What is your main singles strategy?

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).

Borg's advice is sound. It doesn't mean that you're going to beat everyone. If you need to make low percentage shots to counter your opponent, chances are that you're going to lose anyway. Very few players are going to win a match where they repeatedly have to make low percentage shots.

There are limits to every strategy. Borg himself was the Djokovic of his era...someone who could run for hours and get to everything, frustrating his opponents. However, he eventually met his match in someone who was the opposite...JMac, a supremely gifted S&V who imposed his game on Borg as the match went along. More than the style you play (baseline/grinding vs attacking), the person who usually wins is one who can impose his strengths on his opponent as the match goes along.
 
Borg said, “Usually I hit cross court, but sometimes I go down the middle.” He had 11 Majors.

JMac attacked everything in sight, including himself. He too had numerous Majors.

BOTH played a style consonant with their personality. Herein lies wisdom.

BHBH


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 
Borg's advice is sound. It doesn't mean that you're going to beat everyone. If you need to make low percentage shots to counter your opponent, chances are that you're going to lose anyway. Very few players are going to win a match where they repeatedly have to make low percentage shots.

the person who usually wins is one who can impose his strengths on his opponent as the match goes along.

Re the orange, you simply don't know that. If I make a low % shot at the right time and effectively, I will likely win. If I am equal to my opponent, he'll need to push his limit too, ie going for the lower % shots, to get out of stalemate.

Players don't need to go for low % shots if they're already winning with high % shots, unless they're dumb. Do you think YOU re dumb? You are not, right? No reason to think other players are dumb, right?



Re the blue, well ..duh.. That's also like a match between Nadal and a qualifier. A yawn fest.

See, ATP pros play this kind of yawn fest because they have to make a living, ie no choice. I find that recreational players very LIKELY REFUSE to play a single match where the lopsidedness is obvious. They are too afraid to have their ego hurt. Hence, dubs are 100x more prevalent.

I don't know. Can you post something more interesting/unique, with an angle, instead of the obvious.
 
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 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.
It's not Borg's IDEAS that qualified his statements. It is his talents/ his ball hitting skills. When you win, you can say whatever, even the dumbest, contradicting things, ...well.. no one is going to argue with you. They know better. (I'm not arguing against Borg. I'm arguing with you pple. Haa!)

Borg's idea is average, even double speaking like I pointed out. Most likely, he has no idea about his talent, no idea about the reality of other players. His talent: he makes the shots that only have 10% chance for many players but to him it's like 90%. So he thinks that's still high % and consistency.
 
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.
So tell me, how are you going to adjust your strategy? What are you going to do next when your net game fails?
 
So tell me, how are you going to adjust your strategy? What are you going to do next when your net game fails?
- Get more aggressive with my serve: if I have a very low DF count and a high 1st serve %, I can afford to give away some to try and get more service winners
- Don't come in every time; make him guess
- Be patient for a good opportunity to come in
- Try to rally [not my strong suit]
- mix up pace and spin; don't just try to match his TS
 
Maybe I’m not following, but to me serve and volley requires aggressive serving to begin the points with. In my head it is the serve, that should set a window for coming in.

In that sence, I think, at least in my case the option would be trying to spin the serve more and make it move leading to more manageable ground stroke or an approach, if not a straight up winner position.

If there is a good, solid returner rushing in would probably not be a good idea. But I might change into the sneaking attack from second or third rally shot, were I serve and vollying.

Hence till lately I have tried to pull winners from the unexpected positions. Rallying was not an option before, yet I might have had better strokes to wait for an UE or better position to put the ball away.
——————————
No more on pain meds - all contributed matter and anti-matter are still subject to disclaimer
 
Last edited:
Re the orange, you simply don't know that. If I make a low % shot at the right time and effectively, I will likely win. If I am equal to my opponent, he'll need to push his limit too, ie going for the lower % shots, to get out of stalemate.

Players don't need to go for low % shots if they're already winning with high % shots, unless they're dumb. Do you think YOU re dumb? You are not, right? No reason to think other players are dumb, right?



Re the blue, well ..duh.. That's also like a match between Nadal and a qualifier. A yawn fest.

See, ATP pros play this kind of yawn fest because they have to make a living, ie no choice. I find that recreational players very LIKELY REFUSE to play a single match where the lopsidedness is obvious. They are too afraid to have their ego hurt. Hence, dubs are 100x more prevalent.

