What is your main singles strategy?

#52
You can talk all you want about extending rallies and waiting for errors, but the fact is there are different styles of players that also affect how your opponent plays.
If you are a type of player who likes shorter points its not that all you have to do is attavl and be aggressive, you also force your opponent to play more like that.
Then on the opposite spectrum players who like to grind can also play in a way to force the other player into a similar style even if their style is different.
Sometimes your opponent forces you yo play a certain way.
 
#53
At this point my initial strategy is playing eyes open, ie. play with your eyes 100% of the shots and move them feet.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
#54
I'm relegated more to doubles these days, but as a singles player, my best relative assets are a solid backhand that can produce some winners, a better than average first serve, and decent speed (though I'm not in shape enough to run all day).

Due to my lack of great endurance...and I was never much of a serve-and-volleyer... I try to win points off my first 2-3 groundies. My strategy is fairly simple:

1. Play aggressively but realistically.
2. As an aggressive baseliner, when in doubt, go for the winner, as it's more energizing to me than waiting for unforced errors.
3. At times, I'll loop or slice an approach to give me more time to come to the net, but in general, I like finishing the point before having to hit a volley.
4. Have fun, be a generous line caller, give it my best, then try to remember to ice my always-sore rotator cuff.
 
#56
I hit hard and deep to push my opponent deep behind the baseline, then hit a wide angled shot or drop shot to finish the point.

If against fast opponents I try to run them around and then wrong foot them.

The one that actually puts pressure most consistently though is the tried and tested topspin forehand to backhand spam
 
#57
Read this entire thread even though I'm old and fall asleep easily. I also have knee braces and use an oversize racket. Lots of old people hating here. The thing that flames my tennis addiction most is playing young players who think I can't run down drop shots or move on any shot. Afterword's, I usually here remarks like he didn't play real tennis. Remember you will get old so go back to work and hope you live long enough to collect SS...
I like drop shotting old guys. and I love seeing them run
Especially the guys with the knee braces.
Yea, I love seeing them crash into the net. or just not able to get to it all. if they do get it somehow ,, next shot I lob right over them
 
#58
Read this entire thread even though I'm old and fall asleep easily. I also have knee braces and use an oversize racket. Lots of old people hating here. The thing that flames my tennis addiction most is playing young players who think I can't run down drop shots or move on any shot. Afterword's, I usually here remarks like he didn't play real tennis. Remember you will get old so go back to work and hope you live long enough to collect SS...
Why do you think I'm young?

I'm actually at Dana Farber Cancer Institute right now with a needle in my arm and drinking prep for a CT Scan. Young I'm not.
 
#59
Read this entire thread even though I'm old and fall asleep easily. I also have knee braces and use an oversize racket. Lots of old people hating here. The thing that flames my tennis addiction most is playing young players who think I can't run down drop shots or move on any shot. Afterword's, I usually here remarks like he didn't play real tennis. Remember you will get old so go back to work and hope you live long enough to collect SS...
Nobody is old bashing. And it's funny older people think they can compete with younger fitter players. Maybe against younger players who cannot play. Part of getting old is accepting it. I'm not geriatric but I'm not playing tennis against college kids either.
 
#61
I always start with bigger things and then try to find nuance exploits.

I always start with testing their movement - first side to side, but then a main strategy I always use is to see hwo they handle short balls. That alone gives me an advantage often. If they overhit short balls or can't move I start using low dipping short balls or slice to bring them in. A general favorite pattern is ye ol' deep ball to the BH and close the net for the putaway volley.
 
Last edited:
#62
What is your main singles strategy?
First Serve - Blast it. Don't care where it goes or lands.
Second Serve - Kick it. No particular spot. Opponents generally struggle with vicious kick. I win this point the most.
Return - Mine sucks. Try to get it deep with top spin if it gets on my forehand. If the serve is to my backhand, I slice. Still trying to master the topspin return despite my single handed backhand being ok.
Rallies - I hate long ones as I don't have the stamina or mental strength to overcome baseliners. One - two - three - attack with forehand to either side and go for the net. Don't care if it goes out. On the backhand side, I will return with topspin. Because my game is super aggressive, returns from opponents are shorter but then my finish is not that great. So I drop shot often. If the opponent comes to the net, lob is my weapon of choice. Alternatively, I will blast a forehand at their body.


Good consistent baseliners and counterpunchers - guaranteed to win against me. I don't have a lot of patience but then I enjoy playing the way I play. Who cares about winning. Gotta enjoy it.

So the strategy is to enjoy it :)
 
#64
OP,

"2. I use power very sparingly."

But it still has to have enough power that your opponents can't tee off the ball, right?
Right. But if your ball is deep enough, you really don't need much power to have a ball your opponent can't attack. And remember, I'm also using quite a lot of spin. So I'm really not hitting that close to the baseline. My ball is bouncing high and "out". Ideally, I'm having my opponent take the ball higher than they like. Out of their preferred strike zone.

And don't overlook the other advantages of not hitting too hard. Fewer errors of course. But the biggest benefit is how long you have to recover after your shot. You can really "lock down the court".

