Pros don't hit deep near baseline that much

tlm

G.O.A.T.
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.

The depth on their shots is not an accident they are hitting the ball pretty close to the depth they want the majority of the time.
 

geca

Semi-Pro
The depth on their shots is not an accident they are hitting the ball pretty close to the depth they want the majority of the time.

'majority' being the key word.. i modified my post a bit, which explains a bit more why the landing pattern is the way it is.

pros do this for a living, so they know how big the 'spray radius' is, and where the safe target should be.

I am actually with you... they do aim deep, say 5 feet inside the lines, it's just people here ignore the reality.... if you expect all the balls to be concentrated withing inches of the target you'd be disappointed lol.... the intrinsic inaccuracy of the game itself determines that the landing pattern is what it is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TCF

tlm

G.O.A.T.
'majority' being the key word.. i modified my post a bit, which explains a bit more why the landing pattern is the way it is.

pros do this for a living, so they know how big the 'spray radius' is, and where the safe target should be.

I am actually with you... they do aim deep, say 5 feet inside the lines, it's just people here ignore the reality.... if you expect all the balls to be concentrated withing inches of the target you'd be disappointed lol.... the intrinsic inaccuracy of the game itself determines that the landing pattern is what it is.

I agree even they can't be that precise, so I think you are right they allow for the spray radius.
 

beltsman

G.O.A.T.
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.

That's because of his racquet. No joke.
 

ByeByePoly

G.O.A.T.
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.

Good post ... this turned into the discussion I had hoped. IMO ... the most important takeaway for singles strategy (all levels) is that the primary goal is gaining and maintaining the advantage. Hitting deep, pace, spin, out of strike zone (liked NYTA Kirby circle video) ... are all situational tactics to achieve gaining advantage. We play an opponent, and all opponents are different. Percentages dictate hitting your safest shot that bothers (wins against) your opponent. Like you said, upper level players love the fast ball down the middle ... you look for advantage elsewhere.

Also, this tactics discussion is difficult because most shots are neutral (keep ball in play without giving sitter to opponent). That isn't always easy to put into words. In my tournament days, there was a lot of subconscious calculations going on ... 1) this guy will beat me if I stay on the baseline 2) this guy really hates that off-pace slice 3) watch out ... net pressure doesn't bother this guy ... matters what approach you come in on.

We all do these calculations in tournament play. You know when you have to redline tactics like depth to win, and other opponents where it's more important to avoid ue.

So ... 1) no UEs ... and 2) don't give opponent sitters. :)
 

ByeByePoly

G.O.A.T.
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.

Geca ... you saved yourself with "spray radius" ... I like that term. But the TT gods gave you an edit button for your sentence:

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

Speaking as someone that spends a lot of time with the edit button ... fyi. :)

That said, it is actually fascinating how often pros hit outside of the sweetspot. With the slow motion HD playback on matches on TV, it is amazing where the ball hits in the stringbed sometimes. You really have to marvel at racquet technology these days. If you want to hit in the center every swing, give up topspin. :)
 

marian10

Rookie
can't it be that shorter, fast, aggressive topspin shots in the open court are actually equally hard to chase and very secure?
 

xFullCourtTenniSx

Hall of Fame
can't it be that shorter, fast, aggressive topspin shots in the open court are actually equally hard to chase and very secure?

No, not by a longshot. The ball loses speed drastically after the bounce. This is less extreme with topspin, but is still true. If the ball lands INSIDE the service line, it applies no pressure unless it gets them to run to the side. But in that case, the same shot hit close to the baseline could be a forced error or an outright winner.
 

5263

G.O.A.T.
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.

Now ... does that have anything to do with our games ... probably not..
You bring up a point I've been sharing for years. I have developed thru charting a ton of evidence for what you say here and some of it is in the "practice for Smarter Targets" thread. I'm convinced that a short ball must also have an added weakness to be attackable and that a well hit ball on a good shot line is fine as long as it bounces in the court. No level of depth is required.

As to rec level though....I believe this is even MORE true. Most rec players are near pitiful when it comes to attacking short balls and this is why pushers are so dreaded. Even the good rec players are not so great at attacking, so hitting short can often win more points that it loses.

In rec, just like in the pros, a well hit ball on a good shot line will rarely if ever get attack successfully, no matter where the bounce is in the court.
 
I've noticed the exact same thing. My coach says hit every ball deeper. Yet, pros don't do this.

My theory is that if a pro played against a 4.0, the pro would hit every ball deep.
But when they're playing against another pro, it's not as as easy to hit exactly as you'd prefer, like against a ball machine.

