Strategy Improvements for rec players

[Morch Us]

It is a waste of time at this point, since you are not really trying to understand. It is more of an argument for argument sake

First of all see the difference in terminologies.... I don't think you mean what you are saying ... since you explained your playing style before.

I need to play aggressively as to keep control of the point, protect against my opponent from taking offensive shots.

To "protect against the opponent from taking offensive shots" you don't need to play "aggressive" shots. It is all about how much of a risk your opponent is taking to play their "aggressive" shot, and are you able to not play aggressive and make this risk higher than 50% for him.

Do you see the difference in terminology?

 

[Morch Us]

In ANY match at ANY level if you see considerably higher number of winners than unforced errors, then the level of play of players differ considerably. On any balanced match you will see more unforced errors than winners, ANY style, ANY level.

 

[user92626]

The idea behind this is, FORCE your opponent to play offense. See if they can do it. Most players can't. Not without making too many UE's. What you are really trying to do here is make the opponent believe that you are just feeding him sitters and that he can easily take the offense and beat you. What you are actually doing is, making him just uncomfortable enough. He doesn't quite get his feet set under him. So he "just misses". Also, you're positioning yourself on court and showing him small windows. You're getting a lot of balls back. You're letting him know he's going to have to hit several good shots to beat your defense. And you're also able to take advantage of his poor court position at times.

Explaining this stuff doesn't quite work. Just remember, you're trying to make your opponent uncomfortable. That's job #1. And how you do it will depend on your game and his.

You're posting contradictory stuff. How do you "force" your opponent to play offense without you playing easy shots to him? (I don't you know about your opponent, but my opponent seems to only play offense when they get easy shots.)

And then, trying to make your opponent uncomfortable? WTF... make them uncomfortable by giving them easy balls? Or by giving them tough shots? What happens to your letting them play offense?

 

[user92626]

It is a waste of time at this point, since you are not really trying to understand. It is more of an argument for argument sake

First of all see the difference in terminologies.... I don't think you mean what you are saying ... since you explained your playing style before.



To "protect against the opponent from taking offensive shots" you don't need to play "aggressive" shots. It is all about how much of a risk your opponent is taking to play their "aggressive" shot, and are you able to not play aggressive and make this risk higher than 50% for him.

Referring to your statement in red. So, how? How do you do that? Don't just say "are you able to not play aggressive...". Tell me how.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

Did you watch the US Open final? Did Thiem and Zverev show different games as the match progress?


I'm leaning toward that the lower one's level is, the more "strategies" like you describe is applicable. Eg. hit to an opponent's total incompetent bh side; or do more slicing bc he cannot handle it. All "trademarks" of newbiews. LOL

Maybe higher-level players change strategy just as often; it's just that the shifts are more subtle and not so obvious like "stop hitting to his BH".

I would think they are more aware of strategy and its effect on the match than lower-level players, who sometimes don't even realize their opponent is a lefty until after the match.

 

[Morch Us]

No more free instructions

Referring to your statement in red. So, how? How do you do that? Don't just say "are you able to not play aggressive...". Tell me how.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

Let me ask you all. Do you guys miss alot of shots hitting against a ball machine? I don't. If you don't, why do you expect an average guy would miss?

There are plenty who have great form when hitting against a ball machine who crumble when faced with a live opponent who pushes. For starters, the type of ball they receive from the pusher is not what they get from the ball machine. And their movement has to be better because the incoming is not nearly as predictable.

And that's not even taking into account the pressure people put on themselves because they expect to win against the lowly pusher. I don't see that happening against a ball machine.

 

[socallefty]

I would think they are more aware of strategy and its effect on the match than lower-level players, who sometimes don't even realize their opponent is a lefty until after the match.

It is very common for my opponents to approach to my lefty FH, get passed and then say ‘Geez, I keep forgetting that you are a lefty’. Some of them have been playing singles against me 10-15 times a year for 4 or 5 years and it still happens during every match.

 

[r2473]

It is very common for my opponents to approach to my lefty FH, get passed and then say ‘Geez, I keep forgetting that you are a lefty’. Some of them have been playing singles against me 10-15 times a year for 4 or 5 years and it still happens during every match.