I'll admit, it's a pretty boring way to play at times. What happens often is either my opponent will get impatient and start hitting low percentage shots and making errors. He might try coming in and taking one of my arc / loop shots as a volley. Most guys can't execute this anywhere near consistently enough to win. And some guys will just play "tit for tat" and hit the same ball back to me. These matches can turn into long, protracted (boring) baseline snooze fests. But if I really want to win, I can usually bank on the fact that I can execute more consistently than my opponent. Meaning, he'll be giving up more short balls than I will. And most guys won't stick to it for very long before going back to playing low percentage shots from behind the baseline.

Tennis below 5.0 is not really tennis. It's a bunch of lame players trying to maneuver dink shots around the court and waiting for the other guy to miss. Or people over hitting and missing every 3rd ball.
This is true and basically what my strategy relies on. I'm not really winning the match. I'm just betting that my opponent sucks worse than I do. At 5.0 tennis, you actually have to win matches. Anything below that, all you have to do is not lose / let your opponent beat himself. I've told people lots of times that "we aren't really playing tennis". But nobody really understands what I'm saying.

It's the same way in golf. You aren't really playing golf until you have a swing where every shot you hit goes basically where you want it to. If you're still hitting big slice, toping the ball, etc, (just hoping you don't mess up), you aren't really playing golf. Golf begins probably around 5-7 handicap at most (and yes, I mean your actual score; not the one you write on the scorecard).
Re deep ball, like I said if he or I can run down the ball, ie not sufficient pace to outpace us, we can return it back. Even with a deep ball, he just take a massive topspin swing at it, place it well inside but it's pacey and with some angle it will be difficult for me to return.
If you're playing guys that can consistently do this, you have to make adjustments. I play a junior that can attack my deep shots something like this. But even he makes a fair number of errors. And these errors increase as the match goes on.

Not many guys (none really) will be able to do for an entire match with any level of "shot tolerance". Sure, they'll get a few in. But they probably won't make even 3 in a row very often. And remember, I'm "locking down the court". So unless he goes hard at the corner with an outright winner, I'll get it back pretty easily with my same "loopy" / "arcy" topspin ball, that gives me lots of time to recover. The key here is, don't panic and think you have to hit hard back to him on these balls. You'll massively cut back on the time you have to recover and leave him lots of open court for his next shot.
Meta-Strategy Time: Do not grow bored of a winning pattern of play!
And that's exactly what happens to me sometimes. Once I execute this for a set, I'll often try different things. Lower percentage patterns of play. There are guys I play that will actually ask me before the match "which r2473 am I going to see today". And I'll usually tell them exactly how I plan to play.

Nearly all of my matches are just matches with buddies in the park. So I don't mind trying different things and losing. And I don't mind when they deviate from their best strategy either. It's the only way to improve. Otherwise I'll just keep playing the same way until one day, I'm just not young enough to run as much as I need to execute the "patient" strategy.

What I'm working on is coming in on one of my loop / arc balls to my opponents weak wing (usually backhand) without actually waiting for a short ball. What tends to happen is

1) I get outright passed
2) I outright miss the volley;
3) I hit the volley, but not well enough and I get easily passed on the next ball.

Which serves as an excellent reminder of how much I suck.
 
Last edited:
#65
OP,

"2. I use power very sparingly."

But it still has to have enough power that your opponents can't tee off the ball, right?

So many of you guys said you can get away with lower power and only focus on placement, consistent, depth, etc. You guys must be really good (that you could make those skilled shots) and powerful enough, which you're not even aware of generating, that those shots cannot be attacked. No?
Generally speaking, I swing at about 65%. This is enough to produce the rally ball I need. And even much of this power is going toward spin as opposed to "pace" (if that makes sense).

I'd say that if you can't hit this ball and keep your opponent from attacking, you have something fundamentally wrong. You should feel like you can hit this type of ball 30 times in a row if needed. Basically feel like you'll never miss. If this doesn't describe you, I'd suggest working on this before even thinking of adding power.

Once you add power (say swinging at 80-85%), things get exponentially harder. Power is probably the very last thing you should be trying to add to your game. Only adding it after you have MASTERED the basic 65% swing.
 

sureshs

Bionic Poster
#66
Generally speaking, I swing at about 65%. This is enough to produce the rally ball I need. And even much of this power is going toward spin as opposed to "pace" (if that makes sense).

I'd say that if you can't hit this ball and keep your opponent from attacking, you have something fundamentally wrong. You should feel like you can hit this type of ball 30 times in a row if needed. Basically feel like you'll never miss. If this doesn't describe you, I'd suggest working on this before even thinking of adding power.

Once you add power (say swinging at 80-85%), things get exponentially harder. Power is probably the very last thing you should be trying to add to your game. Only adding it after you have MASTERED the basic 65% swing.
I suppose it is a good enough philosophy for rec players who will never move ahead.

For juniors, power often comes first and control later. Many well-known coaches like Nick follow this strategy. You must learn to swing fast, and later the control will come.

Those who play safe will never increase their power. This robs them of the excitement of hitting like the pros. When I hit very powerful 1 handed DTL backhands, life seems to be worth living. It is better than a lifetime of safe swings. As a rec player, no one cares about you and you only lose money, so live it up when you can.
 

mcs1970

Hall of Fame
#67
I suppose it is a good enough philosophy for rec players who will never move ahead.

For juniors, power often comes first and control later. Many well-known coaches like Nick follow this strategy. You must learn to swing fast, and later the control will come.