In other words, if they could, they would?
 

ByeByePoly

G.O.A.T.
I've noticed the exact same thing. My coach says hit every ball deeper. Yet, pros don't do this.

My theory is that if a pro played against a 4.0, the pro would hit every ball deep.
But when they're playing against another pro, it's not as as easy to hit exactly as you'd prefer, like against a ball machine.

In other words, if they could, they would?

"In other words, if they could, they would?"

I agree with the part about their level of competition effecting options on many shots, but not the idea they would hit deep every shot if they could. Watch a pro match ... WTA or ATP. There are countless neutral balls at the baseline where they choose to hit a more shallow ball. I think everyone is so good at that level, they are introducing variety beyond "just hit it deep".

Edit: btw ... if a pro was playing a 4.0 ... they could hit the ball anywhere they wanted to a beat the 4.0. Heck ... Nadal would beat most 4.0s left handed. :) Actually, he would probably beat them left handed with a cast on his left hand. :):):)
 
Last edited:

ByeByePoly

G.O.A.T.
You bring up a point I've been sharing for years. I have developed thru charting a ton of evidence for what you say here and some of it is in the "practice for Smarter Targets" thread. I'm convinced that a short ball must also have an added weakness to be attackable and that a well hit ball on a good shot line is fine as long as it bounces in the court. No level of depth is required.

As to rec level though....I believe this is even MORE true. Most rec players are near pitiful when it comes to attacking short balls and this is why pushers are so dreaded. Even the good rec players are not so great at attacking, so hitting short can often win more points that it loses.

In rec, just like in the pros, a well hit ball on a good shot line will rarely if ever get attack successfully, no matter where the bounce is in the court.

If you were making a list of skills that seperate singles levels (say men 4.0 vs 4.5) ... taking advantage of the short ball would be near the top (still behind UEs). Taking "advantage" doesn't have to mean "hit a winner", but rather you win most of those points.

I will read the thread you referenced ... thanks for info.
 

xFullCourtTenniSx

Hall of Fame
I've noticed the exact same thing. My coach says hit every ball deeper. Yet, pros don't do this.

My theory is that if a pro played against a 4.0, the pro would hit every ball deep.
But when they're playing against another pro, it's not as as easy to hit exactly as you'd prefer, like against a ball machine.

In other words, if they could, they would?

If you watched the video, this definitely wasn't the case. The balls had very little on them (by pro standards) and were casually rallying for several parts. Depends on the player really. Someone like the big 4 will hit as deep as they can. Others who are less assertive will be willing to put less on the ball if they don't feel they'll be punished for it (like Simon and Monfils). Neither player wanted to take the initiative. If players are fighting for court dominance, then yes, the balls will occasionally fall short due to not hitting it well, more so with heavy topspin rallies (as I noticed Federer and Nadal hit short balls to each other while Djokovic and Federer tend to keep it deep in their rallies).
 

LeeD

Bionic Poster
Pros against 5.0's hit deep balls all the time, anytime they want.
Pros against other pros hit deep and short balls, depending on opponent.
Low 4.0 against 3.5's hit deep balls all the time.
Low 4.0 against 4.0's hit deep and short balls.
Low 4.0 against 4.5+ hit short weak balls most of the time.
 

5263

G.O.A.T.
I've noticed the exact same thing. My coach says hit every ball deeper. Yet, pros don't do this.

My theory is that if a pro played against a 4.0, the pro would hit every ball deep.
But when they're playing against another pro, it's not as as easy to hit exactly as you'd prefer, like against a ball machine.

In other words, if they could, they would?
Yes, but look how you are really making my point without realizing it. The only matches that count for much are the ones that are strongly contested and challenging. These are the ones you are training to win really. When you are way better, like a strong 4.5 vs a 4.o, sure you can hit deep....but you can do most anything really. Hitting deep is not how you are winning or the separator between you and that weaker player. Good chance you could go dropshot/ lob your way to a win as well.

So as you observe, a pro can't hit consistently deep against another tough pro, but will still not get attacked anywhere near what many will try to lead you to believe. In fact, most errors they force and winners hit tend to be a bit shorter according to the stats. This is proven time and time again.

So if most winners and most forcing balls tend to be shorter, why do most teach and train to hit real deep? Sure it works against weaker players where we can still win in many ways,.... but that is not our goal. There is no bonus point for winning with a deeper ball. Since the best balls tend to be closer to the svc line, maybe we should train to hit quality balls that land nearer to the svc line and also enjoy all the benefits that hitting shorter with quality offers to our games.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: TCF
Disagree. At my 3.5 level, hitting a deep ball often causes an unforced error. It is shocking how effective the deep ball is. It is also effective at neutralising their offense. Deep ball is a no brainer.
 

