuznetsova and Svitolina where 1 ball landed within 5 ft. Obviously in the pro singles game "pinning them deep" has very little use. Many rally balls hit the service line ... or closer to service line than the baseline. The time they go closer to lines in a rally is when they go for opening up the court with a severe angle (some of these not much past service line).

My take is in the pro singles game, the deep ball is just part of the variety of shots ... angles, short, slice, deep. I guess with the pace of shot, even pros can't automatically take advantage of a rally ball hit on their service line. Here was an interesting occurence which showed there is not much need to risk going too close to lines. Cibulkova served a ball to Kerber. Cibulkova was on the T. Kerber's return hit 5 ft from the baseline, and halfway between the T and the sideline. Clean winner without Cibulkova taking a step... absolutely no reason to risk going closer to the line.

Now ... does that have anything to do with our games ... probably not. I can remember telling a friend he had improved a ton with his groundstrokes, but what all of us should be able to do is make our opponent pay for a short groundstroke (either hit winner or use the advantage to control the point). I guess our short groundstrokes aren't going 75 mph.

 

[atp2015]

How many deep balls in this rally?

 

[Dartagnan64]

Only player I've seen do it very consistently is Djokovic. He's a master of the deep rally ball.

 

[onehandbh]

Only player I've seen do it very consistently is Djokovic. He's a master of the deep rally ball.

I've noticed the same thing. Djokovic's depth control is amazing. Oftentimes I see opponents hit an offensive shot and put him on the run. He often chases it down and not only just gets it back, he hits a solid shot deep and crosscourt, neutralizing the opponent.

 

[geca]

there are several aspects to this -

short balls by design - the player may choose to hit short on purpose to open up angles or give the opp a different look; also, the main reason to hit deep is the ball loses about half of the speed after the bounce... by this token, you can afford to hit short on slick surfaces; but if you are short on clay or slow hard, you are in trouble.. so the player's target may vary from surface to surface. also - when the condition is windy, the pros will aim more conservatively, resulting in many short balls in the middle of the court.

short balls by occurrence - if you aim 2 feet inside the baseline but miss the sweet spot by 2 strings, the ball will be 3 feet short of target... miss by 4 strings, then probably 8-10 ft short of target.

 

[atp2015]

Unless there's a directional change, the pros typically hit deep balls in rally. A short ball in a cross court rally gets a winner or a very good offensive approach as the reply (both ATP and high level rec tennis). I'm not a high level rec player, but I'm on the attack on anything short within the horse shoe around T. The only exception is deep in 3rd set when I'm all but exhausted.

 

[ByeByePoly]

How many deep balls in this rally?

Awesome point ... Monfils is really good for the game. Actually the video is good example of my observation. I didn't say (or at least didn't mean to ... perhaps "much" was a bad choice of words in the title) that they never hit near the baseline. I am trying to make the point that they don't try and remain in that "deep near the baseline" range during points. They hit some there, and then some much shorter. Way to many shots to count for me in that rally, but I bet if you counted how many hit within 5 ft, and counted the rest, it would make my point.

Great point ... I am going to watch that again.

 

[ByeByePoly]

Unless there's a directional change, the pros typically hit deep balls in rally. A short ball in a cross court rally gets a winner or a very good offensive approach as the reply (both ATP and high level rec tennis). I'm not a high level rec player, but I'm on the attack on anything short within the horse shoe around T. The only exception is deep in 3rd set when I'm all but exhausted.

Unless there's a directional change, the pros typically hit deep balls in rally.

We need metrics for "typically"

50%+ ?
90%+ ?

Watch some pro matches with this in mind and see what you think. I have been watching a lot since this weekend, and no match has anyone constantly hitting in the 5ft range.

 

[Deleted member 120290]

I can assure you that these pros can hit deep all day against the 3.5 - 4.5 that we play against. Against Djokovic, not so much.

 

[ByeByePoly]

I can assure you that these pros can hit deep all day against the 3.5 - 4.5 that we play against. Against Djokovic, not so much.

You know I'm not saying "they can't hit deep" right? It's just an observation about the percentage of shots they choose to hit deep ... I thought it was interesting. Anyone who watches matches on TV I guess should know this, because they often show the shot distribution graphic.

I like MethodTennis' observation above ... a Jack Sock FH at the service line is a problem without the depth. What is LTA ... Lawn Tennis Association?

