Bungalo Bill
G.O.A.T.
Rickson said:
Not all the time! You dont want to give him a duck!
The slice is NOT a good approach shot
- Thread starter Golden Retriever
- Start date
Not all the time! You dont want to give him a duck!
shindemac said:
I never said they are bad. Only that they should be used as a last resort.
shindemac said:
I don't have a bad lob, but I also realize that playing the pass is higher percentage tennis.
shindemac said:
Guilty as charged. Please forgive my muddy streams of conscious.
shindemac said:
No need to get defensive. If you've got a strong lob, congratulations. You are sure to be the future nemesis of many a chubby clubby.
Watch a pro match and count the number of lobs that make it over an attacker's racquet and land in untouched. Not many.
You cant just come in on anything slice is easier to come in on than topspin as it stays low and gives you time if you get it deep to backand etc. it can become difficult for your opponant, if its short however you may as well walk back to collect the ball from the passing shot. I think Tommy Haas is good at approach shots but he uses heavy topspins deep often to backhand to approach from, he come in on short blls as you should look to!
Bungalo Bill said:
I use this shot on occasion. Bounces high and pushes the opponent back which lets you approach closer to the net.
Regarding the slice approach, did anyone mention that you can "run into" a slice at rather high speed. This gives you a head start towards the net compared to a topspin shot.
A slice approach is always better if you're approaching on your backhand side. As a one-handed backhander, I find it easier to slice and move forward at the same time but doing it with topspin is really tough because you need to contact the ball further forward in the one-handed topspin backhand. On the forehand side however, I think it's easier to hit a topspin drive down the line and follow up on the shot.
Maybe it's because it's an overly simplistic concept, but in my experience the critical factor in an approach is the depth of the shot. I've had entire lessons devoted to approach shots, and any approach shot that didn't land within a foot of the baseline ended up being returned as a passing shot. Anything that landed on or near the baseline wasn't. It didn't matter what kind of spin was put on the approach.
Do whatever it takes to get the ball deep. For me, that's slice of of the backhand side, and topspin off of the forehand.
Do whatever it takes to get the ball deep. For me, that's slice of of the backhand side, and topspin off of the forehand.
Bungalo Bill
G.O.A.T.
Caswell said:
Wow, what a concept - placement.
Bungalo Bill
G.O.A.T.
andreh said:
southpaw said:
Why do you think you have to hit the baseline for it to be effective? Try to keep it in the last quarter of the court and I think it will work for you but it really depends on where your opponent(s) is/are. The lob is used to get your opponent(s) out of their offensive position and back them up. If I had a shot that was effective just 6% of the time, I wouldn't use it - period. I mean really, I can close my eyes and do better than that. That like one out of seventeen.
Kaptain Karl
Hall Of Fame
I use (some) variety on my approaches, but Slice is still my preferred approach shot on either side. (I know lots of players have more trouble hitting a driving Slice on the FH side. I don't. My regular practice partners "hate" my Slices. [Tee-hee!])
My mix is roughly: Driving Slice (deep) 65%, Sidespin (deep OR short) 15%, Top (deep or die!) 10%, Flat (deep) 10%.
(I don't recommend Rec or Club players mess with the short Side/Slice approach yet. I have adapted that for the baseline blasters who tend to like to "camp" farther behind the baseline than us "traditional" players. The short approach causes them to be charging/reaching forward and still trying to blast the ball.)
As already mentioned, PLACEMENT is the key to approaches. Pay attention to your opponent's strengths and weaknesses. Sometimes the Bad Guy is way better at *running* passing shots. So ... against him, try hitting your approaches up the center of his angles of attack. He may not be so good at passes off approaches to his feet, where he isn't running....
On a related note: I've conceded the modern frames allow the blasters to "go for it" off even a good approach shot. Work on your first volleys. (In the '70s we would ... approach ... hit the first volley deep and forcing, to ... set up the second volley as the Kill shot. If your volleys are good enough, I recommend you change your thinking to ... forcing approach ... volley for the kill.)
I watched the Pepperdine / Georgia NCAA Final. I was impressed by how many of these kids were playing a lot of Attack the Net(!). But I also noticed how many times ... if their first volley was not a winner ... they lost the point. Modern frame technology allows us to hit passing shots which would have reduced us woodie players to stammering blithering idiots, had our opponents been able to pass that well.
- KK
My mix is roughly: Driving Slice (deep) 65%, Sidespin (deep OR short) 15%, Top (deep or die!) 10%, Flat (deep) 10%.
(I don't recommend Rec or Club players mess with the short Side/Slice approach yet. I have adapted that for the baseline blasters who tend to like to "camp" farther behind the baseline than us "traditional" players. The short approach causes them to be charging/reaching forward and still trying to blast the ball.)
As already mentioned, PLACEMENT is the key to approaches. Pay attention to your opponent's strengths and weaknesses. Sometimes the Bad Guy is way better at *running* passing shots. So ... against him, try hitting your approaches up the center of his angles of attack. He may not be so good at passes off approaches to his feet, where he isn't running....