Dolgopolov85

G.O.A.T.
Disagree. At my 3.5 level, hitting a deep ball often causes an unforced error. It is shocking how effective the deep ball is. It is also effective at neutralising their offense. Deep ball is a no brainer.

The point is even if it is effective, it may also be risky (because you may end up pulling long). That is the point 5263 is also making. If you risk making too many errors by trying to hit deep, it's better to aim for a safer target which you are confident of hitting repeatedly. Maybe somewhere around 3/4 length or a tad shorter but closer to the corners rather than the middle.
 
D

Deleted member 23235

Guest
I've noticed the exact same thing. My coach says hit every ball deeper. Yet, pros don't do this.

My theory is that if a pro played against a 4.0, the pro would hit every ball deep.
But when they're playing against another pro, it's not as as easy to hit exactly as you'd prefer, like against a ball machine.

In other words, if they could, they would?
Having played an ex-Davis cupper in an open tourney, this ex-pro did hit most balls deep.
Not even alot of pace (i think i outhit him pace/spin wise), but most of his balls landed 2-3ft from the baseline, which is what ultimately led to me hitting a short ball (ie. where he was able to make contact with one or both feet inside the baseline), that he could attack and ultimately finish at the net.
 
D

Deleted member 23235

Guest
Sure, pros have plans. They may hit shallow to test an opponent, tire an opponent, and like you said, add variety.

When we go watch practice at the Miami Open you can see the levels. A top 20 WTA player may practice one session vs a former ATP guy who is pushing her just the edge of her ability. Her shots many times fall short. But that same WTA player hits the next session with a top junior girl and many more of her shots land deep.
agreed.
to add... one thing i look at when watching a match, is who is hitting off their back foot more (weight moving laterally or backward vs. forward toward the net), which usually translates to the opponent hitting deeper...
 
  • Like
Reactions: TCF

ByeByePoly

G.O.A.T.
Some great points being made on both sides. Its not all or nothing, there are various ways to win in tennis and as levels improve, you need to adapt.

When juniors are beginners, they hit short and loopy, the better kids step in and crush it. So they learn to hit deeper to keep the other player neutral. They learn to hit high topspin, fairly deep to the back hand and back other kids up. In a lower level tournament, an advanced kid just kicks up fairly deep topspin, pins the other kid to the fence and its all over. But then levels improve and they get tougher balls to hit, kids learn to hit on the rise. So they adapt again and develop a fairly deep rally ball. Then they learn to use angles. When faced with even tougher levels, they learn to rally fairly deep, then go to the "smart target" areas that 5263 talks about.

They eventually need it all, and the level of opponent determines what part of their game they can use to win.

"keep the other player neutral"

Yes ... that. If you watch pro matches, there is a lot of "neutral chess" going on. Their tactics have evolved to give them their best percent chance of winning. There is a bit of $ in pro tennis these days ... they have thought about it I think. :) If baseline bashing worked by itself ... that is what they would be doing. I think much of the time they are going for "neutral + disrupt opponents rhythm". They wait for the pro version of the "short ball" ... and then take their shot. Someone used the analogy of the strike zone in baseball. In pro baseball, if the fast pitch down the middle worked all of the time... there would not have been the curve ball, or the knuckleball.

"Neutral" is in context to the level of play also. If we had to hit Nadal's frickin ball that hit the service line all day ... it would not be neutral to us and it would not be a very long "day".
 
  • Like
Reactions: TCF

ByeByePoly

G.O.A.T.
Having played an ex-Davis cupper in an open tourney, this ex-pro did hit most balls deep.
Not even alot of pace (i think i outhit him pace/spin wise), but most of his balls landed 2-3ft from the baseline, which is what ultimately led to me hitting a short ball (ie. where he was able to make contact with one or both feet inside the baseline), that he could attack and ultimately finish at the net.

Never played an "ex-Davis cupper" ... but was taught the difference between D1 players currently playing ... and older D1 players that got older and had jobs. I had played many of the "older w/jobs versions", but got introduced to the "currently playing D1" in an open tournament. My buddy and I (both top 4.5 singles at the time ... but both very avg 4.5 doubles) got the bright idea to try open doubles because we had done well in the previous 4.5 doubles tournament. We played two guys ... current partners at D1. There is nothing more humbling than being at the net ... ready ... and never even reflexing towards the ball that just went down the center between both of us. The match did not last as long as it took for me to type this post.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LFC

geca

Semi-Pro
I think this whole discussion is pointless.

if you play enough tennis you know where the risk/reward balance point is.. if you hit short and get pounded, you will hit deeper. and vice versa, if you miss too many long, you will bring it in a bit.

not getting attacked is one thing, penetration and hurting the other guy is another.. you would if you could, to the extent that the risk/reward makes sense.
 