 

[ByeByePoly]

Here is a thought to throw into the mix:

No matter what level we play, we will have these shots:

1) just get it back ... opponent has us in trouble
2) neutral ball ... not trying to create offense ... but avoiding hitting a shot that can be attacked
3) offense ... going for winner, slicing to backhand and coming in ... yada yada yada.

If you consider #1, it's really hard to put a pro "in trouble" with just depth. Every now and then, you will see a pro get caught because the ball hits the line ... or very close ... when they are playing right up on the baseline. When I hit a good FH with good topspin near the baseline ... I have heard my opponent say "wow ... that ate me up". Pros don't get "ate up" ... they need more than just "keep it deep".

 

[Tight Lines]

Watch where Monfils and Simon are standing. Even though the balls are landing near the service lines, they are both standing behind the baseline. That's the key in my view.

At the club level though, a short ball to the service line will not force the opponent behind the baseline.

 

[Nellie]

personally, I think that aiming for the back 3-4 feet of court has a pretty low margin for error. I aim for 4 feet over the net on my normal rally ball (1-2 feet if I am going for a bigger shot), and this reliably lands between the baseline and service line

 

[atp2015]

Unless there's a directional change, the pros typically hit deep balls in rally.

We need metrics for "typically"

50%+ ?
90%+ ?

Watch some pro matches with this in mind and see what you think. I have been watching a lot since this weekend, and no match has anyone constantly hitting in the 5ft range.

short with pace and spin is not something one can attack. When someone says attack the short ball, it's obvious they are talking about short with not much pace/spin (balls which sit up in the hitting zone)
If we are talking about harmless short balls, it's 100+.

 

[ByeByePoly]

Watch where Monfils and Simon are standing. Even though the balls are landing near the service lines, they are both standing behind the baseline. That's the key in my view.

At the club level though, a short ball to the service line will not force the opponent behind the baseline.

Yes ... and even on balls they could attack, they are calculating the odds against the quality of passing shot at this level. A good slice to the backhand at our level gets us hardware ... at their level they get to wave at the DTL winner.

 

[tennis_balla]

The ball doesn't always have to be hit close to the baseline, however like one poster above pointed out both Monfils and Simon in that video are standing behind the baseline. The reason for this, besides the speed at which the ball is hit which club players don't reach, is the fact that the ball is still rising as it crosses the baseline and this is the key.

 

[Power Player]

You don't have to hit deep if you can generate heavy enough spin to keep the ball kicking up past the baseline. Some do anyway. Stan and Djokovic hit quite deep very often. It takes time away from the opponent. On the women's side, a lot of them hit deep. Madison Keys, Serena, Maria S, to name a few.

I see no downsides to hitting deep at rec level unless you are missing often and costing yourself matches.

 

[morten]

Another decline in tennis compared to before . Then you were rewarded for hitting deep. Now the ball just bounce up slow anyway, may ass well go for hard brainless shots.

 

[sureshs]

The incoming ball has lots of side spin and top spin which needs to be counteracted at the pro level, so linear energy will be lower.

 

[tlm]

Here is a match shot chart which proves the pro players do not hit many shots close to the baseline. The idea that pro players always hit deep is a myth that does not die for some reason. This is a chart of delpo who hits as deep if not deeper than most pro's do.

They do not foolishly aim close to the baseline and make a lot of UE long like many amateurs do. Oscar Wegner pointed this out in his instruction, he said that rec players being told to hit deep is a big mistake and just leads to many errors.

But a player does need to hit the ball with enough power and spin so that it carries through the court even though it may land halfway between the service line and baseline. Plus as 5263 has pointed out it is better to go for angles as opposed to depth, and he also pointed out that if you don't go for to much depth you can actually hit the ball harder because no worry of hitting long.

I know many will argue and not agree but just find more actual match shot charts like the one i show and it proves that they do not hit many shots close to the baseline.

<img src='https://tse4.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.M0e87040c0bd5ba007355f6277be84f7fo0&pid=15.1&P=0&w=300&h=300' style='width:292.25827423168px;height:163px;margin-top:0px;margin-left:0px;position:absolute;left:0;top:0' alt=''/>

 

[Limpinhitter]

Yeah Lawn Tennis Association, brittish governing body for tennis like the USTA

The USTA was previously the USLTA.