On a related note: I've conceded the modern frames allow the blasters to "go for it" off even a good approach shot. Work on your first volleys. (In the '70s we would ... approach ... hit the first volley deep and forcing, to ... set up the second volley as the Kill shot. If your volleys are good enough, I recommend you change your thinking to ... forcing approach ... volley for the kill.)
I watched the Pepperdine / Georgia NCAA Final. I was impressed by how many of these kids were playing a lot of Attack the Net(!). But I also noticed how many times ... if their first volley was not a winner ... they lost the point. Modern frame technology allows us to hit passing shots which would have reduced us woodie players to stammering blithering idiots, had our opponents been able to pass that well.
- KK
Kaptain Karl said:
Ah the transition game. Good stuff KK, BB, Beach et al. I think some of the inability to recognize the effectiveness of sliced approaches stems from a few "baseline basher" mind sets on slice in general and one overall axiom which I haven't seen mentioned yet:
Many players view slice as defensive. For some players that translates as "passive". Not so.
I think many baseline bashers see their opponent's ability to return an approach as a failure by definition an "approach" almost concedes the opponent's ability to get to the ball. I don't care if a player can return the approach so long as you've forced him to hit from well below net height and behind the baseline, (even better if I deny him the ability to set up and hit the shot on the dead run). The geometry of a tennis court says that if the approacher came in on the proper ball and achieved a good net position he/she will likely get a volley to hit at hip level or higher or an overhead. The odds are in his favor. Prosecuted with regularity the approacher should win the majority of those points.
THE APPROACHER WILL GET PASSED. Accept that. But those passes should at least be off-set by a mounting number of balls hitting the net tape, long or wide as the opponent sees the approacher handling those volleys/overheads.
A poor net game, one's inability to hit first and subsequent volleys and overhead reliably, will cause some players to believe that their sliced approach was ineffective. It may have been, but missing a follow-up volley or overhead doesn't mean the approach was necessarily ineffective. If you ellicited a waist high volley or manageable overhead, your approach shot WAS effective, even if you fail to execute that volley or overhead. Reliable volleys and overheads will make that approach seem alot better. Some never practice volleying from near the service line and what many don't want to process is that like an "approach", a first volley connotes that you accept the probability of having to hit another shot or two to end the point.
SA (situational awareness) is a huge factor in executing effective sliced approaches or any other approach shot. SA takes the big picture into account in deciding if NOW is the time to appoach. SA is comprised of your awareness of where you and the opponent are on the court, where the ball is and where it can be contacted, whether you are offensive, defensive or neutral in the point, the score and even the surface. There are some minimum requirements to be met in my view, i.e. you can make contact with both feet inside the baseline, at or above hip level, while taking into account your ability to move the opponent and his to be able to set up well.
IMO contact height on a sliced approach may be the most overlooked element of determining how effective a sliced approach can be hit. That defensive mind-set I mentioned previously regarding the slice leads many players to allow very approachable balls to drop, well below net height and out of the effective slice strike zone. Doing so puts the net in the way of the approach. This lack of awareness of contact height simply translates into a less effective to ineffective approach. By letting the ball drop, a player reduces his ability to "knife" a sliced approach if not eliminating the possibility altogether. This reality is even more evident when percentage approaching DTL where the net is even higher. The result is an approach which must be lifted over the net and hit with less velocity in order to get the ball inside the baseline in a shortened court likely causing the ball to SIT UP for the opponent to run down and hit with authority and even more devastatingly CHOICE of target.
Approaching effectively with slice comes with experience.
You need to be well versed in net play to include, proper balance and positioning as well as ALL of the volleys and a reliable overhead. Adopt a mind set that slices come in many flavors including the extremely offensive and forcing. Making contact above net height takes that barrier out of play and allows for one to hit knifing, skidding, well paced approaches which force the opponent to hit up. Maintaining your SA will allow you to more properly identify when and on what ball you can approach most effectively.
5
I vary it. Slice gives you great net position and if you hit it well and keep it low it nearly always at least gives you a hit at a first volley as the opponent has to lift the ball above the net and bring it down into your court. And the heavy loopy shot to the opponents backhand works great. It's pretty hard for the opponent to get the necessary spin to get that ball down at the feet of the volleyer when they're out of position and forced back so most of the time you end up with a volley that's above net height.
RiosTheGenius
Hall of Fame
to the original post:
I think you might not be hitting deep enough... a deep slice approach shot is always effective. but flat or topspin approaches are fine too.
what is a real myth is that those low slices are hard to return. if one of those isn't deep enough, you set me up for a nice heavy topspin passing, and it certainly makes it easier to hit a topspin lob as the ball is already spining back, the trick here is to really get under it, and swing it away with an extreme western grip. however, if you hit that approach deep enough, I can only try to get it back, which gets me in trouble , specially on the backhand side if you can also put it out wide.
