Tennisplyr
Rookie
in singles, there is much more risk being at the net (hence unforced errors) than there is being at the baseline…regardless of level.
True or False?
- Thread starter Tennisplyr
- Start date
time_fly
Hall of Fame
If I had to pick one I would say True but it’s more complicated than that. Unforced errors at the net are the player’s fault whether it’s singles or doubles. In singles you are covering a lot more territory so you need to be more selective about when and how you come in. If you get good at making the right choices then being at the net is a big advantage in singles.
False
I think the risk of a FORCED error is much higher, like if you're a bad volleyer and your opponent hits at you or hits a good passing shot and you miss. That's a forced error. Caveat, some missed volleys could be unforced errors. It's fairly subjective from my understanding.
Conversely at the baseline it is mostly UNforced errors, a mishit ball, hit into the net, hit it long.
I think the risk of a FORCED error is much higher, like if you're a bad volleyer and your opponent hits at you or hits a good passing shot and you miss. That's a forced error. Caveat, some missed volleys could be unforced errors. It's fairly subjective from my understanding.
Conversely at the baseline it is mostly UNforced errors, a mishit ball, hit into the net, hit it long.
Don't agree with the unforced error bit.
In terms of more risk:
It depends on whether we are counting risk for just the next shot, or cumulative risk for the rest of the point.
For just the next shot: Yes there is more risk being at the net vs at the baseline.
Cumulative: If you are smart about coming to the net, then you actually lower your risk until the end of the point.
Because the whole idea of coming to net is to be able to finish the point earlier.
For example let's say you come to net and on the first volley have a 25% chance of making an error (or opponent clean pass). But maybe 70% of the time your next shot is a volley winner.
Versus you stay back and the very next shot is going to be safer, maybe just 10% chance of making an error... but you're going to have to make four more shots from the baseline in order to win the point.
FuzzyYellowBalls
Legend
False, Essential tennis had some good studies on his podcast, getting to the net increases your chances of winning significantly in singles and doubles. It was either Ian or some guest who did intense analytics on real recreational tennis points.
Now, that's the big giant blob of all players, maybe there is an outlier if the player is just horrible at volleys.
Now, that's the big giant blob of all players, maybe there is an outlier if the player is just horrible at volleys.
socallefty
G.O.A.T.
It depends on how good you are at the net (approach shots, volleys, overheads) relative to the baseline AND how good your opponent is at responding to net points vs baseline points.
In doubles, 2-up at the net is considered a good strategy if you are competent at the net. But, at lower levels most players play 1-back as their volleys/overheads are weaker than their baseline shots. At the ATP level, I see now that most teams play 2-back on 1st serve returns and 1-back on 2nd serve returns because the serves have become too big to chip and charge the net. Twenty years ago, you would see many points with all four players at the net in pro doubles, but it is less common on the ATP tour now.
I would think that even now, there is a sweet spot at 4.0/5.5 where the net game is competent and serves are not too big where the net players may prevail more often particularly in doubles. At lower levels, the volleys and overheads may be too unreliable and at the highest levels, the serves and passing shots might be too good to just live at the net in the poly era.
In doubles, 2-up at the net is considered a good strategy if you are competent at the net. But, at lower levels most players play 1-back as their volleys/overheads are weaker than their baseline shots. At the ATP level, I see now that most teams play 2-back on 1st serve returns and 1-back on 2nd serve returns because the serves have become too big to chip and charge the net. Twenty years ago, you would see many points with all four players at the net in pro doubles, but it is less common on the ATP tour now.
I would think that even now, there is a sweet spot at 4.0/5.5 where the net game is competent and serves are not too big where the net players may prevail more often particularly in doubles. At lower levels, the volleys and overheads may be too unreliable and at the highest levels, the serves and passing shots might be too good to just live at the net in the poly era.
silverwyvern4
Semi-Pro
Does windy conditions favor the baseliner or the net rusher?
socallefty
G.O.A.T.
Crosswind favors netplay for me as baseline players have to hit closer to the middle or against the wind direction since hitting close to the lines in the direction of the wind can take the ball out easily - makes passes and lobs more predictable. Coming to net with the wind is also good as baseliners can struggle to hit deep lobs against the wind meaning that you can close the net more aggressively.
In general, it depends on how precise you are at the net and the baseline. I feel like I make more unforced net errors than usual in strong wind and so, prefer to stay at the baseline in singles which is my Plan A game against most players.