 

[SystemicAnomaly]

The USTA was previously the USLTA.

 

[oble]

But a player does need to hit the ball with enough power and spin so that it carries through the court even though it may land halfway between the service line and baseline. Plus as 5263 has pointed out it is better to go for angles as opposed to depth, and he also pointed out that if you don't go for to much depth you can actually hit the ball harder because no worry of hitting long.

IMO this is important. Without enough speed and spin (and angle), a ball that lands on or short of the service line tend to give opponents the chance to step in and dictate the rally because our shots don't penetrate the court like pros' shots do. Even a flatter ball striker like Delpo hits with quite a bit more spin than a lot of us can achieve. I'd say being able to land the groundstroke in the middle 1/3 of no man's land consistently with some decent pace is pretty good depth for rec players.

 

[Dragy]

You don't want a slow ball land short, that's true. If your rally ball is that weak, depth is your only defence from being punished right away.
You don't want either your hard shots to miss a lot. That is why you put nice spin on your hard penetrating rally ball and aim with good margin against both the net and baseline. If you balance all this correctly your short miss will not hit the net and still be not easily attackable due to pace and kick from topspin, while your long miss will likely land still inside baseline and be very uncomfortable for your opponent. So, hit 5 rally balls crosscourt with pace and spin, one might be deep and pacy giving you opportunity to press on.
Flat deep hitters among amateurs are generally more exposed to net/long errors with their lower margins. They might still be good enough to support consistency with their deep strokes, but those who are not that good would likely hold on their cuts, slowing down, which lowers spin rates, makes them hit even slower, etcetcetc...

Things change with strokes from inside the court, high balls - same 70-80% pace is very tough for opponent due to lesser react time; targets are closer; that's the time to put it deeper, moreover, it's very natural, while hitting service line from inside the court (like sharp angle putaways) requirs additional effort - lower net clearance, higher RPM.

 

[Limpinhitter]

It wasn't THAT long ago that it changed from the USLTA. Maybe the 80's.

 

[tlm]

IMO this is important. Without enough speed and spin (and angle), a ball that lands on or short of the service line tend to give opponents the chance to step in and dictate the rally because our shots don't penetrate the court like pros' shots do. Even a flatter ball striker like Delpo hits with quite a bit more spin than a lot of us can achieve. I'd say being able to land the groundstroke in the middle 1/3 of no man's land consistently with some decent pace is pretty good depth for rec players.

Yes a player has to have some decent pace and spin on the ball if shots are not real deep.

 

[SystemicAnomaly]

It wasn't THAT long ago that it changed from the USLTA. Maybe the 80's.

According to Wikipedia and the USTA, "Lawn" was officially dropped from the name in 1975. However, I recall the name, USLTA, lingering for quite a few years after that -- perhaps into the 80s as you suggest.

https://www.usta.com/Archive/News/Community-Tennis/Volunteers/95424_USTA_History/

 

[sureshs]

Watch where Monfils and Simon are standing. Even though the balls are landing near the service lines, they are both standing behind the baseline. That's the key in my view.

There were also many deep balls in the rally. How do you know it was not those that were preventing the player from moving forward?

 

[Deleted member 23235]

In a recent discussion with NYTA, the topic of baseline rally depth came up. This was in the context of forcing an opponent into weaker replies, and in my mind, pinning them deep. So say at 4.0 - 4.5 ish singles, maybe 3-4ft from baseline was a good margin for error target.

I watched a lot of pro tennis over the last couple of days ... both WTA and ATP, and I started watching for how many neutral (not stretched on the run) strokes hit within 5ft or so of the baseline. Not many. I watched a 23 stroke rally between Kuznetsova and Svitolina where 1 ball landed within 5 ft. Obviously in the pro singles game "pinning them deep" has very little use. Many rally balls hit the service line ... or closer to service line than the baseline. The time they go closer to lines in a rally is when they go for opening up the court with a severe angle (some of these not much past service line).

My take is in the pro singles game, the deep ball is just part of the variety of shots ... angles, short, slice, deep. I guess with the pace of shot, even pros can't automatically take advantage of a rally ball hit on their service line. Here was an interesting occurence which showed there is not much need to risk going too close to lines. Cibulkova served a ball to Kerber. Cibulkova was on the T. Kerber's return hit 5 ft from the baseline, and halfway between the T and the sideline. Clean winner without Cibulkova taking a step... absolutely no reason to risk going closer to the line.