Those who play safe will never increase their power. This robs them of the excitement of hitting like the pros. When I hit very powerful 1 handed DTL backhands, life seems to be worth living. It is better than a lifetime of safe swings. As a rec player, no one cares about you and you only lose money, so live it up when you can.
"The Holy Grail for 99% of tennis players is “how can I win more matches?” And the most effective way to win more matches is....be more consistent. Whether you are playing Roger Federer, Venus Williams, or your nemesis at the club, you cannot be beaten if you hit the ball back into play! Here's what Bjorn Borg had to say on the subject: “I believe successful tennis is a game of consistency and taking advantage of the proper percentages”. Do you want to argue with a man who won 5 Wimbledons and 6 French Opens? I thought not..

The challenge of playing consistent tennis tests all four aspects of your game: Technically do you have all the shots to stay in a long rally? Tactically can you select the correct `percentage shots` as the rally develops? Physically do you have the speed and endurance to get to every ball? Mentally do you have the concentration and mental toughness to triumph in long rallies?

Now that I have convinced you that consistency is the key, what are the keys to consistency? 1. Give yourself a margin for error. In baseline rallies aim 1 metre inside the side lines and 3 metres inside the baseline. If you are a little off target, the shot will still be in. Aim 1 to 2 metres over the net in baseline rallies for the same reason – only hit low if your opponent is moving to or is at the net. 2. Hit the ball only as hard as you can control it. Rafael Nadal's average groundstroke speed is 70 mph. But you are not Rafael Nadal..... "

https://www.tennisireland.ie/wp-con...00-10.-STRATEGY-AND-TACTICS-One-More_Time.pdf
 

sureshs

Bionic Poster
#68
"The Holy Grail for 99% of tennis players is “how can I win more matches?” And the most effective way to win more matches is....be more consistent. Whether you are playing Roger Federer, Venus Williams, or your nemesis at the club, you cannot be beaten if you hit the ball back into play! Here's what Bjorn Borg had to say on the subject: “I believe successful tennis is a game of consistency and taking advantage of the proper percentages”. Do you want to argue with a man who won 5 Wimbledons and 6 French Opens? I thought not..
All these statements mean nothing. Players like Borg often say these things later in life . Doesn't mean it applies to rec players who just want to have fun.
 

mcs1970

Hall of Fame
#69
All these statements mean nothing. Players like Borg often say these things later in life . Doesn't mean it applies to rec players who just want to have fun.
Your idea of fun need not be everyone's idea of fun. My idea of fun is balancing a certain level of power and consistency. Not..."You're a rec player and no one cares. So live it up while you can". Not saying that you're wrong for thinking that way, but just that it's your own definition.
 
#70
Tennis below 5.0 is not really tennis. It's a bunch of lame players trying to maneuver dink shots around the court and waiting for the other guy to miss. Or people over hitting and missing every 3rd ball.

Why bother. Just play video games. Or practice a lot and get to 5.0 plus. But I agree it's hard if you started tennis as an adult, probably over weight and basically have no athletic ability.

So yeah. Video games. Or pickle ball. Less running.
What's the relationship between these forums and Tennis Warehouse? I'd guess the majority of TW's sales are from these not tennis players.
 

sureshs

Bionic Poster
#71
Basically, if you had a proper foundation as a junior and kind of kept in touch, you will automatically be better than most of the rec players when you play as an adult. The ones you won't beat are the others with a similar background or a very fit and determined pusher. That is about it. And these results will flow naturally without any special effort like not going for power or paying too much attention to this strategy or that.

That is basically how the pros play. Once the natural fluency is ingrained, everyone has a natural style with a certain ratio of offense to defense which suits their personality, and they just run with it. Among those, the successful ones will give concocted answers because they are expected to say something more profound than "I just play and I happen to win more than I lose."
 
#72
Basically, if you had a proper foundation as a junior and kind of kept in touch, you will automatically be better than most of the rec players when you play as an adult. The ones you won't beat are the others with a similar background or a very fit and determined pusher. That is about it. And these results will flow naturally without any special effort like not going for power or paying too much attention to this strategy or that.

That is basically how the pros play. Once the natural fluency is ingrained, everyone has a natural style with a certain ratio of offense to defense which suits their personality, and they just run with it. Among those, the successful ones will give concocted answers because they are expected to say something more profound than "I just play and I happen to win more than I lose."
+1

The reps done between 7 and 17 makes a big difference in consistency and even more so, if one has played competetive tennis in juniors.


——————————
No more on pain meds - all contributed matter and anti-matter are still subject to disclaimer
 
Last edited:

mcs1970

Hall of Fame
#73
Basically, if you had a proper foundation as a junior and kind of kept in touch, you will automatically be better than most of the rec players when you play as an adult. The ones you won't beat are the others with a similar background or a very fit and determined pusher. That is about it. And these results will flow naturally without any special effort like not going for power or paying too much attention to this strategy or that.