I think you might not be hitting deep enough... a deep slice approach shot is always effective. but flat or topspin approaches are fine too.
what is a real myth is that those low slices are hard to return. if one of those isn't deep enough, you set me up for a nice heavy topspin passing, and it certainly makes it easier to hit a topspin lob as the ball is already spining back, the trick here is to really get under it, and swing it away with an extreme western grip. however, if you hit that approach deep enough, I can only try to get it back, which gets me in trouble , specially on the backhand side if you can also put it out wide.
Kaptain Karl
Hall Of Fame
I just had to "bump" this. Very good reminder, FiveO.FiveO said:
- KK
IMO the slice approach is very effective, if given the choice on a short ball that sits up and if I'm in position early, I would hit flat or with topspin and be more aggressive with the approach. The nice thing about the slice is that it allows you to more easily take a low short ball as you move in and with control put it deep into your opponents court. IMO this is more difficult to do with topspin especially if the ball is very short and takes you a bit by surprise.
Bungalo Bill
G.O.A.T.
just out said:
Just Out is Just In! Lots of good stuff on the slice approach.
papa said:
Arrrrgh, wish I could take that post back. Maybe I exaggerated my incompetence a bit to illustrate a point. Let me try again.
Imagine you've just hit a slice approach low and deep into the corner, and you've set yourself up in a good volleying position. Your opponent gets to the ball and hits a topspin lob. You quickly recognize the lob and realize that it's going to be too high and deep for a smash. You attempt to chase it down, resigned to start the rally again. But, despite your best hustle, you can't get there in time and all you can do is watch as the ball clips the back of the baseline.
That's demoralizing. I think its tough not to question your game-plan when your opponent is able to answer your offense with shots like that. My earlier point was that even though you lost the point, you should still view that slice approach as successful because it got the lob reply. Odds are he can't do that all day. Lose the battle, but win the war.
southpaw,
The players and coaches here are trying to give you good advice on basic skills and strategy. Yes, basic because most high school students don't understand what a lob is used for. We aren't trying to say use the lob all the time. We aren't saying passing shots are bad. We are trying to tell you what constitutes a good lob.
High school students think lobs shouldn't be used because they need to "paint the lines" with it. That's obviously a low percentage shot, so therefore they won't use the lob except as a last resort. Sound familiar? Well, your coach should have told you how to properly use it. And you just aren't listening to the advice given on here. Papa has reiterated it. Lobs aren't used to get winners; Lobs aren't used to demoralize your opponent. This has nothing to do with how good your lobbing skills are. This is basic, I repeat BASIC strategy on what constitutes a good lob. You don't have to "paint the lines" to have a good lob.
This section may confuse you. But you should be doing passing shots most of the time. I think you got confused with our positions because we did not mention this. YES, you can do passing shots. But you can also do lobs. You can do both! (not at the same time of course) Papa gave good advice on when to do lobs. There are times when lobs are good replies, and not just in desperation situations.
The players and coaches here are trying to give you good advice on basic skills and strategy. Yes, basic because most high school students don't understand what a lob is used for. We aren't trying to say use the lob all the time. We aren't saying passing shots are bad. We are trying to tell you what constitutes a good lob.
High school students think lobs shouldn't be used because they need to "paint the lines" with it. That's obviously a low percentage shot, so therefore they won't use the lob except as a last resort. Sound familiar? Well, your coach should have told you how to properly use it. And you just aren't listening to the advice given on here. Papa has reiterated it. Lobs aren't used to get winners; Lobs aren't used to demoralize your opponent. This has nothing to do with how good your lobbing skills are. This is basic, I repeat BASIC strategy on what constitutes a good lob. You don't have to "paint the lines" to have a good lob.
This section may confuse you. But you should be doing passing shots most of the time. I think you got confused with our positions because we did not mention this. YES, you can do passing shots. But you can also do lobs. You can do both! (not at the same time of course) Papa gave good advice on when to do lobs. There are times when lobs are good replies, and not just in desperation situations.
Bungalo Bill
G.O.A.T.
southpaw said:
Absolultely. You chose the right shot, you hit it, he just hit one hell of a shot! But most of the time, if the player is lobbing, they are in pure defense. You will get those guys that lob all the time you come up, however, if that happens, a player should be able to make the adjustment and read the lob for an early jump.
shindemac said:
First off - I'm not in high school, those days are long past. The only coaching I get is from the voices in my own head
. Secondly, I didn't ask for advice. You started dispensing it. This thread is about the effectiveness of the slice approach, and I made the comment that you shouldn't judge an approach as a failure if you get a lob reply. I stand by that statement.
Bungalo Bill
G.O.A.T.
southpaw said:First off - I'm not in high school, those days are long past. The only coaching I get is from the voices in my own head
I hear them too!
So turn it down a bit my kids are trying to sleep!