Now ... does that have anything to do with our games ... probably not. I can remember telling a friend he had improved a ton with his groundstrokes, but what all of us should be able to do is make our opponent pay for a short groundstroke (either hit winner or use the advantage to control the point). I guess our short groundstrokes aren't going 75 mph.

Just to clarify, I *AIM* deep (say 3-4ft from the baseline).

Which gives me a large margin because:
a) all most shots are hit with topspin
b) when I mishit, my shots tend to land shorter
c) when i'm tight, my shots tend to land shorter
d) when not in an ideal position (eg. weight moving forward, etc..) my shots tend to land shorter

I'm happy with my performance if none of my points were lost hitting the net (*MUCH* rather miss long than miss short - missing long is a much easier problem to solve (ie. more topspin!), than missing into the net).

When I'm *ON* (or my opponent is giving my balls in my comfort zone) my shots will land deep, and it's this deep ball that will usually:
a) neutralize an attack
b) solicit a short ball i can attack

typically i "aim" 3-4ft from the baseline, just by elevating how high over the net i'm hitting.

Folks who don't subscribe to this philosophy, and insist on aiming at the service line/close to the net, are typically folks that don't have good topspin technique... so of course a flat or slice ball, must be aimed short (because nothing (topspin!) is bringing it back down into the court).

While the pros are not always hitting deep, if you look at how points are being constructed, short balls are usually being earned, because the previous shot was hit deep (and away).

I played a former Davis cupper in an Open Tourney once... smoked me handily, without much effort. The biggest thing he did was just keep the ball 2-3ft from the baseline (consistently) and waited for me to hit a short ball, that allowed him to initiate his attack.

 

[Robert F]

I've noticed this too that plenty of the top pros land their groundstrokes just past the service line. As others have mentioned, it has pace, spin and penetrates beyond the baseline. So why go for broke when in a pressured rally and add depth that might make you lose the point? I believe when the pros struggle to correct they hit harder, with more spin but hit inside the court more.

If we identify the qualities of pace, spin, depth and penetration, then an offensive shot will have 3 if not 4 of those qualities. So a good pro rally ball can be heavy in pace, spin and penetration and lack the rec depth many are told to go for. If a shot only has 2 of those qualities, chances are the opponent will take advantage of it.

Hence, in the pro game, depth alone won't be a winning strategy. With mishits, or defensive shots, you can see how depth alone is not good enough. We've seen plenty of guys drive outrageous winners from the baseline when a ball is just lofted back too them, but deep.

My guess is that guys who hit with depth but not a lot of spin and pace will lose out to pros with their short landing, but fast, heavy penetrating groundstrokes.

I think Federer really mastered that strategy and then would finish off a point that had the added depth.

Djokovic has now added the depth to the spin/pace and penetration.

 

[Deleted member 23235]

"Hitting deep" doesnt' really fully capture the strategy... this drill probably encompasses what you're really trying to do, better.. .

just note that if you hit "short" and towards the side line, it's usually easier to execute if the opposing players hits "short" in the circle...
but if opponent hits "deep" down the middle (past the circle), it's really difficult to hit short with a good angle (pulling them off the court).

[note] the part of circle near the baseline is 3-4ft from the baseline

[note2] imo the value that good instructors provide is being able to provide context to "simple tips" like this. sometimes it's tough to take a take a tip in isolation without understanding the framework/context from which the tip is coming from.

 

[ByeByePoly]

Just to clarify, I *AIM* deep (say 3-4ft from the baseline).

Which gives me a large margin because:
a) all most shots are hit with topspin
b) when I mishit, my shots tend to land shorter
c) when i'm tight, my shots tend to land shorter
d) when not in an ideal position (eg. weight moving forward, etc..) my shots tend to land shorter

I'm happy with my performance if none of my points were lost hitting the net (*MUCH* rather miss long than miss short - missing long is a much easier problem to solve (ie. more topspin!), than missing into the net).

When I'm *ON* (or my opponent is giving my balls in my comfort zone) my shots will land deep, and it's this deep ball that will usually:
a) neutralize an attack
b) solicit a short ball i can attack

typically i "aim" 3-4ft from the baseline, just by elevating how high over the net i'm hitting.