I'm guilty of this. I don't forget, but my muscle memory just tells me to approach to the backhand side of the court. It ain't my fault you hold the racquet in the wrong hand.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

It is a waste of time at this point, since you are not really trying to understand. It is more of an argument for argument sake

After exchanging 3 or 4 posts with him on most topics, that's usually the conclusion I reach.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

I'm guilty of this. I don't forget, but my muscle memory just tells me to approach to the backhand side of the court. It ain't my fault you hold the racquet in the wrong hand.

There's part of your problem right there: don't think of it as the BH side. Think of it as the Ad side. The former assumes handedness; the latter does not.

 

[user92626]

There are plenty who have great form when hitting against a ball machine who crumble when faced with a live opponent who pushes. For starters, the type of ball they receive from the pusher is not what they get from the ball machine. And their movement has to be better because the incoming is not nearly as predictable.

And that's not even taking into account the pressure people put on themselves because they expect to win against the lowly pusher. I don't see that happening against a ball machine.

Re the red,

just in case you failed to see that my point was describing the similar easiness / feeling between a ball machine and pushing that many people see, my friend being one, and NOT necessarily assert that a ball machine is the same as a live opponent.

This board is notorious about mischaracterizing or miscomprehending posts. LOL.

 

[sredna42]

FWIW if it helps anyone

something is busted about my on court awareness, my focus drifts internally very easily, I find it extremely hard to be located in the present for every stroke of every point. When I can tennis seems orders of magnitude easier, so despite being hard to measure/quantify, it is a big one.

I went up in level as well (the observations of others not myself) after I had a few long casual hitting sessions, just no one hitting winners, and a 75% pace (CC forehands, CC backhands, halfcourt, etc) the slowed down speed helped me groove my strokes and find them, so they became far more trustworthy, and instantly I was constructing points heaps better and hitting many winners.

I agree with jollyroger 10000% about his "shot tolerance white elephant in the living room" thread.

 

[user92626]

No more free instructions

After exchanging 3 or 4 posts with him on most topics, that's usually the conclusion I reach.

S&V,
That's because of the kind of stupidity that I run into, quoted above for you ^^^.

You guys tend to post contradicting or cop out or misleading craps. I quoted every post clearly. Learn to read and debate.

 

[pencilcheck]

Might be useful:

 

[ubercat]

Well if I am playing a higher level player I LL never see their B game. They can blow me away with their rally ball. I ve seen what I think r 5.0s use these tactics. I think variety always has some benefit as it makes it hard for your op to find rythmn. And they r likely to misshit and give u a shorty to punish.

 

[Cashman]

The benefit most rec players get out of strategy is pretty limited. As long as you understand Wardlaw’s Directionals, you’re probably good to go.

I spent most of my competitive junior years working with little more than a basic strategy of ‘find their weakest shot, and pressure it with a net approach as frequently as possible’.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

Re the red,

just in case you failed to see that my point was describing the similar easiness / feeling between a ball machine and pushing that many people see, my friend being one, and NOT necessarily assert that a ball machine is the same as a live opponent.

This board is notorious about mischaracterizing or miscomprehending posts. LOL.

Your post 27, 34, & 37 led me to my conclusions. Perhaps I miscomprehended them. As potentially did @r2473 and @Morch Us.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

I know that long ago. At low levels like 4.0, 4.5 or below, strategy is pointless. It's execution that players need to focus on.

Strategy is not pointless. @J011yroger even went out of his way to state that he wasn't saying it was useless, just overrated. Which somehow you interpreted as "pointless".

If I can't keep the ball in the court, then I agree that I should not be worrying about strategy.

If I'm in a close match with a peer, I'm probably not going to just be able to turn a dial and improve my technique or execution. What might make the difference is a strategic change. In that case, far from being pointless, it may be pointful.

Of course, a good opponent will be making the same sort of calculations.

 

[pencilcheck]

Strategy is not pointless. @J011yroger even went out of his way to state that he wasn't saying it was useless, just overrated. Which somehow you interpreted as "pointless".

If I can't keep the ball in the court, then I agree that I should not be worrying about strategy.

If I'm in a close match with a peer, I'm probably not going to just be able to turn a dial and improve my technique or execution. What might make the difference is a strategic change. In that case, far from being pointless, it may be pointful.