Bungalo Bill
G.O.A.T.
c_zimma said:
True, but for many players they can't judge a sharply hit topspun ball going to their backhand, many of them hit off their back foot being surprised by the kick in the ball.
Again, it all depends...
southpaw,
I'm one step ahead of you! That's why I started a new thread about lobs. But there are other people reading this thread, I didn't want them to think lobs are a last-resort move. Advice, tip, help, correction, addendum, etc., call it whatever you want.
----
It's a game of rock-paper-scissors. There's the approach-lob-overhead! We also got threads on the lob and overhead now. Back to the approach shot. Approach to their backhand. Hit it near the corner or alleys. This gives them a tougher shot, and gives you more angles on the volley. But cover the down-the-line passing shot cause the crosscourt shot is low percentage. Catch them by surprise. If they aren't aware you're coming to the net, then their passing shot should be easy pickings.
In general, you want to hit a slice down-the-line cause it gives them less time to react, and they have to hit up on the ball giving you an easier volley. But if you only have a slice backhand and no slice forehand, then it becomes pretty predictable when you are coming to the net. Then they start lobbing you, and you're no longer able to use your volley. That's when you need to switch it up, and attack their backhand corner with maybe a flat cross-court shot and come to the net. They won't expect this, and will probably be too busy chasing down the shot to hit a good passing shot. You'll have caught them by surprise, and won the point with an easy volley.
I'm one step ahead of you! That's why I started a new thread about lobs. But there are other people reading this thread, I didn't want them to think lobs are a last-resort move. Advice, tip, help, correction, addendum, etc., call it whatever you want.
----
It's a game of rock-paper-scissors. There's the approach-lob-overhead! We also got threads on the lob and overhead now. Back to the approach shot. Approach to their backhand. Hit it near the corner or alleys. This gives them a tougher shot, and gives you more angles on the volley. But cover the down-the-line passing shot cause the crosscourt shot is low percentage. Catch them by surprise. If they aren't aware you're coming to the net, then their passing shot should be easy pickings.
In general, you want to hit a slice down-the-line cause it gives them less time to react, and they have to hit up on the ball giving you an easier volley. But if you only have a slice backhand and no slice forehand, then it becomes pretty predictable when you are coming to the net. Then they start lobbing you, and you're no longer able to use your volley. That's when you need to switch it up, and attack their backhand corner with maybe a flat cross-court shot and come to the net. They won't expect this, and will probably be too busy chasing down the shot to hit a good passing shot. You'll have caught them by surprise, and won the point with an easy volley.
Rep. Timothy Calhoun
Banned
How is it that the crosscourt has a lower percentage?shindemac said:
First off, if you were hitting an approach shot, "crosscourt" to their backhand, then if they were to hit back a "straight" shot, it would be back at you "crosscourt".
If they hit crosscourt, that would be straight back (higher percentage shot for them!). If they were to hit down the line, that would be "changing directions" (lower percentage shot!).
Plus, if they were to hit "crosscourt", then they would be trying to hit over the "lower" part of the net -- which gives them a higher percent of getting the ball over the net! If they were to hit down the line by the alley, then they would be trying to hit over the higher part of the net -- which gives them a lower percent of getting the ball over the net!
Bungalo Bill
G.O.A.T.
Rep. Timothy Calhoun said:
It is a lower percentage shot in that you have more court to cover. It does open angles for your opponent IF they can take advantage of it.
But technically, hitting down the line gives you a better chance to control the outcome with your positioning as you give your opponent less court to hit into and tougher shots.
Of course, this is all if one can take advantage of it.
On the other hand, if it is clear that your opponent is out of position, then hitting crosssourt should yield you a winner.
If they hit crosscourt, that would be straight back (higher percentage shot for them!). If they were to hit down the line, that would be "changing directions" (lower percentage shot!).
Plus, if they were to hit "crosscourt", then they would be trying to hit over the "lower" part of the net -- which gives them a higher percent of getting the ball over the net! If they were to hit down the line by the alley, then they would be trying to hit over the higher part of the net -- which gives them a lower percent of getting the ball over the net![/quote]
Rep. Timothy Calhoun
Banned
I was talking about the "opponent" hitting crosscourt, not you the "approacher".Bungalo Bill said:
Let's say I am the approacher and you are the opponent. We are both righties. We are both in the ad courts. I hit crosscourt to your BH. Now if you were to go down the line for the reply of my poach, that would be a lower percentage shot for YOU because you would be changing directions of the original incoming ball. Also, you would be hitting towards the highest part of the net.
That was what I was saying earlier.
If you were to reply back at me crosscourt, then the "shot" would have a higher percentage of getting over the net and staying in bounds, since you would be aiming towards the lowest part of the net AND you would be hitting the ball "straight" back rather than changing directions.
This was what I was pointing out to Shinedemac.
shindemac said:
Agreed.