Folks who don't subscribe to this philosophy, and insist on aiming at the service line/close to the net, are typically folks that don't have good topspin technique... so of course a flat or slice ball, must be aimed short (because nothing (topspin!) is bringing it back down into the court).

While the pros are not always hitting deep, if you look at how points are being constructed, short balls are usually being earned, because the previous shot was hit deep (and away).

I played a former Davis cupper in an Open Tourney once... smoked me handily, without much effort. The biggest thing he did was just keep the ball 2-3ft from the baseline (consistently) and waited for me to hit a short ball, that allowed him to initiate his attack.

Just to clarify, I *AIM* deep (say 3-4ft from the baseline).

Which gives me a large margin because:
a) all most shots are hit with topspin
b) when I mishit, my shots tend to land shorter
c) when i'm tight, my shots tend to land shorter
d) when not in an ideal position (eg. weight moving forward, etc..) my shots tend to land shorter

I'm happy with my performance if none of my points were lost hitting the net (*MUCH* rather miss long than miss short - missing long is a much easier problem to solve (ie. more topspin!), than missing into the net).

When I'm *ON* (or my opponent is giving my balls in my comfort zone) my shots will land deep, and it's this deep ball that will usually:
a) neutralize an attack
b) solicit a short ball i can attack

typically i "aim" 3-4ft from the baseline, just by elevating how high over the net i'm hitting.

Folks who don't subscribe to this philosophy, and insist on aiming at the service line/close to the net, are typically folks that don't have good topspin technique... so of course a flat or slice ball, must be aimed short (because nothing (topspin!) is bringing it back down into the court).

While the pros are not always hitting deep, if you look at how points are being constructed, short balls are usually being earned, because the previous shot was hit deep (and away).

I played a former Davis cupper in an Open Tourney once... smoked me handily, without much effort. The biggest thing he did was just keep the ball 2-3ft from the baseline (consistently) and waited for me to hit a short ball, that allowed him to initiate his attack.

Just to clarify, I *AIM* deep (say 3-4ft from the baseline).

Which gives me a large margin because:
a) all most shots are hit with topspin
b) when I mishit, my shots tend to land shorter
c) when i'm tight, my shots tend to land shorter
d) when not in an ideal position (eg. weight moving forward, etc..) my shots tend to land shorter

I'm happy with my performance if none of my points were lost hitting the net (*MUCH* rather miss long than miss short - missing long is a much easier problem to solve (ie. more topspin!), than missing into the net).

When I'm *ON* (or my opponent is giving my balls in my comfort zone) my shots will land deep, and it's this deep ball that will usually:
a) neutralize an attack
b) solicit a short ball i can attack

typically i "aim" 3-4ft from the baseline, just by elevating how high over the net i'm hitting.

Folks who don't subscribe to this philosophy, and insist on aiming at the service line/close to the net, are typically folks that don't have good topspin technique... so of course a flat or slice ball, must be aimed short (because nothing (topspin!) is bringing it back down into the court).

While the pros are not always hitting deep, if you look at how points are being constructed, short balls are usually being earned, because the previous shot was hit deep (and away).

I played a former Davis cupper in an Open Tourney once... smoked me handily, without much effort. The biggest thing he did was just keep the ball 2-3ft from the baseline (consistently) and waited for me to hit a short ball, that allowed him to initiate his attack.

I name-dropped you for more TT street cred.

 

[Deleted member 23235]

I name-dropped you for more TT street cred.

lol, there are far smarter/knowledgeable folks on here to name drop for TT street cred

 

[ByeByePoly]

"Hitting deep" doesnt' really fully capture the strategy... this drill probably encompasses what you're really trying to do, better.. .

just note that if you hit "short" and towards the side line, it's usually easier to execute if the opposing players hits "short" in the circle...
but if opponent hits "deep" down the middle (past the circle), it's really difficult to hit short with a good angle (pulling them off the court).

[note] the part of circle near the baseline is 3-4ft from the baseline

[note2] imo the value that good instructors provide is being able to provide context to "simple tips" like this. sometimes it's tough to take a take a tip in isolation without understanding the framework/context from which the tip is coming from.

Great teaching aid/concept for "control the point" ... but Kirby was so beautiful it was hard for me to concentrate.