ByeByePoly

G.O.A.T.
I think this whole discussion is pointless.

if you play enough tennis you know where the risk/reward balance point is.. if you hit short and get pounded, you will hit deeper. and vice versa, if you miss too many long, you will bring it in a bit.

not getting attacked is one thing, penetration and hurting the other guy is another.. you would if you could, to the extent that the risk/reward makes sense.

Obviously I can't agree with the "pointless" point.... if for no other reason than OP pride :), but I like the rest of what you said. My observation was in fact about "risk/reward" in the pro game ... and asking the more specific question why that "risk/reward calculation" evolved to where they hit the neutral rally ball A LOT ... by choice (not forced) nowhere near the baseline. I like your input ... have read many of your posts. Feel free to beat me 6-0,6-0 in TT debate.
 

5263

G.O.A.T.
The point is even if it is effective, it may also be risky (because you may end up pulling long). That is the point 5263 is also making. If you risk making too many errors by trying to hit deep, it's better to aim for a safer target which you are confident of hitting repeatedly. Maybe somewhere around 3/4 length or a tad shorter but closer to the corners rather than the middle.
Well stated and not only is it better to go for a safer target you can hit repeatedly, but you can do it with a much higher level of quality to your shots. What we need to learn is that it is quality and shot direction that make shots good and that depth can sometimes makeup for a lack of quality and shot direction.
 

ByeByePoly

G.O.A.T.
I think some took my initial "observation" about pro "targeting" as a recommendation that amateur players should never target the baseline. That is not what I meant, and that is not how I play. A deep ball to the corner at our levels will always work. We are all kind of saying the same thing... it's more "situational" than a simple rule. For example, let's say Geca has a heavy topspin FH that he can safely hit near the baseline when he wants. He is playing an opponent who can handle that shot with no problems when he is set, but struggles when on the move. Well... Geca won't gain anything banging close to the baseline down the middle with this guy... but if he pushes him to the corner (say FH corner) ... now he can bang one very deep ... even in the center of the court and eat up his opponent that doesn't hit as well off the move. It's all situational ... and it's all within the range of what you are capable of without racking up UEs. That said... if Geca has that massive FH topspin, he should always know he has "additional options" a flat ball hitter does not have. Geca can dip a ball on the service line and not get hurt. Nice to have options... :)
 
Last edited:

xFullCourtTenniSx

Hall of Fame
I think this whole discussion is pointless.

if you play enough tennis you know where the risk/reward balance point is.. if you hit short and get pounded, you will hit deeper. and vice versa, if you miss too many long, you will bring it in a bit.

not getting attacked is one thing, penetration and hurting the other guy is another.. you would if you could, to the extent that the risk/reward makes sense.

Obviously not, otherwise every pro would be playing the EXACT same tennis. But they don't. Some hit flatter. Some hit with more spin. Some hit with more pace. Some hit shorter. Some hit with more depth. Some play more aggressive and try to win points. Others play long rallies until their opponent makes a large mistake. Obviously they've realized that playing primarily from the baseline is more lucrative than playing primarily at the net.
 

Qees

New User
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.

It is not about the place where the ball touches the court (as long as it touches the court). The game of tennis for level 5.0 and up is mainly about the intrinsic value of the ball trajectory. The game is all about the tactical outcome off the end of the ball trajectory in relation to the opponent.


In the beginning of a neutral rally most pro players hit with safe ball trajectories with a maximum of power. The first goal is to put pressure on your opponent and to expand that to finally gain the tempo. From that point pro players finish rallies in a dosed way in scoring patterns. That means that they use less power.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

tlm

G.O.A.T.
I think some took my initial "observation" about pro "targeting" as a recommendation that amateur players should never target the baseline. That is not what I meant, and that is not how I play. I deep ball to the corner at our levels will always work. We are all kind of saying the same thing... it's more "situational" than a simple rule. For example, let's say Geca has a heavy topspin FH that he can safely hit near the baseline when he wants. He is playing an opponent who can handle that shot with no problems when he is set, but struggles when on the move. Well... Geca won't gain anything banging close to the baseline down the middle with this guy... but if he pushes him to the corner (say FH corner) ... now he can bang one very deep ... even in the center of the court and eat up his opponent that doesn't hit as well off the move. It's all situational ... and it's all within the range of what you are capable of without racking up UEs. That said... if Geca has that massive FH topspin, he should always know he has "additional options" a flat ball hitter does not have. Geca can dip a ball on the service line and not get hurt. Nice to have options... :)

This is true to a degree, but there are very few players that can safely hit hard shots near the baseline. If trying for to much depth it automatically makes the shot less safe heavy topspin or not. I feel it is better for geca with his heavy topspin forehand to move his opponent going side to side and use more angle with moderate depth.
 

chikoo

Hall of Fame
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.