I'll add that as a lefty playing primarily righties, the dtl slice approach is one of my favorites. The approach targets their backhand, the ball stays low and trails away from their hitting zone. I usually end up with an easy volley. If they do pop it up, the overhead is tracking from my right to left, which is the more natural direction for me, plus I avoid getting caught having to attempt a backhand smash.
Of course it's also just as effective for righties approaching lefties, but I rarely see it. Shhh..... don't tell 'em.
Think of it this way. A hits an approach, and comes to the net. He stands in the middle of the court. B is pushed off the court into the alley. B has two choices for a passing shot. B can hit down the line, or B can hit it crosscourt. But remember for the xcourt shot, it will pass over the middle of the net where A is standing! So B must hit an even more angled shot to avoid A. This angled shot has a high chance of landing wide into the alley. So it's not about how high the net is, but how much court area B has to make a difficult shot. Most likely B will try to pass down the line instead.
With that in mind, A will attempt to cover the down-the-line pass. He only needs to move 2 feet or so, so the adjustment is not so big that A is giving B the crosscourt either. If B does decide to go xcourt, A has more time to get to it versus the dtl due to the longer distance. So B is thinking about different things rather than whether he can change the direction of the ball.
dtl: shorter distance, wide open court, but high net
xcourt: slower shot, hit right to the guy or really tough angle
With that in mind, A will attempt to cover the down-the-line pass. He only needs to move 2 feet or so, so the adjustment is not so big that A is giving B the crosscourt either. If B does decide to go xcourt, A has more time to get to it versus the dtl due to the longer distance. So B is thinking about different things rather than whether he can change the direction of the ball.
dtl: shorter distance, wide open court, but high net
xcourt: slower shot, hit right to the guy or really tough angle
Rep. Timothy Calhoun
Banned
What you said just now AND BEFORE makes total sense. I never disagreed with any of it.shindemac said:
What I have described previously was not that if "B" (the approachee) were to hit the ball x-court, that that would result in a low percentage of "B" losing the point in the end. I was not saying that by "B" hitting x-court that that would be the best way, or that that would give him the highest percentage of winning the point.
I was saying that reguardless of whether it is a good idea or bad idea, the safest way for "B" to get the ball back over the net would be to hit x-court. The highest percentage for "B" in that situation to merely get the ball over while staying in the point would be to hit x-court (of course "B" might have a better chance of staying in the point if he went for the risker "DTL", if the DTL shot were to be successful.).
Now for "B" to simply hit x-court, that would not necessarily be the highest percentage in terms of getting the best court position, after "A" replies to the shot, since going x-court would put the ball right in front of "A".
This was all that I was pointing out. Although it would be a lower percentage shot if were "B" to go DTL for the poach reply, it sets "B" to be in a positon with a higher percentage to cover the angles once "A" relplies to "B's" poach reply.
Though the "shot" percentage is lower, going DTL in that instance is the textbook rule of thumb, since if executed, the person hitting the shot gains better position than otherswise (x-court).
Thaimyshoe
New User
Slice approach is really good for going behind someone or to their weaker side, because it skids and allows you to get into net and cover the line and such
Huh?
It looks like you're saying the point is over faster with slice. No way. In both cases, you play your first volley into the corner on the down-the-line side to open up the court. And then you look to put the ball away (usually crosscourt) on the second volley.
This is why a floater from way deep that you get inside the service line to volley makes it so easy. No first volley errors. That is statistically your worst shot in a net attack. After that, your stats go sky high.
That is, as you hit that first volley, you have only about a 50-50 chance of winning the point. If you hit that first volley back deep, you have a 75-80% of winning the point. So, the key to success is to eliminate errors on the first volley. That's why you want high floaters off the back foot from well behind the baseline.
I don't think all these facts (plus those I mentioned above) can just be disregarded.
With a forehand topspin approach shot you often get in so close for such a high first volley that you can even go for the putaway on the first volley -- though I almost hate to say that because then players try to even when they shouldn't.
The films you showed are touring PROS' backhand first volleys. No approach shot shown.
And then you say (emphasis mine)...
Many players hit sliced approaches only on the backhand, and that is often because they can't hit a decent topspin backhand. Some two-handers do it just because it's convensional wisdom or for the good reason that they have a good two-handed backhand they must stop to hit and always hit more flatly than their forehand, but their backhand slice is such a strong shot in their game that it's quite reliable despite its percentages and does keep the ball low.
Kathy K
www.operationdoubles
Rep. Timothy Calhoun
Banned
Actually hitting it x-court to the netman is not a bad idea.
For instance, when the approacher hits towards the alley line, towards the BH side, the netman/approacher would then primarily seek to cover the DTL reply. If the opponent were to charge ahead at the ball, the netman would then expect a DTL BH or DTL FH, or he would expect a x-court BH (both players are righties in this instance).