That is basically how the pros play. Once the natural fluency is ingrained, everyone has a natural style with a certain ratio of offense to defense which suits their personality, and they just run with it. Among those, the successful ones will give concocted answers because they are expected to say something more profound than "I just play and I happen to win more than I lose."
Pros are consistent too. Whether they developed power first or consistency first and then added power, it doesn't matter. They are incredibly consistent. So I don't see any 'concocted' answer when someone like Borg emphasizes consistency. Plus when Borg played it was a much more control oriented game than today's power game. Even in the relatively modern era, I've seen pros like Wilander talk about how pros play and how that's not necessarily the best way for rec players to play. Again, that's not a 'concocted answer' as much as more practical advice.

I agree that every one has their own personality and it's probably more fun to play to that personality. However, again, that's an individual choice. Some might have more 'fun' going against their natural personality to prioritize what helps them win, because winning might be more 'fun' for them than just 'living it up'. You don't know and can't answer for everyone. Djokovic said he had a ohbh but winning was a bigger priority and so he gave that up because he won more with a 2hbh.

So again, you are well within your rights to have your definition of what fun is for you when you play a Tennis match. Don't assume that holds true for others, and there's nothing wrong if that definition for others doesn't suit yours.
 
#74
Pros are consistent too. Whether they developed power first or consistency first and then added power, it doesn't matter. They are incredibly consistent. So I don't see any 'concocted' answer when someone like Borg emphasizes consistency. Plus when Borg played it was a much more control oriented game than today's power game. Even in the relatively modern era, I've seen pros like Wilander talk about how pros play and how that's not necessarily the best way for rec players to play. Again, that's not a 'concocted answer' as much as more practical advice.

I agree that every one has their own personality and it's probably more fun to play to that personality. However, again, that's an individual choice. Some might have more 'fun' going against their natural personality to prioritize what helps them win, because winning might be more 'fun' for them than just 'living it up'. You don't know and can't answer for everyone. Djokovic said he had a ohbh but winning was a bigger priority and so he gave that up because he won more with a 2hbh.

So again, you are well within your rights to have your definition of what fun is for you when you play a Tennis match. Don't assume that holds true for others, and there's nothing wrong if that definition for others doesn't suit yours.
Yet the pros are consistent, the modern game has evolved from building a point rallying into game changer shots from defensive position, running banana forehands out wide back into the court and inside out forehands accross the service box out wide instead of just moving your opponent. And killing it by the next shot.

If we try the same at our apalling levels of rec play, there is a .01 probability to pull it out, but when we do, it really boosts selfesteem.


——————————
No more on pain meds - all contributed matter and anti-matter are still subject to disclaimer
 

mcs1970

Hall of Fame
#75
Yet the pros are consistent, the modern game has evolved from building a point rallying into game changer shots from defensive position, running banana forehands out wide back into the court and inside out forehands accross the service box out wide instead of just moving your opponent. And killing it by the next shot.

If we try the same at our apalling levels of rec play, there is a .01 probability to pull it out, but when we do, it really boosts selfesteem.


——————————
No more on pain meds - all contributed matter and anti-matter are still subject to disclaimer
Exactly, my point. For sureshs that .01 probability is worth it because rec matches are meaningless in the large scheme of things anyway. While the meaningless part is true, maybe others get more fun out of the game by being more consistent and not trying dumb stuff with a low probability of success.

As for self-esteem, I personally don't tie it to a rec level sport. If so, my self-esteem would be very low. I guess you meant satisfaction. Again, satisfaction is also different for different people. I'm sure there are a lot of pushers who are extremely satisfied and happy winning by being consistent, while they watch their opponents self destruct trying high risk shots. Or maybe the high risk taker player is happy because win or lose he/she likes to play that way. To each his/her own when it comes to what they define fun as.
 
#76
Pros are consistent too. Whether they developed power first or consistency first and then added power, it doesn't matter. They are incredibly consistent. So I don't see any 'concocted' answer when someone like Borg emphasizes consistency. Plus when Borg played it was a much more control oriented game than today's power game. Even in the relatively modern era, I've seen pros like Wilander talk about how pros play and how that's not necessarily the best way for rec players to play. Again, that's not a 'concocted answer' as much as more practical advice.

I agree that every one has their own personality and it's probably more fun to play to that personality. However, again, that's an individual choice. Some might have more 'fun' going against their natural personality to prioritize what helps them win, because winning might be more 'fun' for them than just 'living it up'. You don't know and can't answer for everyone. Djokovic said he had a ohbh but winning was a bigger priority and so he gave that up because he won more with a 2hbh.

So again, you are well within your rights to have your definition of what fun is for you when you play a Tennis match. Don't assume that holds true for others, and there's nothing wrong if that definition for others doesn't suit yours.
I think you should play as much as you have to play.

If someone is much weaker ur better off hitting 60% (if the ball troubles them) and placing it on a dime and run them all over and outhit them and get them off court.. easy as pie... instead of going for lower risk aggressive shots

But if someone is so good that your 60% shots are easy for him and he crushes them, then you might me forced to play more risk and more aggressive, otherwise you can't win

Too bad I can't find that good video I watched a few months ago on youtube when someone was telling this story of a junior kid who was beating everyone at the time and is now a high ranked ATP player, and a coach went to him after he won a tournament and asked him whats his secret.

And he said its simple

I start by hitting the ball deep down the middle and be consistent

If that doesn't work then I start to hit angles and get him moving around and off court

If that doesn't work then I start to step in and hit more aggresive shots and go for winners


The point is if someone can't handle your 60% serve why would you go for 90% or more? With 60% you have better consistency and placement and can ace him at will, so theres no point going for more because ur just going to miss more so its going to actually be slightly less effective, even if it looks better.