In general, it depends on how precise you are at the net and the baseline. I feel like I make more unforced net errors than usual in strong wind and so, prefer to stay at the baseline in singles which is my Plan A game against most players.
Last edited:
FuzzyYellowBalls
Legend
I agree with your observations, I've had the same ones in my tennis experience, but the data just was too overwhelming, they studied hundreds of rec matches and winning percentage increases if you get to the net, it included 3.5 and higher level 4.5 etc. It's about as impactful as 1st serve percentage. I was surprised myself, but since they can study points with technology now, it's solid data.
Wind favors the net person slightly, their shots are less likely to be blown out and lobs against a net person will either get blown out or blown back to the extent they won't go over the head of the net person.
Moon Shooter
Hall of Fame
I think this is good information but may not be all there is to it. I would think players choose to approach the net more than they are forced to the net. And typically people will approach the net when they think they already have an advantage etc.
I think it would be good if you took players and said you must hit serve and volley and see how well they would do. Because there you are making that decision right off the bat.
At my level one major reason I go to the net is to put pressure on my opponent and hopefully force a UE from them.
FuzzyYellowBalls
Legend
Well, obviously you are a thoughtful person, I'm not so sure the majority of rec players are that self-aware to come into the net when they have the advantage and not come in when they don't or even know either situation. I'd say it's better to trust the data and of course part of the data is points won at the net versus a baseliner and who is winning matches the ones who come in more or the ones who don't and the results are pretty significant. Certainly doesn't mean everyone should become a serve and volleyer, but for rec players I think it means consider coming into the net more often, good things happen when you do.
The better player has the strokes and tactics to gain an advantage and come to the net and finish the point. The lesser player can’t create those opportunities and rarely gets to net with an advantage. So it would make sense player at net more wins more, they are the better player.
More risk but also more reward. No point in discussing one without the other!
Cashman
Hall of Fame
The point is moot because unless you are a really ordinary player, you have the advantage when serving
so by definition ‘serve and volley’ means you are approaching the net at an advantage
Moon Shooter
Hall of Fame
I think there is a psychological aspect of coming to the net and immediately losing on a passing shot that makes people fear coming to the net. I mean I may lose 2 out of 3 points if I stay at the baseline hitting the ball back and forth. But if I have a rally that lasts 6 shots it feels like I am being more competitive than if I just go to the net and immediately lose the point 2 out of 3 times. Same score but the longer rally's seems to mask the difference in skill.
If you are the stronger player you may be able to win 3 out of 4 points (instead of 2 out of 3) if you approach but it does seem like an unnecessary risk to do that when you can just get what seems a more controlled win.
When I play people that are about my skill level I do find coming to the net and even serve and volley (even though I have rarely played S&V) can greatly boost my game. I'm not great at the net either - although I am pretty good at running down lobs.
Cashman at my level I am not sure if it is much advantage to serve. But yes once you get even a bit better then the serve should be a significant advantage.
S&V-not_dead_yet
Talk Tennis Guru
True. The BLer is much more likely to hit a winner or an error than if the net player was on the BL. And the net player is likewise more likely to do both.
It boils down to how you define "risk".
This is a different discussion than the direction most everyone else took, which is whether it's advantageous for the net player. My argument doesn't require concluding that.
S&V-not_dead_yet
Talk Tennis Guru
However, there is also a psychological aspect of coming to the net and the BLer making an error. it's a balancing act.
If I feel like I'm going to lose 2 out of 3 points staying on the BL, I'm going to come to the net to see if I can do better. I might end up doing worse but at least I tried.
Nadal is a great volleyer but why would he increase the risk/reward if he's comfortable winning the match from the BL?
I think that's a great discovery. At the very least, you can disrupt their rhythm and make them uncertain about what you'll do in the future.
FuzzyYellowBalls
Legend
Huh? What is tennis risk, winning or losing, but specifically OP said risk of an unforced error. It is advantageous to reduce the risk of unforced errors, right?
And then net player is more likely while at the same time baseline player is more likely? They are both more likely? I'm sure you mean something else, but it's hard to understand.
Anyway, like I said everyone this has already been statistically proven by Essential Tennis.
Edit, Maybe you meant errors and winners increase for both, but still the question is/was which one is now in a position more likely compared to the other, not really their previous selves when both are at the baseline.