Now if the opponent were to run around the ball and hit an inside-out FH, then there would be a good chance that the netman would be caught wrong-footed. So, afterall, going x-court isn't such a bad idea when incorporating the inside-out FH.
For instance, when the approacher hits towards the alley line, towards the BH side, the netman/approacher would then primarily seek to cover the DTL reply. If the opponent were to charge ahead at the ball, the netman would then expect a DTL BH or DTL FH, or he would expect a x-court BH (both players are righties in this instance).
Now if the opponent were to run around the ball and hit an inside-out FH, then there would be a good chance that the netman would be caught wrong-footed. So, afterall, going x-court isn't such a bad idea when incorporating the inside-out FH.
Pomeranian
Semi-Pro
I think an approach shot is effective if it is uncomfortable to return/ cuts down angles. A slice is a good approach shot for many people, if you get passed or lobbed a lot, maybe you need to evaluate the quality of your approach, your anticipation to the incoming shot, or the predictability of your approach. At pro level people use the slice approach sucessfully a lot, I point this out to make a point, at even a very high level game, a slice approach can be used sucessfully.
Meaning in your own game, there are things you can improve on to make your slice approach more effective, I wouldn't say it is bad approach shot because of your or my lack of success. I also wouldn't say it is the only way to approach the net, if you can get the person in an uncomfortable position, a weaker reply is usually what happens and is easier to volley. For some, that is the high, deep, topspin backhand.
As for the best or "high" percentage way to defend the point against a net player, I think that would greatly depend on your skills and the shot you are given and the position of your opponent. I like lobs but I can't lob all the time, passing shots/ dipping topspins are needed sometimes. As much as I love lobs, if I see someone trying to come into the net crosscourt, they need to be punished with a passing shot.
Meaning in your own game, there are things you can improve on to make your slice approach more effective, I wouldn't say it is bad approach shot because of your or my lack of success. I also wouldn't say it is the only way to approach the net, if you can get the person in an uncomfortable position, a weaker reply is usually what happens and is easier to volley. For some, that is the high, deep, topspin backhand.
As for the best or "high" percentage way to defend the point against a net player, I think that would greatly depend on your skills and the shot you are given and the position of your opponent. I like lobs but I can't lob all the time, passing shots/ dipping topspins are needed sometimes. As much as I love lobs, if I see someone trying to come into the net crosscourt, they need to be punished with a passing shot.
The intent of an approach is to keep the ball out of the opponent's wheelhouse WHILE gaining an offensive volleying position. Acknowledging the situational exceptions to these advisements, this can be accomplished by:
1) placement of shot denying the opponent the ability to set-up
2) simply robbing the passer of time via pace, causing him to shorten, rush, mis-time and/or mis-hit the pass.
3) and/or employing slice to keep the ball low and the passer hitting up. Yes, situationally even short low bouncing slice can be effective because, again situationally, the approacher can force the passer not only to hit up but also to reach forward and further out of his/her optimal hitting zone while doing so.
This is why contact height on the approach is of paramount importance while employing any one, or preferably some combination of the three elements described above off a short enough ball in the court.
Transitioning to net successfully, provided the transitioning player has the requisite skill set, is based mostly on geometry and time. It is also very much an art (however lost it has become). Heavily topspinned baseline bashing, IMO, has promoted "approaches", especially evident in 2-handers, that are very often flat-footed topspin drives off either wing, executed with fully wrapped finishes. They are extremely effective if hit offensively enough to win the point outright or draw a wounded duck floater for a first volley. However that approach has inherent problems too if used too often. For one thing they stop momentum, and ****** the transitioning player's ability to gain an offensive volleying position on time. Other problems will arise when the approaching player makes that millisecond miscalculation of his own depth in the court, his opponent's ability to cover the shot or both. The ball WILL bounce high enough to be in the most opponents' wheelhouses, even when stretched. It also hazards the player transitioning to net trapping himself in a defensive first volley position near or behind the service line, simply because the harder hit ball which is UP reaches the opponent's optimal hitting zone sooner and given the added height at contact, hands a better angle to the passer with which he/she can get the ball down at the net rusher's feet. This is especially evident in club level tennis.(As an aside, first volley percentages have gone way down more due to the fact that those still playing serve and volley no longer hold a decided edge on serve vs. the power receivers in many levels of the game. The same dynamic which negatively impacts the s&v 1st volley percentage is evident in how baseline bashers approach, well, approaching.)
A timely flattened and/or sliced approach, contacted at a prudent court depth based on the transitioning player's positioning/quickness, struck at or above net height ensures that the passer must hit up at the very least. It forces the passer to solve the geometry problem of clearing net WHILE trying to keep the ball down after clearing it, all from a contact point below their optimal hitting zone or wheelhouse (when speaking of the majority of modern gripped players). It also allows the transitioning player to more easily continue moving through the hit and eliminates the momentum robbing wrap finish, thereby making it more likely that he/she will reach a more advantageous offensive first volley position by the time the passer is about to make contact.