But the same goes for the other way around, if your 60% or 70% serve is a sitter for someone and hes crushing it back deep, then you are forced to go for more, sometimes you play someone where you are forced to risk more in your shots.
 
#77
Exactly, my point. For sureshs that .01 probability is worth it because rec matches are meaningless in the large scheme of things anyway. While the meaningless part is true, maybe others get more fun out of the game by being more consistent and not trying dumb stuff with a low probability of success.

As for self-esteem, I personally don't tie it to a rec level sport. If so, my self-esteem would be very low. I guess you meant satisfaction. Again, satisfaction is also different for different people. I'm sure there are a lot of pushers who are extremely satisfied and happy winning by being consistent, while they watch their opponents self destruct trying high risk shots. Or maybe the high risk taker player is happy because win or lose he/she likes to play that way. To each his/her own when it comes to what they define fun as.
I did mean self-esteem, but not in general, but your tennis character.

It is really frustrating to lose time after time, if you practice with a coach like crazy...


——————————
No more on pain meds - all contributed matter and anti-matter are still subject to disclaimer
 
#79
I think you should play as much as you have to play.

If someone is much weaker ur better off hitting 60% (if the ball troubles them) and placing it on a dime and run them all over and outhit them and get them off court.. easy as pie... instead of going for lower risk aggressive shots

But if someone is so good that your 60% shots are easy for him and he crushes them, then you might me forced to play more risk and more aggressive, otherwise you can't win

Too bad I can't find that good video I watched a few months ago on youtube when someone was telling this story of a junior kid who was beating everyone at the time and is now a high ranked ATP player, and a coach went to him after he won a tournament and asked him whats his secret.

And he said its simple

I start by hitting the ball deep down the middle and be consistent

If that doesn't work then I start to hit angles and get him moving around and off court

If that doesn't work then I start to step in and hit more aggresive shots and go for winners


The point is if someone can't handle your 60% serve why would you go for 90% or more? With 60% you have better consistency and placement and can ace him at will, so theres no point going for more because ur just going to miss more so its going to actually be slightly less effective, even if it looks better.

But the same goes for the other way around, if your 60% or 70% serve is a sitter for someone and hes crushing it back deep, then you are forced to go for more, sometimes you play someone where you are forced to risk more in your shots.
I’d go for 100% on first serves every now and then, yet the 60% would be enough just to make the opponent get more worried.


——————————
No more on pain meds - all contributed matter and anti-matter are still subject to disclaimer
 
D

Deleted member 23235

Guest
#80
Basically, if you had a proper foundation...
this is the key difference between juniors and diy-adults.
"juniors" have some parent paying for lessons, etc... develop a proper foundation under a watchful eye.... 3-4x a week, for years.
most adults try to diy it... only take a handful of lessons (if any)... so it takes longer to develop a proper foundation (i'm guilty of this).
on the flip side, i've seen adults, who do what the juniors do, take lessons regularly, practice daily... and they develop the same fluidity as a junior, in a short period of time.
(also presumes you're fiscally/temporally able to (a) practice regularly with good sparring partners (b) take lessons regularly)
 

mcs1970

Hall of Fame
#81
this is the key difference between juniors and diy-adults.
"juniors" have some parent paying for lessons, etc... develop a proper foundation under a watchful eye.... 3-4x a week, for years.
most adults try to diy it... only take a handful of lessons (if any)... so it takes longer to develop a proper foundation (i'm guilty of this).
on the flip side, i've seen adults, who do what the juniors do, take lessons regularly, practice daily... and they develop the same fluidity as a junior, in a short period of time.
(also presumes you're fiscally/temporally able to (a) practice regularly with good sparring partners (b) take lessons regularly)
I'm not debating that juniors or anyone who take lessons have the chance to be more fluid than ones who don't and pay scant attention to fitness also. I'm just debating that the latter group should just go out and 'have fun' where fun is a narrowly defined term of going for your strokes. Consistency and a pusher style can also be 'fun' for a lot of players. To each his/her own than a rigid definition of fun.
 

mcs1970

Hall of Fame
#82
I think you should play as much as you have to play.

If someone is much weaker ur better off hitting 60% (if the ball troubles them) and placing it on a dime and run them all over and outhit them and get them off court.. easy as pie... instead of going for lower risk aggressive shots

But if someone is so good that your 60% shots are easy for him and he crushes them, then you might me forced to play more risk and more aggressive, otherwise you can't win.
I totally agree for the most part. Why take unnecessary risks if not needed? I do think though if it gets to a match where 60% or 70% of your level is not working, then chances are pretty high that the person on the other side of the net is just clearly a better player than you are. 70% is probably the upper limits of what you can safely play in a match. I'd still go for consistency at that point and pray/hope that the opponent cracks or start losing fitness/focus. Once you start taking too many risks, you are most probably playing more into your opponent's hands anyway.
 
#83
I'll use a golf analogy. You are standing on a 450 yard par 4 with a narrow fairway and out of bounds on both sides. Thick rough lines the fairway and you can't hit well out of rough. You are a bogey golfer. How should you play the hole?