It is a strategy, like any other. if both players are rallying from baseline, giving both ample time to move and react to any response, what is gained? The audience gets entertainment. That is all. The true winners of yesteryears play deep server and volley at net. 3 shots and point is decided.

In the video posted above, the backhand slices were half court deep. Really? Why not drop it next to the net? O - that would end the point. No entertainment.
 

Dragy

Legend
It is a strategy, like any other. if both players are rallying from baseline, giving both ample time to move and react to any response, what is gained? The audience gets entertainment. That is all. The true winners of yesteryears play deep server and volley at net. 3 shots and point is decided.

In the video posted above, the backhand slices were half court deep. Really? Why not drop it next to the net? O - that would end the point. No entertainment.
Masonic lodge I smell.
 

donquijote

G.O.A.T.
'majority' being the key word.. i modified my post a bit, which explains a bit more why the landing pattern is the way it is.

pros do this for a living, so they know how big the 'spray radius' is, and where the safe target should be.

I am actually with you... they do aim deep, say 5 feet inside the lines, it's just people here ignore the reality.... if you expect all the balls to be concentrated withing inches of the target you'd be disappointed lol.... the intrinsic inaccuracy of the game itself determines that the landing pattern is what it is.

It can be very very big in some cases.
:p:D
(‿ˠ‿)
 

stringertom

Bionic Poster
It can be very very big in some cases.
:p:D
(‿ˠ‿)
It is a well known fact that Jackson Pollock adopted his spray pattern of artistic creation after visiting Chennai in the late 60's and seeing a young but already large and strong lad spraying paint on a canvas in a finger painting class held outdoors on an abandoned cow dung tennis court. Lots of pink and greens in the boy's art!:p:D
 

donquijote

G.O.A.T.
It is a well known fact that Jackson Pollock adopted his spray pattern of artistic creation after visiting Chennai in the late 60's and seeing a young but already large and strong lad spraying paint on a canvas in a finger painting class held outdoors on an abandoned cow dung tennis court. Lots of pink and greens in the boy's art!:p:D
Source of the abstract expressionist movement revealed. Though the word 'movement' conflicts with his nature.
 

chikoo

Hall of Fame
A Masonic lodge, often termed a private lodge or constituent lodge, is the basic organisational unit of Freemasonry. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masonic_lodge

They belive that Brittish Jewish Freemasons secretly affect the world guiding things and people in the way they wish.

and your take is that the players get paid for winning?
If only it were that simple. They are entertainers. There is a reason why there are so many seats in a stadium. If it were just pure competition between two, just hold it in a closed courts. will they?
 

Dragy

Legend
If it were just pure competition between two, just hold it in a closed courts.
Why? It's a competition for public to see, to honor, to amuse. Only best players get there on Grand Stand, not entertainers. Best players learn some entertainment stuff, which earns them popularity and money, but most entertainment is still through their skills.
 

chikoo

Hall of Fame
Why? It's a competition for public to see, to honor, to amuse. Only best players get there on Grand Stand, not entertainers. Best players learn some entertainment stuff, which earns them popularity and money, but most entertainment is still through their skills.

Entertainment is not just comedy.
Even Lido is entertainment.

Hence drawn out rallies like the one above is also for entertainment.
 

Robert F

Hall of Fame
If in amateur tennis most of the points are lost on errors, what would be the better fundamental strategy.

1. Try to hit balls deep about 3' or closer to the baseline. (Depth becomes the difficult component)
or
2. Hit penetrating balls just past the service line. (Pace/Penetration becomes the difficult component)

And when looking at the two strategies, what are most 4.5's and lower more likely to accomplish? I'm thinking #2.
Which would help them build their game to the next level? I think getting good and consistent with #2 allows them to build their game to #1, not the other way around.

If you can hit 4 plus balls with moderate to good pace just past the service line, you'll probably beat a lot of guys aiming for the baseline.
 
Top