Cashman
Hall of Fame
the equation for points I win is:
Code:
(pW + oFE + oUE) - (oW + pFE + pUE)attacking the net increases the frequency of some of these results (adds a multipler of some factor) and decreases the frequency of others (adds a divisor of some factor), so you nominally end up with something like:
Code:
f(pW + oFE + oUE) - f(oW) - (pFE + pUE)/fbeing tactically astute means understanding which equation results in the bigger number based on how the match is playing out at any given point in time
Last edited:
FuzzyYellowBalls
Legend
I like that, nice little equation, but let's refocus and while this might seem like I am hindering open discussion, don't take it as that, continue the discussion.
OP asked regardless of level, true or false. I'm guilty of this as much as anyone, but relating my own experience really wouldn't help his question, just turn the focus on myself, my level, my abilities, really a drop in the ocean compared to the study on increased winning percentage when coming in, at the rec level. So, like I said, this has been studied with a huge sample size and the results were....false.
And, believing the results and the conviction on the podcast that this revelation was as solid and important to rec tennis as getting first serves in/having a high percentage, it's really wiser to just rely on it as pretty solid data. It produces wins across the board in rec tennis, over time.
I do wonder if OP is asleep or if he has an opinion formed before asking.
Cashman
Hall of Fame
OP's question is based on a false premise - i.e.
more risk doesn't necessarily equate to more UEs. In fact (in the case of net play) I think it generally equates to fewer.
When I come to net, I know I will commit less UEs and hit more Winners than if I stayed at the baseline. The real gamble is what happens with my FEs and winners conceded.
I think this is true for most competent net players (which is what I was trying to get across with my last reply)
FuzzyYellowBalls
Legend
Ok, so clearly you just answered OP "false", we agree there. You can interpret, as one should if answering OP, that "more risk being at net (hence UE)" as meaning OP thinks or is defining the word risk for purposes of his question as meaning risk of more UE or that risk is related to UE. You might not agree with that, but since it's his question he is defining it that way and it's ok to just make a leap of faith and think of it as does being at the net result in more UE.
But, then, danger, don't relate it to your own playing, he isn't asking about you, this is a question asking for an answer that applies to all levels, when we already have data on hundreds/thousands of matches and match points . Unless, of course, you've played hundreds of thousands of matches at all rec levels.
S&V-not_dead_yet
Talk Tennis Guru
You're only looking at it from one player's perspective, presumably the net player.
I'm looking at it from both players' perspectives and I think errors increase for both.
If I'm at the net, I think it's more likely my opponent will make an error going for too much on the passer but I also think I'm more likely to make an error by going for too much on the volley.
The BLer opponent also has a higher chance of hitting a winner and so do I at the net.
This all adds up to increased risk for both players with attendant increase in reward.
I'm not necessarily concerned about who wins when answering his question. For me personally, my net game is at least a half-level better than my BL game so I prefer being at net. But I can't speak for others in general.
I think your edit is what I was aiming for. I wasn't aware of the ET analysis. But I can see a potential caveat: playerA could win 90% of net points and someone could conclude that therefore, he should come to the net more often. But it overlooks the possibility that he only came to the net when the odds were overwhelmingly in his favor. If he came to the net under less optimal circumstances, his % would drop by a lot.
FuzzyYellowBalls
Legend
Ok, fair enough, you aren't really concerned with who wins answering his question and you can't speak for others in general. I could also write a few paragraphs about what happens when I play tennis or go to the net, but my experiences also aren't relevant to this particular topic. My knowledge is, just not my personal anecdotes.
Again, the study is solid and not only did the results say more points are won at the net, more matches are won as a result of this going to the net factor. It's not a slam dunk margin, but neither is winning tennis, so anything that can add 5-10% boosts to a rec players winning points is huge. I feel there were too many players and matches analyzed to ruin the results even if there is a magical 3.5 or 4.0 or 5.0 who magically knows how to only ever come to the net when the odds are overwhelmingly in his favor, it would take a few hundred of those robots to ruin the data.
S&V-not_dead_yet
Talk Tennis Guru
I build my game around the net so people can take my experiences as they see fit. If they don't think these are relevant, so be it.
FuzzyYellowBalls
Legend
I understand sharing your personal game if the poster asked "hey tw forum, can each of you tell me if this is true or false for your game?"
You probably are too high a level to represent all levels, and too good at volleying, it's in your name
S&V-not_dead_yet
Talk Tennis Guru
You probably are too high a level to represent all levels, and too good at volleying, it's in your name
Yeah, I keep telling my opponents that to no avail.
Similar threads