1) Take out the driver, knowing that your best drive goes 250 yards and you have about a 30% chance of hitting it that far and straight. Then if you do, you still have 200 yards to the hole. You almost never hit a shot from the fairway 200 yards and straight. So your odds of making the green in 2 strokes is less than 10%.

2) Take out an iron that you can hit 150-170 yards, but you hit it straight enough to find the fairway almost every time. Then, hit the same club again. Now you are anywhere from 110-150 yards from the green. A shot you can make pretty often.

So, is it worth taking the risk with the aggressive play to try to make par? Or should you go for the safe bogey on this hole and try to avoid the big number on the scorecard? Now that you've decided what the smart / percentage play is, what do you imagine most golfers will do?

Most tennis players are "bogey golfers" that are always trying to make birdie, but end up making triple bogey. They might get a birdie once every 36 holes. But to do it they get multiple double and triple bogey scores.

And even the 7 handicap tennis player needs to make his pars or even take his chance at birdie on the short par 5's. Play the standard Par 4's and Par 3's at just a few over par for the entire round. On those long par 4's, he's got to know that, only if he executes perfectly will he get a par (maybe 1 in 3 times). He has to know that this will often be a bogey hole. But that he can't let it be a double bogey or worse. If he does, his round is lost.
 
Last edited:
#84
I'll use a golf analogy. You are standing on a 450 yard par 4 with a narrow fairway and out of bounds on both sides. Thick rough lines the fairway and you can't hit well out of rough. You are a bogey golfer. How should you play the hole?

1) Take out the driver, knowing that your best drive goes 250 yards and you have about a 30% chance of hitting it that far and straight. Then if you do, you still have 200 yards to the hole. You almost never hit a shot from the fairway 200 yards and straight. So your odds of making the green in 2 strokes is less than 10%.

2) Take out an iron that you can hit 150-170 yards, but you hit it straight enough to find the fairway almost every time. Then, hit the same club again. Now you are anywhere from 110-150 yards from the green. A shot you can make pretty often.

So, is it worth taking the risk with the aggressive play to try to make par? Or should you go for the safe bogey on this hole and try to avoid the big number on the scorecard?

Now that you've decided what the smart / percentage play is, what do you imagine most golfers will do?
They pull out the big dog.

Most are really unaware their numbers and believe highly of themselves.


——————————
No more on pain meds - all contributed matter and anti-matter are still subject to disclaimer
 
D

Deleted member 23235

Guest
#85
I'll use a golf analogy. You are standing on a 450 yard par 4 with a narrow fairway and out of bounds on both sides. Thick rough lines the fairway and you can't hit well out of rough. You are a bogey golfer. How should you play the hole?

1) Take out the driver, knowing that your best drive goes 250 yards and you have about a 30% chance of hitting it that far and straight. Then if you do, you still have 200 yards to the hole. You almost never hit a shot from the fairway 200 yards and straight. So your odds of making the green in 2 strokes is less than 10%.

2) Take out an iron that you can hit 150-170 yards, but you hit it straight enough to find the fairway almost every time. Then, hit the same club again. Now you are anywhere from 110-150 yards from the green. A shot you can make pretty often.

So, is it worth taking the risk with the aggressive play to try to make par? Or should you go for the safe bogey on this hole and try to avoid the big number on the scorecard? Now that you've decided what the smart / percentage play is, what do you imagine most golfers will do?

Most tennis players are "bogey golfers" that are always trying to make birdie, but end up making triple bogey. They might get a birdie once every 36 holes. But to do it they get multiple double and triple bogey scores.

And even the 7 handicap tennis player needs to make his pars or even take his chance at birdie on the short par 5's. On those long par 4's, he's got to know that, only if he executes perfectly will he get a par (maybe 1 in 3 times). He has to know that this will often be a bogey hole. But that it can't be a double bogey or worse.
that is a great analogy. will steal this one :)
for me, i'm #2 perfectly!...
i've often pulled out the 1iron for most holes because i slice the crap out of the big dogs... a teaching buddy of mine mentioned i needed a fitted driver (i'm short), but i'm not gonna go through all that.
 
D

Deleted member 23235

Guest
#86
They pull out the big dog.

Most are really unaware their numbers and believe highly of themselves.


——————————
No more on pain meds - all contributed matter and anti-matter are still subject to disclaimer
for me, pulling out the big dog, and making it... is analagous to me trying to pass the net man in doubles... making it once, missing 3 times.
of course, in the entire round i'll only remember that monster driver shot i hit,... never mind the 110 score.
 
#87
They pull out the big dog.
that is a great analogy. will steal this one :)
for me, i'm #2 perfectly!...
i've often pulled out the 1iron for most holes because i slice the crap out of the big dogs... a teaching buddy of mine mentioned i needed a fitted driver (i'm short), but i'm not gonna go through all that.
I'll tell you what most golfers will do. They'll hit the driver OB at least once if not a few times (maybe a few times in the rough). Then they'll eventually hit a drive in the fairway and say they are laying 1. And even then, they won't hit their next shot on the green and end up making a "fake" bogey at best (probably getting a double bogey even not counting the OB strokes because they miss the short putt, but not counting that stroke either because it was a "gimmee").
 