I don't know. Can you post something more interesting/unique, with an angle, instead of the obvious.
If you're going to resort to low % shots to try and change the flow you are going to lose. We are not talking about one shot here or there. We are talking about when whatever you're throwing at your opponent is not working and you resort to low % stuff. Best of luck if you think you can string a sufficient number of those to make it work. I personally think that's not the best way to go about it. However it might make sense for you. I'd rather try to change the style...maybe change things up a little bit and see if it works. Or if I believe my plan is sound but the opponent is playing out of his mind, then I might just stick with it, and see if the opponent cracks at some point. In any case, options other than just going for low percentage shots.
 
Last edited:
We might be talking the same thing in different ways.

All of us agree that if things are not working out on a given day then we might have to go beyond our preferred game plan and go to option 2 or option 3. In most cases the backup options we give ourselves are not what we want to do and so in that sense, yes it's a lower percentage strategy because it's taking us out of our comfort zone of our option 1 which is probably what we are most adept at.

However, going a bit out of your comfort zone, taking some calculated risks, and lowering your percentage of success slightly, is different from going for low percentage shots. I think there are nuances there than just all or nothing when it comes to taking risks.
 
We might be talking the same thing in different ways.

All of us agree that if things are not working out on a given day then we might have to go beyond our preferred game plan and go to option 2 or option 3. In most cases the backup options we give ourselves are not what we want to do and so in that sense, yes it's a lower percentage strategy because it's taking us out of our comfort zone of our option 1 which is probably what we are most adept at.
Now you get it! :)

However, going a bit out of your comfort zone, taking some calculated risks, and lowering your percentage of success slightly, is different from going for low percentage shots. I think there are nuances there than just all or nothing when it comes to taking risks.
You'll need to give some examples of what you mean. Otherwise, it's just very vague.
 
Now you get it! :)



You'll need to give some examples of what you mean. Otherwise, it's just very vague.
It's vague because there is no one shoe that fits all. Maybe you love to hit groundstrokes and your opponent is killing it that day. At that point you might resort to a moonball strategy to see if it throws him off? You might resort to slicing and coming to the net more,..etc. Maybe you slightly increase your power (as @r2473 wrote..that is based on individual feel for which there is no definitive answer). It depends upon what you can reasonably execute as an option 2 or 3 and it has to bother your opponent too. Therefore the answer is different for each player and each opponent you face and might be even dependent upon certain things such as weather that are going on that particular day. You will have to find that answer for yourself and it might not be the same every time.

I would do those than try to hit the lines consistently or skim the net consistently or try to radically change my power. If I have to do any of that, I'll probably just accelerate the timeline of my loss.
 
I take the last BH is a slice into the corner down the line.


——————————
No more on pain meds - all contributed matter and anti-matter are still subject to disclaimer
Actually its the corner I'm aiming at. Hit to the BH side until they linger there then hit back to the FH side to get them moving and then back to the BH side and come in.
 

sureshs

Bionic Poster
+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
Also remember many of the oldies you think are pushers who keep winning by consistency don't let it be known that they played in high school or community college, or have been playing with their siblings since childhood. Their forehand and backhand slices and lack of topspin which give the impression of cautious conservative play are actually the strokes they grew up with and probably hit thousands of reps when they were younger. Some of them are retired folks who bicycle 20 miles a day and keep very fit, which helps them with endurance and consistency, which we mistakenly associate with the type of their strokes. Consistency requires lots of control - that is why it is so difficult. But control does not come because of consistency, nor because of mental attitude. It is a combination of fitness to get to the ball, and then racket skills to put just enough pace on the ball and get it where you want to go. It requires "racket head awareness." All pros have it, except they have moved on beyond that to aggression. If you land up on court just as you are today and tell yourself I will be consistent and not make UEs, it doesn't work. You will be fearfully putting up sitters with partial swings.
 
I think we need to add another tennis creature to the zoo. The aggressive junk baller. Hits quick first serves. Plenty of loopers and slices. Mainly slices back hanf because it's more dependable. But has a lights out for hand when in position.
 
It's vague because there is no one shoe that fits all. Maybe you love to hit groundstrokes and your opponent is killing it that day. At that point you might resort to a moonball strategy to see if it throws him off? You might resort to slicing and coming to the net more,..etc. Maybe you slightly increase your power (as @r2473 wrote..that is based on individual feel for which there is no definitive answer). It depends upon what you can reasonably execute as an option 2 or 3 and it has to bother your opponent too. Therefore the answer is different for each player and each opponent you face and might be even dependent upon certain things such as weather that are going on that particular day. You will have to find that answer for yourself and it might not be the same every time.