Of course, a good opponent will be making the same sort of calculations.

If you watch the vid I attached, both of you are right as it depends on the technical execution of the player to execute the plan properly. There are many things to consider in a tennis match, it is not all things that can be seen by eyes.

 

[user92626]

Strategy is not pointless. @J011yroger even went out of his way to state that he wasn't saying it was useless, just overrated. Which somehow you interpreted as "pointless".

Who said I interpreted Jolly post?

Can I still give my own opinion? Geez

 

[Morch Us]

To answer the OP question. I think the video posted by @pencilcheck does give a great summary. I only scanned through the video, but I totally agree and like with what I saw there.

Something to think about if you’ve been stuck at 4.0 for a few years.

Might be useful:

 

[user92626]

Might be useful:

I like your contribution. I haven't watched the whole thing. Only first 5 minutes.

There's some stuff that I have heard before, like balancing, and stuff I haven't. So, it's not like all out suicidal aggressive nor risk-free style (which seems like some of the guys here are advising).

Good stuff!

 

[Morch Us]

1) If you want to win more often, play a low risk game

@r2473 What is your definision of a low risk game?

It's relative to the person who's playing. If you start making lots of UE's, that's probably not a low risk game for you.

What you are actually doing is, making him just uncomfortable enough.

you're trying to make your opponent uncomfortable

====

Let me correct that for you... low-risk style (see above). Sorry I had to post this, not for you (you have nothing more to learn), but for others not to mis-interpret when reading the last post.

risk-free style

 

[user92626]

@Morch Us

You're right that I took a step further and said "risk-free".
But again, that's just hyperbole.


If a risk is sufficiently low enough, it's not much different from risk-free. Eh?

 

[Morch Us]

@user92626 I have nothing more to say other than possibly defending any mis-interpretations you post. Just know that, if neither of us are disagreeing with what is discussed in the video, then what is left is just terminologies, and ego.

 

[maleyoyo]

Playing weekend tournament is where we separate the men from the boys and know which areas to improve.
The ones who go deep in every tournament basically have the same strategy!
Survival of the fittest!

 

[user92626]

@user92626 I have nothing more to say other than possibly defending any mis-interpretations you post. Just know that, if neither of us are disagreeing with what is discussed in the video, then what is left is just terminologies, and ego.

You can certainly speak for yourself re ego.

But I was geniunely discussing and wanting to know what you guys meant about your said strategies.

I still don't get what you guys meant low risk for me but high risk (uncomfortable) for my opponent. That would be a wonderful strategy to use.

So far , when my opponent and I beat each other, the loser limps on two legs and the winner limps on 1 and half legs, ie both have risk nearly the same.

Again, check out the US Open final. Same concept. Thiem won. Nobody in right mind would think Thiem didn't put it out there as much as Zverez did.

 

[user92626]

Hey guys,

Today was my singles match day with my friend. I took you guys' advice -- naturally bc it's very fresh in mind -- and tried to play safer and lower risk. That means I hit slower, more conservatively margin-wise.

Good news is I felt a lot less tired. I felt like I could play a lot more!!! In fact it was my friend who asked to quit which is rare since he's quite fit.

Bad news is I still lost! Btw mistiming my shots per a slower swing, not being in my comfort zone and my opponent still shooting for the lines, especially when he could run down almost all of my balls, it became a deficit against me. But I saw the light that I could do more with this.



I dunno. Did I just trade one problem for another different problem? LOL.

 

[ubercat]

Well if u can be a pusher. How about 1 more level and being a shifty junk baller. Then you can aim for aggressive junk baller. Not sure many of us rec hax make it but after that only place to go is all court player.

 

[user92626]

Well if u can be a pusher. How about 1 more level and being a shifty junk baller. Then you can aim for aggressive junk baller. Not sure many of us rec hax make it but after that only place to go is all court player.

LOL. I like your honest self reflection of our tennis. It's refreshing amidst the crowd who think they're above the recreational level and talk like j@ck@sses.

"1 more level and being a shifty junk baller"

I think it's an inevitable place for most of us to go. If we can't keep making progress on our strokes, our hitting, we have no choice but become smarter about our shots.