Barring an opponent with a glaringly weaker wing which should be attacked relentlessly, the reason approaching DTL is advisable is to deny the passer greater angle options which in turn will create greater geometry solving problems for the volleyer. The percentage play on that first volley depends on the height at which the volley is contacted, how much angle and/or open court the pass has afforded the volleyer which is directly linked to how near, which sideline the pass is and how close to the net that first volley can be contacted. The only axiom regarding the first volley being hit DTL again is if the volleyer is forced to hit from well below net height and even then that can be effected by where each player is positioned and how near the sideline the ball is at contact. Going DTL on the 1st volley is a good cross up to wrong foot a gazelle of an opponent when a high volley affords the net rusher choice and made an even more viable option on slippery surfaces.
In a "damn the torpedoes" foray to the net (which is also how many chip & charge points play out) or when forced forward, where the approach is contacted too low, too deep, fails to deny the passer the ability to set-up, which reaches the passer prior to the net rusher achieving an offensive volleying position or otherwise sits UP, the results will take on crap-shoot percentages. The only thing which still may tip the balance in the approaching player's favor, over the course of a match, may be the added pressure applied to the passer.
While a full blooded topspin flat footed “approach” hit with a fully wrapped follow through can work in certain situations, and only morphs into an "approach" on a get of the "outright winner" by the passer, I see employing it consistently as risking placing the ball high enough to be in the passer’s strike zone and reaching the passer soon enough as to trap the incoming volleyer on the defensive, by being forced to volley up from too deep a position. I believe a steady diet of those approaches is more likely to produce bad 1st volley percentage than flattening or slicing the approach provided they're hit off a short enough ball contacted at or above net height in that they ensure the ball is out of the passer’s best strike zone and that the volleyer can reach a more offensive position even if reached.
The approacher should never ignore the two basic tenets of transitioning:
1) keep the ball out of the passer's optimal hitting zone
AND
2) ensure that the transitioning player will reach not merely a neutral, but an offensive first volley position in balance and on time.
5
1) placement of shot denying the opponent the ability to set-up
2) simply robbing the passer of time via pace, causing him to shorten, rush, mis-time and/or mis-hit the pass.
3) and/or employing slice to keep the ball low and the passer hitting up. Yes, situationally even short low bouncing slice can be effective because, again situationally, the approacher can force the passer not only to hit up but also to reach forward and further out of his/her optimal hitting zone while doing so.
This is why contact height on the approach is of paramount importance while employing any one, or preferably some combination of the three elements described above off a short enough ball in the court.
Transitioning to net successfully, provided the transitioning player has the requisite skill set, is based mostly on geometry and time. It is also very much an art (however lost it has become). Heavily topspinned baseline bashing, IMO, has promoted "approaches", especially evident in 2-handers, that are very often flat-footed topspin drives off either wing, executed with fully wrapped finishes. They are extremely effective if hit offensively enough to win the point outright or draw a wounded duck floater for a first volley. However that approach has inherent problems too if used too often. For one thing they stop momentum, and ****** the transitioning player's ability to gain an offensive volleying position on time. Other problems will arise when the approaching player makes that millisecond miscalculation of his own depth in the court, his opponent's ability to cover the shot or both. The ball WILL bounce high enough to be in the most opponents' wheelhouses, even when stretched. It also hazards the player transitioning to net trapping himself in a defensive first volley position near or behind the service line, simply because the harder hit ball which is UP reaches the opponent's optimal hitting zone sooner and given the added height at contact, hands a better angle to the passer with which he/she can get the ball down at the net rusher's feet. This is especially evident in club level tennis.(As an aside, first volley percentages have gone way down more due to the fact that those still playing serve and volley no longer hold a decided edge on serve vs. the power receivers in many levels of the game. The same dynamic which negatively impacts the s&v 1st volley percentage is evident in how baseline bashers approach, well, approaching.)
A timely flattened and/or sliced approach, contacted at a prudent court depth based on the transitioning player's positioning/quickness, struck at or above net height ensures that the passer must hit up at the very least. It forces the passer to solve the geometry problem of clearing net WHILE trying to keep the ball down after clearing it, all from a contact point below their optimal hitting zone or wheelhouse (when speaking of the majority of modern gripped players). It also allows the transitioning player to more easily continue moving through the hit and eliminates the momentum robbing wrap finish, thereby making it more likely that he/she will reach a more advantageous offensive first volley position by the time the passer is about to make contact.
Barring an opponent with a glaringly weaker wing which should be attacked relentlessly, the reason approaching DTL is advisable is to deny the passer greater angle options which in turn will create greater geometry solving problems for the volleyer. The percentage play on that first volley depends on the height at which the volley is contacted, how much angle and/or open court the pass has afforded the volleyer which is directly linked to how near, which sideline the pass is and how close to the net that first volley can be contacted. The only axiom regarding the first volley being hit DTL again is if the volleyer is forced to hit from well below net height and even then that can be effected by where each player is positioned and how near the sideline the ball is at contact. Going DTL on the 1st volley is a good cross up to wrong foot a gazelle of an opponent when a high volley affords the net rusher choice and made an even more viable option on slippery surfaces.