I would do those than try to hit the lines consistently or skim the net consistently or try to radically change my power. If I have to do any of that, I'll probably just accelerate the timeline of my loss.
Re the bolded, you effectively dismiss all the advices, tips that are offered here. Everything said is moot because the answer is different for every one and opponent. :) Eg. your approach might be valid. Mine might also be valid. or Nothing is valid. What are we debating here? Nice. Hehe
 
I think we need to add another tennis creature to the zoo. The aggressive junk baller. Hits quick first serves. Plenty of loopers and slices. Mainly slices back hanf because it's more dependable. But has a lights out for hand when in position.
You must be new or blind not to see the thread about a dude who considers the bh slice as the hardest shot. It's a lowest percentage shot for him. LOL.

I like your zoo with different tennis creatures idea. :)
 

sureshs

Bionic Poster
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.
Which only proves the point. If pros have incredible consistency, then why emphasize it?

I will tell you why pros and some high-level coaches emphasize consistency over power in any public conversation. It is the same reason why a Nobel laureate in Physics always credits his achievements to the fundamentals taught by his "sincere" high school teacher Mrs. Smith. In reality, he was sleeping in her class. What he is doing is called "modest bragging." What Borg is saying is that even though pros like him can hit very hard and with lots of spin, you rec idiots out there in clubs cannot be like me, so I will make you feel good by emphasizing consistency.

Next thing you will be telling me is that Anna Ballsnova actually sincerely thinks that her next opponent Elena Smashnova is an incredible player and she has to give 110% in order to have a chance aganst her.
 

sureshs

Bionic Poster
% of your potential power.
You will never know your potential power unless you exert yourself. Rec players don't have the time to get balls fed to them by someone or a machine for hours and drill with ever increasing power till they find their current maximum potential. That is how juniors develop their power and then learn to tone it down. A rec player needs to try some of this as he is playing to get even an approximate idea of his potential.
 
Which only proves the point. If pros have incredible consistency, then why emphasize it?

What he is doing is called "modest bragging." What Borg is saying is that even though pros like him can hit very hard and with lots of spin, you rec idiots out there in clubs cannot be like me, so I will make you feel good by emphasizing consistency.
You might be onto something here.

This is why I said earlier that Borg's idea is average, and if it can be sold, guess how he thinks of his audience, "rec idiots" like you suggest.

Pros have "incredible consistency". But we rec players also have to have some consistency which is a prerequisite to play tennis.

What do you guys wanna hear next from famous pro's for "advices and strategies"? You need a good racket + strings? Oh wait, they're already doing that. LOL
 
Re the bolded, you effectively dismiss all the advices, tips that are offered here. Everything said is moot because the answer is different for every one and opponent. :) Eg. your approach might be valid. Mine might also be valid. or Nothing is valid. What are we debating here? Nice. Hehe
No..I didn't dismiss anything and everything that was discussed here. This particular side discussion that you got involved in was mainly about sureshs saying rec players need to 'live it up while they can', and you then chiming in how low percentage shots are what is called for when things are not going your way. I don't agree with either of your approaches, and have given my take on what I feel are some better options. You seem to be want to spoon fed stuff on what constitutes a reasonable back up plan when there is no one definitive answer on how you approach things when things are not going your way. Can't help you there.
 
Which only proves the point. If pros have incredible consistency, then why emphasize it?

I will tell you why pros and some high-level coaches emphasize consistency over power in any public conversation. It is the same reason why a Nobel laureate in Physics always credits his achievements to the fundamentals taught by his "sincere" high school teacher Mrs. Smith. In reality, he was sleeping in her class. What he is doing is called "modest bragging." What Borg is saying is that even though pros like him can hit very hard and with lots of spin, you rec idiots out there in clubs cannot be like me, so I will make you feel good by emphasizing consistency.

Next thing you will be telling me is that Anna Ballsnova actually sincerely thinks that her next opponent Elena Smashnova is an incredible player and she has to give 110% in order to have a chance aganst her.
No...what Borg is saying is rec idiots who proudly proclaim they are emulating Federer and his smooth strokes and proclaim how they are living their life on the court, while videos reveal they are playing slow footed, 2 bounce tennis, need to improve their fitness and focus on consistency. Again, no one is begrudging you if you feel that your idea of fun is just going for your strokes. I will stick to being more consistent. That's my idea of fun. Just because neither of us get paid for our rec matches doesn't mean that our idea of what 'fun' is when playing this sport has to be the same.
 
No..I didn't dismiss anything and everything that was discussed here. This particular side discussion that you got involved in was mainly about sureshs saying rec players need to 'live it up while they can', and you then chiming in how low percentage shots are what is called for when things are not going your way. I don't agree with either of your approaches, and have given my take on what I feel are some better options. You seem to be want to spoon fed stuff on what constitutes a reasonable back up plan when there is no one definitive answer on how you approach things when things are not going your way. Can't help you there.
No. I am actually not even aware of what sureshs said before, let alone his point.