In this video Kirby basically described my singles game. I have never thought of it as avoiding "the circle" ... my game just evolved to where I seldom hit a rally ball down the middle (not talking about cross court where ball goes over center of net). Actually, if you took that circle and extended it all the way to the baseline it would better match my tournament years. I hit a lot of "flatter" dtl approaches (particularly slice bh dtl) so my mindset was about sides/corners and keeping opponent moving ... particularly as they attempted passing shots. If you lived off of chip and charge ... DTL approach was your friend. Now flash forward, now have more FH topspin ... and can't play the constant net game ... so I will hit "some/more" down the middle ... but still not much.

I will repeat something I said before which is related to "avoid the circle" ... or "control the point". Talking about amateur tennis here. Although I totally agree with margin for error percentages, I know from painful experience that a player can be quite consistent and lethal with a flat ball.

Exhibit ByeByePoly humility lesson (one of many ... beauty of tennis is a humility lesson is always waiting around the corner):

I played my entire first year of 4.5 singles without winning a match. I kept drawing top seeds ... some good matches ... a few 3 setters ... but not one first round win for the summer. We are talking about my city, and driving to surrounding area tournaments. By the start of the second year of 4.5 tournaments, I had committed to "live at the net" ... kick serve and come in ... first and second serve, chip and charge ... do or die. It worked... actually really well ... had some 1st place hardware to my name by the end the year. (Another lesson here about what net pressure can do to opponents in amateur tennis ... maybe a different post). So I'm quite proud of myself... I had "arrived" ... deserved "respect". The following opponent didn't get the memo.

Introducing ... SP (senior player) ... 45ish ... rated in top 5 in state in 45s. I'm playing singles for 4.5 USTA team ... and I am playing the line against SP. We all know SP ... great guy ... we all know he is tough as hell ... in the "45s" ... but that's 45s. All of us competing in the 4.5s have watched his matches... many finals ... and wow ... for a guy without much pace or spin, he never misses. Lot's of respect ... but hey, he wouldn't be able to stand up to the 4.5s. So we start the match ... I come in on my usual kicker ... and he keeps passing me. Not a bit of spin... no pace ... but so close over the net and dtl that I just can't cover it (I'm fast in this story ... 30 years ago). OK ... fine ... I'm younger than this guy, I can run all day ... I will take him out from the baseline. I'm used to my opponents doing most of the running at this point ... but that ain't going on in this match. Mr (now) SP ... is hitting that flat ... barely over the net no pace POS from sideline to sideline ... many are actually hitting the line. I'm getting to them ... but I can't get this painful pattern stopped ... and by the second set ... I'm DONE.

Sometimes the laws of tennis (pace, spin, margin for error) are WRONG.

 

[ByeByePoly]

lol, there are far smarter/knowledgeable folks on here to name drop for TT street cred

NYTA street cred is my high-water mark. If I go any higher ... there is too much talk about anatomy, pronating, supinating, flipping, doorknobs ... I need a teacher that gives me Kirby videos. Please ... more Kirby.

 

[Limpinhitter]

According to Wikipedia and the USTA, "Lawn" was officially dropped from the name in 1975. However, I recall the name, USLTA, lingering for quite a few years after that -- perhaps into the 80s as you suggest.

https://www.usta.com/Archive/News/Community-Tennis/Volunteers/95424_USTA_History/

Can that be right? Oy! Time passes much too quickly.

 

[TennisCJC]

This topic has been discussed before. Yes, pros hit a fair number of rally balls that don't carry 1/2 way between service line and base line but depth is still very very important. Think of it from the perspective of how your opponent hits to you. Would you rather have their rally ball land nearer to your baseline or to your service line? Let's take wide angles out of the discussion because you do want to hit these shorter. And, let's assume decent pace on the rally ball. I don't know about you but I would much much rather my opponents ball land closer to the service line than my baseline. It makes my life much easier when their shot lands near my service line because I have more time, usually can hit it at the apex instead of on the rise, and I usually can hit an aggressive shot with low risk. I try to carry beyond the 1/2 way point between the service line and baseline before my rally ball bounces.

 

[jga111]

Ball depth is important.

Ball penetration is even more important - which the stats do not really illustrate. There is nothing wrong with a ball landing on the service line if it has spin and kick to zip past the baseline. There is everything wrong with a ball landing deep that sits up for a nice kinetic-chained aggressive hit.