#88
I'll tell you what most golfers will do. They'll hit the driver OB at least once if not a few times (maybe a few times in the rough). Then they'll eventually hit a drive in the fairway and say they are laying 1. And even then, they won't hit their next shot on the green and end up making a "fake" bogey at best (probably getting a double bogey even not counting the OB strokes because they miss the short putt, but not counting that stroke either because it was a "gimmee").
Fake bogey... well, doesn’t matter, cause USGA’s got addjusted gross score handicapping, so at worst they’d make a double.


——————————
No more on pain meds - all contributed matter and anti-matter are still subject to disclaimer
 
D

Deleted member 23235

Guest
#89
I'll tell you what most golfers will do. They'll hit the driver OB at least once if not a few times (maybe a few times in the rough). Then they'll eventually hit a drive in the fairway and say they are laying 1. And even then, they won't hit their next shot on the green and end up making a "fake" bogey at best (probably getting a double bogey even not counting the OB strokes because they miss the short putt, but not counting that stroke either because it was a "gimmee").
i don't understand the gimmmeee system.
i know well enough from practicing on the range, that i can't hit a driver.
i get teased for only playing the 1 iron from the tees.
 
#90
i don't understand the gimmmeee system.
It was initially from match play, where you can concede any length or the whole match or a hole. Not requiring your opponent to make any putt within the leather - length of the grip on your putter. But then it has become acustomed to give them ”short” putts every time even in stroke play, when playing a friendly skins game, small wages for each hole. Kind of being polite, but actually it will keep your buddies crap putters now and beyond.

Gimmies in a match are actually a tactical call. If you hae made a putt and the opponent is to half the hole by draining his next putt within say four feet or less, you give that and half the hole keeping the score as it was before the hole played.

The idea is not to give your opponent the luxury to actually making that putt and get the feel for the pace of the greens. Then after, when you are behind and your opp is having a 3-footer to half another hole, he lacks the feel for today’s greens and would probably miss the putt and lose a hole.
——————————
No more on pain meds - all contributed matter and anti-matter are still subject to disclaimer
 
Last edited:
D

Deleted member 23235

Guest
#91
It was initially from match play. Ot requiring your opponent to make any putt within the leather - length of the grip on your putter. But then it has become acustomed to give them ”short” putts every time.




——————————
No more on pain meds - all contributed matter and anti-matter are still subject to disclaimer
but just like "easy" volleys and overheads... it's easy to get careless and miss a "gimmee". just make me putt it.
 
#92
but just like "easy" volleys and overheads... it's easy to get careless and miss a "gimmee". just make me putt it.
Different game, different manners.

Like for instance making foot faults or catching a ball obviously going meters long past the baseline in a tournament match.


——————————
No more on pain meds - all contributed matter and anti-matter are still subject to disclaimer
 
#93
i don't understand the gimmmeee system.
i know well enough from practicing on the range, that i can't hit a driver.
i get teased for only playing the 1 iron from the tees.
but just like "easy" volleys and overheads... it's easy to get careless and miss a "gimmee". just make me putt it.
That's basically it. Most golfers don't count it when they miss short putts. They say it was a "gimmee". It's a bit like an overhead you slam into the net. Except in golf, you write down your own scores. And playing partners only care about what you write down if there is money on line. Otherwise, pretty much everybody cheats on their golf score.

Pete Player is right. In match play, your opponent can concede a short putt to you. But rec golfers miss these routinely and never count it on the scorecard. Most will take the shot over, make it, and forget the miss.
 
#94
i don't understand the gimmmeee system.
i know well enough from practicing on the range, that i can't hit a driver.
i get teased for only playing the 1 iron from the tees.
I really do pull out 6 iron on long par 4's sometimes. It just depends on how likely I am to hit OB on the drive. Any Par 5 that is 500+ yards, I'm never playing to make the green in 2 (unless the hole is just wide open so there's no downside). So that gives me a lot of options on how to play the hole to ensure I get par and have the best chance at birdie.

I also do this a lot. Playing last summer, my buddy and I paired up with another 2-some. First hole is 430 yards. Water on the left; OB on the right. I hit a crappy drive that went 200 yards, but it was in the fairway. I pulled out a 7-iron I think and hit it to about 70 yards or so. Perfect spot in the fairway and a distance I like. The guys in the other 2-some were looking at each other, laughing, and wondering why I didn't try to hit a fairway wood 230 to the green. I'd have about a 5% chance of actually having the ball land on the green from that distance. And this green is guarded by bunkers, rough, and small mounds. So if you miss the green, you really screw yourself.

I hit it to within 5 feet of the cup (and then missed the putt). But it was still the right play.
 
Last edited:
#96
Anyway, back to the topic. IMO, its really NOT STRATEGIES when we talk about consistency, placement, power or directional laws. Those are just necessary basics to play tennis. You have more, you're a 5.0. You have less, you're a 3.0.
However, there are those at the lower levels that have a lot of strategies; too many, in fact. If they just stuck to one or two, they'd have better results. But they equate # and complexity of strategies with better play.

Strategies would be to use more drop shots, even if they are only half way familiar to you, against a fat opponent who fails to get them 90% of time.
The higher the level, the better the player is at recognizing the opponent's game.
The lower the level, the more the player is concerned about their own game.
 
#97
Generally speaking, I swing at about 65%. This is enough to produce the rally ball I need. And even much of this power is going toward spin as opposed to "pace" (if that makes sense).