In a "damn the torpedoes" foray to the net (which is also how many chip & charge points play out) or when forced forward, where the approach is contacted too low, too deep, fails to deny the passer the ability to set-up, which reaches the passer prior to the net rusher achieving an offensive volleying position or otherwise sits UP, the results will take on crap-shoot percentages. The only thing which still may tip the balance in the approaching player's favor, over the course of a match, may be the added pressure applied to the passer.
While a full blooded topspin flat footed “approach” hit with a fully wrapped follow through can work in certain situations, and only morphs into an "approach" on a get of the "outright winner" by the passer, I see employing it consistently as risking placing the ball high enough to be in the passer’s strike zone and reaching the passer soon enough as to trap the incoming volleyer on the defensive, by being forced to volley up from too deep a position. I believe a steady diet of those approaches is more likely to produce bad 1st volley percentage than flattening or slicing the approach provided they're hit off a short enough ball contacted at or above net height in that they ensure the ball is out of the passer’s best strike zone and that the volleyer can reach a more offensive position even if reached.
The approacher should never ignore the two basic tenets of transitioning:
1) keep the ball out of the passer's optimal hitting zone
AND
2) ensure that the transitioning player will reach not merely a neutral, but an offensive first volley position in balance and on time.
5
Rep. Timothy Calhoun said:
Little confused, how did the "poach" came about?
Also, you can change direction without necessarily going down the line.
However, I'm certainly in agreement that going crosscourt gives you more court to work with and a lower net whether its back to a forehand or slight change going back to a backhand or vice versa.
Rep. Timothy Calhoun
Banned
Sorry for the confusion. I meant to write "proach" (as in approach). I just got lazy and decided to leave out the "ap" (too lazy that I even left out the "r"!). I was not referring to any doubles-tennis moves. I will be sure to spell out the entired word next time so that people will not get mixed up with the doubles tactics, "poach".papa said:
Well in the scenario that I provided, the ONLY change of direction would be DOWN-THE-LINE. Both players are righties, and both are in their ad courts. Now if the approacher hits to the other player's BH side, then the only reply to that approach that would be "changing directions" would be a DTL one. In the example that I made up, hitting it x-court would not be a change of directions, and the approachee would not even want to attempt a change of direction "x-court", since a wide angle x-court would be out of bounds.
So basically, the netman has cut off any x-court change of directions, so what is left for the approachee to reply (as far as passing shots) is a non-change-of-direction x-court and a change of direction DTL -- of course the approachee could still change directions x-court if you were to include "lobs" in THAT example of mine, but we are not talking about lobs here.
The only reason why I even brought up the "FH" approachee reply x-court was because that would catch the netman off guard, giving the approachee a better chance of either staying alive or winning the point.
Bungalo Bill
G.O.A.T.
FiveO said:
Excellent post FiveO.
Rep. Timothy Calhoun said:
OK, so we have a cross-court situation where after an exchange or two, one suddenly deceides, out of the blue, to rush the net? Guess I don't get it - is this some form of a serve and volley type action?
Seems to me that you'd want to move the opponent to the other side or get somewhat of an approach shot (something inside the serviceline) prior to doing what you are talking about. If I see my opponent make the moves you suggested, I'm not going to just stand there flat footed but rather readjust my own position.
Rep. Timothy Calhoun
Banned
It doesn't necessarily have to be a S&V play. You could just chip a slice in whenever. Think Roger Federer's BH slice that he uses effectively to draw the opponent up close to the net on the opponent's BH side.papa said:
Of course the netman isn't going to remain flat-flooted; he's anticpating a reply by the approachee, so he's ready to close in on whichever direction. But, as I was suggesting earlier, an inside-out FH x-court would likely cause the netman to be caught off guard, perhaps wrong-footing him, since most of the time, any approaches placed on the BH side results in a FH or BH DTL, or a BH x-court (excluding lobs!). That is why I was suggesting the inside-out FH x-court if you are the person being approached in THAT situation that I brought up.
Kaptain Karl
Hall Of Fame
Everyone should print ... read ... and re-read ... FiveO's Post #91 ^^^. Great lesson. Very well explained!
- KK
- KK
D
Deleted member 6835
Guest
hmm, i dont slice much for approach shots, unless its a really REALLY low ball close to the net which i cant get on my forehand or backhand. usually i power my shots, flat with a bit of topspin, right at the opponent or where ever i have space to hit, and so that it bounces less than 30 cm from the baseline. its a lot harder to hit back than a slice down the line (esp if the person has a good lob). of course, to use power on the approach, you have to have speed to get in position fast, which i have, so i dont mind having to be rushed to get in position
Similar threads