 

[Ice-Borg]

3) A lot of times, you can just give your opponent mid-court "put away" balls. In other words, a great strategy is to try to get your opponent to play offense while you play defense. With a little trial / error, you'll figure out how to bait your opponent into over hitting "put away" balls and making errors. Or maybe just getting them into court positions you can exploit.

I'm the master at this. I have an uncanny ability to unintentionally hit a nice topspin floater shot that sits up at the service line nice and high every time ready for my opponent to crush. Unfortunately, this isn't working out so well. lol Unless you plan on running like a chicken with his head cut off trying to track down your opponent's bombs every point. I'm currently working on getting the ball deep every shot. I think I'm brushing up on the ball way too much resulting in short balls that scream "kill me."

 

[Clash Ah ah]

I'm the master at this. I have an uncanny ability to unintentionally hit a nice topspin floater shot that sits up at the service line nice and high every time ready for my opponent to crush. Unfortunately, this isn't working out so well. lol Unless you plan on running like a chicken with his head cut off trying to track down your opponent's bombs every point. I'm currently working on getting the ball deep every shot. I think I'm brushing up on the ball way too much resulting in short balls that scream "kill me."

Try adding a little punch to the ball with your normal stroke.

 

[HuusHould]

Strategy is the big picture; the "what".

Tactics is how you go about achieving your strategy; the "how".

For me, technique falls under Tactics. I know I have a certain tool set and how it works under various scenarios. But deciding how to deploy which tools and when and for how long is Strategy.

Exactly, when you're out there, when and how to deploy the tools (techniques) that you have is the challenge. A strategy might be to rush your opponent, you could do this by serving and volleying, flattening out and/or taking the ball early. Strategy can relate to what you want to prevent happening as well- Your strategy might be to prevent your opponent getting to the net. The tactic could be to come in to the net at the first opportunity yourself and there are a number of different techniques for doing this.

The most enjoyable/satisfying part of the game for me, however, is tweaking technique, in order to execute a tactic, to achieve a strategic objective. Eg working on the SABR (technique) to rush an opponent (strategic objective) with a big wind up on a wing, or working on hitting multiple serves from the one toss (technique), to foil an opponent who anticipates well (disguise being the strategic objective) etc

The other related element of the game that I enjoy, is experimenting with different techniques in order to deal with what my opponent is doing to me. It's so frustrating having the same situations result in you coughing up errors over and over again, but as I've mentioned in other threads "necessity is the mother of invention", so the challenge is to come up with a technique that can help you deal with the situation effectively more often. So rather than focusing on the strategy and tactics that might minimise the occurence of the situation that gives you trouble, you bite the bullet and find a better technique to deal with the type of ball that gives you trouble. Sometimes the main error you are making in the situation is tactical (or selection of technique) though and this needs to be addressed. E.g. I might be attempting a drive volley, when it should be a normal volley. Or I needed to serve and volley, rather than having to pass someone who floated a slice return to the centre tag and closed right in on the net.

 

[HuusHould]

I'm the master at this. I have an uncanny ability to unintentionally hit a nice topspin floater shot that sits up at the service line nice and high every time ready for my opponent to crush. Unfortunately, this isn't working out so well. lol Unless you plan on running like a chicken with his head cut off trying to track down your opponent's bombs every point. I'm currently working on getting the ball deep every shot. I think I'm brushing up on the ball way too much resulting in short balls that scream "kill me.

I play mainly on synthetic grass and a definite solution to popping the ball up, is to slice the return. I think this can be part of the solution on any surface. A low return regardless of depth can be hard to attack.

 

[GuyClinch]

The benefit most rec players get out of strategy is pretty limited. As long as you understand Wardlaw’s Directionals, you’re probably good to go.

I spent most of my competitive junior years working with little more than a basic strategy of ‘find their weakest shot, and pressure it with a net approach as frequently as possible’.

Sounds legit. I think both sides of this debate are kind of right. An advanced players knows the directionals and has a set of tactics down pat and so strategy isn't really a huge concern. But many players can switch to a set of better tactics and win more at their level - mostly because they don't use the directionals and don't have answers for various balls.

Tennis is mostly a reactive game - (to steal terminology from a youtube teaching pro) so really for most players you want to avoid bad tactics (defying the directionals for no reason for example) and execute the same strategy against any opponent.