 

[Dragy]

Would you rather have their rally ball land nearer to your baseline or to your service line?

Let's not take important things out of equation: I'd be ok with my opponent trying to hit the baseline and missing every second shot. I'd be ok with my opponent taking pace off of his strokes to land them deep. I'd be ok with him forgetting angles. If it is just deep, I'd be ok stepping another foot back and taking a full cut to produce fast, high-RPM, high margin over the net stroke to his backhand side.

Depth is good, but not as good to loose consistency, pace or placement/angles. If you can manage to supprort all of this with depth on rally ball vs your peer in neutral situation - good for you.

Funny thing, I produce enough deep balls, but concentrating on pace with spin to control, and direction. While my "relaxed" full storke might spin down to just behind the service line, once I get to the ball comfortably and hit with interest, the ball will go fatser and deeper. So my pick will be - tune in some good strokes, with porper mechanics, full swing, high RHS, and such strokes will give you enough pace to not worry about conciously landing them deep. Support directional control, don't feed your opponent's weapon - and you'll be good.

 

[marian10]

i wonder if it's a tactical choice or a consequence of match stakes. Do coaches still train pros for hardcore depth during practice?

(imo club players are not concerned, depth is prime at our levels)

 

[Deleted member 23235]

i wonder if it's a tactical choice or a consequence of match stakes. Do coaches still train pros for hardcore depth during practice?

(imo club players are not concerned, depth is prime at our levels)

imo, club players (<4.0) do not hit with consistent topspin, so hitting deep is a liability (ie. relying on gravity to keep the ball in).
when you can effectively stroke a ball with topspin (consistently), it's actually hard(er) to hit long,... so aiming deep ends up being a minimum, because more likely your shot will land shorter than expected (mishit, not 100% force, tight, etc...).

if you're still mishitting the ball regularly, not hitting topspin, etc... then "aiming deep" might need to more errors because you're technique has not yet been solidified (imo it's still a "better" mistake to hit (just) long, because it forces you to figure out how to hit the same trajectory, but with more topspin),... but instead most folks will, instead of improving their topspin technique, will keep their flat technique, and aim closer to the net to keep the ball in.

 

[ByeByePoly]

imo, club players (<4.0) do not hit with consistent topspin, so hitting deep is a liability (ie. relying on gravity to keep the ball in).
when you can effectively stroke a ball with topspin (consistently), it's actually hard(er) to hit long,... so aiming deep ends up being a minimum, because more likely your shot will land shorter than expected (mishit, not 100% force, tight, etc...).

if you're still mishitting the ball regularly, not hitting topspin, etc... then "aiming deep" might need to more errors because you're technique has not yet been solidified (imo it's still a "better" mistake to hit (just) long, because it forces you to figure out how to hit the same trajectory, but with more topspin),... but instead most folks will, instead of improving their topspin technique, will keep their flat technique, and aim closer to the net to keep the ball in.

Just hit 1 hour of drilling with a friend, and barely noticed any TE. Yah!!! That said, didn't try serving. 4-5 months ... sucks ... don't get TE.

I think one thing to consider in baseline targeting in our games is the type of topspin we use. I primarily use "just enough" topspin to keep a ball from sailing past baseline. I have to hit flatter than the pro game for decent pace. So for me ... as deep as possible using a little topspin for my margin of error. That's variable outside ... if you are playing with the wind ... more top and can't aim as close to baseline.

This would be a different calculation for a club player that hits heavier top on most groundstrokes ... would not be aiming as close to the baseline like you said.

I have been saying for a while (think you implied this also) ... if we have a baseline target contest, most club players will be more accurate with their flatter stroke. I'm talking about laying down targets near baseline ... say both corners and one near the middle ... and try and hit them with flatter stroke vs your heavy topspin stroke. I know for me ... if rent $ is riding on it ... I'm hitting a 1hbh slice.

 

[Deleted member 23235]

... if rent $ is riding on it ... I'm hitting a 1hbh slice.

sadly my slice is not that accurate... working on it though

inspired by delpo to make it consistent...

 

[ByeByePoly]

sadly my slice is not that accurate... working on it though

inspired by delpo to make it consistent...