I'd say that if you can't hit this ball and keep your opponent from attacking, you have something fundamentally wrong. You should feel like you can hit this type of ball 30 times in a row if needed. Basically feel like you'll never miss. If this doesn't describe you, I'd suggest working on this before even thinking of adding power.

Once you add power (say swinging at 80-85%), things get exponentially harder. Power is probably the very last thing you should be trying to add to your game. Only adding it after you have MASTERED the basic 65% swing.
So, what exactly is this "65% swing"? Does it tire you out? Is going higher than this 65% screw up your tennis?

TO ME, this level (65%) seems low. I wouldn't be able to beat my opponent and I wouldn't lose to him either if he played 65%. He always seems to put in much more. Hence, he is exhausted afterward, always asks for a minute between 10+ shot rallies.

To me, it always seems like both of us put nearly 100% out there. Meaning, after such a match, we wouldn't want to play another match against someone fresh because it clearly wouldn't be fair. That's singles.

For doubles, it does seem like I and many others put in half of our effort, 50%. Proof of this assessment? We can play for hours until time runs out. In doubles, people do count on errors, completely absent of stamina, strength. Is it like that for you guys in singles as well? No wonder pusher game is so deadly for many here. Not a game of strength and stamina but it's a game of ...unforced errors.

Again, we need a way to define 65% or whatever.
 
#98
"The Holy Grail for 99% of tennis players is “how can I win more matches?” And the most effective way to win more matches is....be more consistent. Whether you are playing Roger Federer, Venus Williams, or your nemesis at the club, you cannot be beaten if you hit the ball back into play! Here's what Bjorn Borg had to say on the subject: “I believe successful tennis is a game of consistency and taking advantage of the proper percentages”. Do you want to argue with a man who won 5 Wimbledons and 6 French Opens? I thought not..

The challenge of playing consistent tennis tests all four aspects of your game: Technically do you have all the shots to stay in a long rally? Tactically can you select the correct `percentage shots` as the rally develops? Physically do you have the speed and endurance to get to every ball? Mentally do you have the concentration and mental toughness to triumph in long rallies?

Now that I have convinced you that consistency is the key, what are the keys to consistency? 1. Give yourself a margin for error. In baseline rallies aim 1 metre inside the side lines and 3 metres inside the baseline. If you are a little off target, the shot will still be in. Aim 1 to 2 metres over the net in baseline rallies for the same reason – only hit low if your opponent is moving to or is at the net. 2. Hit the ball only as hard as you can control it. Rafael Nadal's average groundstroke speed is 70 mph. But you are not Rafael Nadal..... "

https://www.tennisireland.ie/wp-con...00-10.-STRATEGY-AND-TACTICS-One-More_Time.pdf

Re what Borg said, that's double speaking! Or speaking out of both sides of the mouth.

If you constantly need to cater to so called proper percentages -- which is halfway controlled by your opponent -- you really have no/little say in your consistency. For example, against someone good at defense like Djokovic (recreational Djokovic's) you WILL BE FORCED to make very low percent shots. Where's your consistency now?

I know this. My friend who has very good work ethics, loves exercise and would try to run down as many shots as possible. Normally I can put away balls that land in my service box against other opponents, but against this friend, I really have to topspin it hard and closer to a side line, which greatly reduces my chance (consistency), but no choice or he will get his racket on it and likely win the point with a lob or passing.



Nadal doesn't want to hit the ball out, doesn't want to take unnecessary risk if he doesn't have it, but the fact is he did hit out, ALOT against Djokovic, and lost. Why? does he suddenly abandon his consistency? I doubt that. He is forced to make very low % shot out of necessity (and still not enough and lost).
 
#99
Re what Borg said, that's double speaking! Or speaking out of both sides of the mouth.

If you constantly need to cater to so called proper percentages -- which is halfway controlled by your opponent -- you really have no/little say in your consistency. For example, against someone good at defense like Djokovic (recreational Djokovic's) you WILL BE FORCED to make very low percent shots. Where's your consistency now?
Borg did pretty well against his peers. You could argue that his ideas were sound or maybe that his opponents were not very good. Your choice [and to what degree].

I know this. My friend who has very good work ethics, loves exercise and would try to run down as many shots as possible. Normally I can put away balls that land in my service box against other opponents, but against this friend, I really have to topspin it hard and closer to a side line, which greatly reduces my chance (consistency), but no choice or he will get his racket on it and likely win the point with a lob or passing.
I think you have too much of a binary approach: when I play someone like this, I don't try to overhit my approach because I know that overhitting will increase my UEs. Instead, I accept the fact that he will get his racquet on it and I prepare for the next shot. Just because he's fast doesn't mean he'll be able to pass me and just because he lobs doesn't mean I won't put away an OH.

I'm playing the percentages, just ilke Borg outlined: I'm pitting my net game against my opponent's ground game, confident that I will come out on top the majority of the time. If that's not true, I'll have to adjust my strategy. The point is I don't want to play lower % shots just because my opponent is fast.
 
Again, we need a way to define 65% or whatever.
% of your potential power.

You still have to keep your swing speed high enough to get the spin though.

I guess I’m describing a feel and you want different sorts of answers. So I’m probably not the best source for you. We speak different languages.
 
Top