That being said rec players often improve their strokes such that they can win with bad tactics and thus their game can be improved by switching to a set of better tactics. And by tactics I mean shot combinations based on the incoming ball. Thus when playing guys the same level - better tactics can help.

I think of tennis as mostly if I get Y ball (with opponent z position) I return X shot. This is essentially what Wardlaw has codified of course. But the result of this means you can work on your game and not really change strategies per opponent.

Even if the opponent differs you can use the same strategy (think set of tactics). It might not work - but it doesn't mean that your tactics and strategy are wrong. Usually its the execution that sucks. Because its the incoming ball and opponent position that matters - not really the particular game of the opponent.

Someone like the Most Exhausting Player will force you to hit many more balls that are shorter and in the center of the court then you might against another opponent. Its not that you need to change strategy its you need to execute the correct tactics properly when dealing with those balls.

Federer might mishit a ball like that maybe once every three matches - whereas MEP will do that 100's of times in a match. So guys really have no answer for it - simply because they haven't practiced that scenario enough. This is how MEP beat up on so many 4.5s. They might play a guy like him 1 out of 1000 times and they NEVER practice hitting those balls in practice or even against a ball machine. Almost no one at the 4.5 level hits balls like that..

So they get frustrated - use very poor tactics - or no tactics at all. But they need not - they should just execute the same responses to those balls. A good angle shot or a good approach shot will neutralize MEPs dinks and thus win them the match without any "new" strategy being devised. Its just X player in Z position hit dink and I respond with Y shot.

 

[blablavla]

- Do you return from different spots (close, further away, to the middle, wide) depending in your opponent‘s serve strengths and your favorite return+1 patterns? Do you change them as the match progresses and then balls get old? Do you spend much time thinking about adjustments to make on Return stance and patterns to disrupt the server‘s rhythm especially late in a set.

yes, mostly depends on the:
- serve of my opponent
- strengths and weaknesses of my opponent. If the serve is easy, and if there is a glaring hole, guess what we will train all match long

- Do you play with different tactics when you face counterpunchers, junkers/pushers, aggressive baseliners and serve-volleyers? Do you test if the opponent does well against slice, has good vertical up/down movement, can hit well on the run, can hit passes or lobs under pressure etc.

yes. Though I don't classify my opponent during the match, but I certainly try to take notice of strengths and weaknesses of my opponent, and if there is a glaring hole, guess what we will train all match long.
moving opponent from one corner to another, drop shots, passing shots & lobs if they attack the net just to make sure that they can properly volley and hit overhead, slice & top spin, combination of top spin followed by slice, pretty much the whole package to check what will bring me points
especially lobs against the sun. If the opponent is camping at the base line, then a drop shot or a short ball is helping to get them to the net.

- If you play mostly doubles, do you play with the net guy signaling serve location and intentional poaches when your team serves? If the doubles opponents are returning well, are you comfortable playing Australian formation and I-formation using poach/stay signals? Do you serve-and-volley and chip/charge or at least come to the net as soon as you can?

the signalling part depends on my partner. If my partner is good at controlling & hitting spots -> yes of course, otherwise it is more important to start the point.
I am comfortable provoking the opposing team to hit passing shots down the line.
Tried this in the past 3 doubles matches, won 2 of them, and lost one 10-8 in the champions tie-break one while being a set up and a break up, but I sustained a muscle injury, so couldn't cover the court, but didn't want to default the match either.

 

[ubercat]

MEP is a lot > dinker Those passing shots were surgical

 

[GuyClinch]

MEP is a lot > dinker Those passing shots were surgical

Sure. But plenty of his rally balls were kinda short safe and with some underspin. The amount of 4.5s with a rally ball like that is miniscule on the men's side.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

MEP is a lot > dinker Those passing shots were surgical

I played a 5.0 a couple of matches who seemingly remained in 2nd gear the entire match, precisely placing his returns and passing shots so that, even though he rarely outright passed me, the volley required me to lunge and/or get really low. I'm pretty sure he could have ripped those shots also but he chose to try and make me beat myself [which I did; the best I've ever done is 4-6].

MEP isn't that good but his placement reminds me of that 5.0.