Love watching Delpo ... watching him and Nishikori right now (recorded). I would say Delpo's FH and Wawrinka's BH are the most entertaining strokes to watch. Nishikori can rope his FH also ...

 

[kiteboard]

If I had sampras serve, wawrinkas bh, and delpos fh, not many guys would win any games.

 

[mad dog1]

If I had sampras serve, wawrinkas bh, and delpos fh, not many guys would win any games.

I'll take djoker's court coverage and fed's footwork over those strokes. Those strokes don't mean much if you can't get to the right place in time.

 

[goran_ace]

Ball depth is important.

Ball penetration is even more important - which the stats do not really illustrate. There is nothing wrong with a ball landing on the service line if it has spin and kick to zip past the baseline. There is everything wrong with a ball landing deep that sits up for a nice kinetic-chained aggressive hit.

Yes. This. It's not so much where the ball lands but where your opponent is able to hit the next shot. Generally the deeper the shot the deeper you push your opponent back but some people's shots are heavier and carry through the the court more or sometimes spin gets you a better angle take them wider.

 

[xFullCourtTenniSx]

I feel like halfway into this thread, deep went from being past the service line to within 4 feet of the baseline.

The problem I see with hitting deep beyond maybe the 5.5 or 6.0 level is that players at this level can easily use that extra power and use it to attack you with unless you put them on the run. 5.0 players hit every damn shot deep, so it obviously isn't an inherently bad thing to do. If you look at that video, a good chunk of the harder hit shots were hit off of the deeper balls. It's the same concept with throwing hard serves and fastballs. If it's right in their strikezone, you're going to get burned for it. When the ball lands shorter, especially if they don't feel comfortable coming forward because 1) you're comfortably recovered or 2) they don't want to play the net off of anything but a free ball, then hitting shorter is safe and it makes them hit up, because by the time the ball gets to them the ball is dropping, which means they need to lift the ball over the net. If the ball is on the rise, they can just hit through it because the deflection angle of the ball will be upward. This means more work, more potential ball speed, and most of the available racket head speed, is spent getting the ball over the net and applying the topspin to keep it in the court rather than blowing it into a corner at 90 mph. Think about it. You can only swing so fast. If the racket is going more up than forward, you lose ball speed. That's why flat shots are faster than topspin shots. It's not because the topspin slows it down, it's because your available racket head speed was spent generating spin rather than pace. This is why I struggled with hitting balls after they dropped for a short while after almost exclusively hitting my shots on the rise. When hitting on the rise, I just needed enough spin to drop the ball back down, and I didn't need to spend much energy to lift the ball. When I let the ball drop, I had to spend more energy lifting the ball over the net as opposed to hitting it through the court. This is also part of why when you get a short ball, you should take it as early as possible. It's simply much more beneficial to take it on the rise than when it drops. Yes, if you let it drop, you have the option of holding the ball, but you're also going to hit a weaker shot. Depending on the shot, the difference in ball speed might not actually be that much (usually the balls that land short and don't bounce as high), but the amount of time you take away from your opponent more than makes up for it in these situations. In every other situation, the difference in ball speed is quite noticeable.

It's comparable to table tennis. The serve and first several shots thereafter are all very short slices. The instant a ball pops up or goes deep is when the players start attacking because that's the only time they can take a full swing at the ball. Here, it's more that you have more pace to work with and a better deflection angle which eliminates the need to lift the ball over the net.

 

[ByeByePoly]

sadly my slice is not that accurate... working on it though

inspired by delpo to make it consistent...

I said my slice shot is my most accurate ... maybe it is bad, but just better than other "worse" strokes.

 

[geca]

most are still missing the point - most short balls hit by pros are accidents - contacts made off center.

tennis the game itself is not a precision sport... nobody hits on a dime.. ever seen pros do baseline drills with a can of balls as target? once I saw Murray doing this drill... it took him 5 minutes of hitting to knock the can down.... the whole time he 'sprayed' within 5 feet radius around the target.

that was just a rally drill when he was mostly standing still.

in a match the players are running around... it's even more difficult to put the ball on the exact target.

using the drill above, if the radius is 5 feet, and if he doesn't want any of these balls to go long, that means in a real match his target (an imaginary can of balls) would be 5 feet inside the lines.... so you get a landing pattern with a diameter of 10 feet.... which is fairly close to what you observe in real pro matches.

so there you have it.