My debate with you and anyone is revolving around consistency vs power; low percentage, etc. as advices as strategies. IMO, it's just nonsense. 1) they're not isolated elements working in a vacuum, 2) they're not really strategic elements. Generally speaking they're just required building blocks of tennis.

(I'm aware they can be considered strategic only because rec level can get so low, eg. someone can slice exclusively to some mishap players who can't deal with low slicing. So, in that sense it's a strategy! :))
 

sureshs

Bionic Poster
No...what Borg is saying is rec idiots who proudly proclaim they are emulating Federer and his smooth strokes and proclaim how they are living their life on the court, while videos reveal they are playing slow footed, 2 bounce tennis, need to improve their fitness and focus on consistency. Again, no one is begrudging you if you feel that your idea of fun is just going for your strokes. I will stick to being more consistent. That's my idea of fun. Just because neither of us get paid for our rec matches doesn't mean that our idea of what 'fun' is when playing this sport has to be the same.
No rec player seriously believes that he is emulating Federer. If someone told you that, it was a joke. It is a common mistake here to think that someone who arrives with a RF97A and RF outfits thinks he is like Federer. Anyone over 18 does not think like that.
 

sureshs

Bionic Poster
No. I am actually not even aware of what sureshs said before, let alone his point.

My debate with you and anyone is revolving around consistency vs power; low percentage, etc. as advices as strategies. IMO, it's just nonsense. 1) they're not isolated elements working in a vacuum, 2) they're not really strategic elements. Generally speaking they're just required building blocks of tennis.

(I'm aware they can be considered strategic only because rec level can get so low, eg. someone can slice exclusively to some mishap players who can't deal with low slicing. So, in that sense it's a strategy! :))
Low slicing is also a skill and is not a "consistency" shot. A more consistent shot is a bad high slice. People here are confusing consistency with type of stroke.
 
No rec player seriously believes that he is emulating Federer. If someone told you that, it was a joke. It is a common mistake here to think that someone who arrives with a RF97A and RF outfits thinks he is like Federer. Anyone over 18 does not think like that.
I am just quoting what you wrote at some point. Maybe you meant it as a joke. Not sure. Anyway, don't lose the point of what I wrote. As I said, your idea of what 'fun' is on the court is not the same as what others might feel.
 

sureshs

Bionic Poster
I am just quoting what you wrote at some point. Maybe you meant it as a joke. Not sure. Anyway, don't lose the point of what I wrote. As I said, your idea of what 'fun' is on the court is not the same as what others might feel.
I think you are saying fun on the court is related to winning. I have watched innumerable USTA matches and volunteered in tournaments from the low juniors to the pros, and generally the better player wins. Whether he/she is having fun or not is not clear.

You probably think going for your strokes freely and losing is not fun. But playing consistently and losing is also not fun. If two consistent players play each other with "65% of their potential" whatever than means, and one loses, he is not having fun.
 
No. I am actually not even aware of what sureshs said before, let alone his point.

My debate with you and anyone is revolving around consistency vs power; low percentage, etc. as advices as strategies. IMO, it's just nonsense. 1) they're not isolated elements working in a vacuum, 2) they're not really strategic elements. Generally speaking they're just required building blocks of tennis.

(I'm aware they can be considered strategic only because rec level can get so low, eg. someone can slice exclusively to some mishap players who can't deal with low slicing. So, in that sense it's a strategy! :))
That's what happens when you jump in halfway through a thread and assume a thread never diverges from its original point :). I went off on a tangent to counter sureshs who started talking about going for strokes as the way rec players should play. I have only a few strategies. Make my opponent run side to side and front and back. My only strength is my fitness and speed. In that sense, I'm like your opponent who you feel gets to a lot of stuff that others don't. If my opponent can do that well, he'll beat me because the quality of my strokes are not good enough to force the action.
 
I think you are saying fun on the court is related to winning. I have watched innumerable USTA matches and volunteered in tournaments from the low juniors to the pros, and generally the better player wins. Whether he/she is having fun or not is not clear.

You probably think going for your strokes freely and losing is not fun. But playing consistently and losing is also not fun. If two consistent players play each other with "65% of their potential" whatever than means, and one loses, he is not having fun.
You assume a lot of things and almost always those assumptions are incorrect.

For some, winning is fun. I didn't say it was for me. For me, not making too many unforced errors and being consistent in my game is fun.

Also, do you even read? Once again, you erroneously say that I 'probably think' that going for strokes freely and losing is not fun.

I have said this numerous times on this thread, and will say it one more time. Not expecting you to get it, since you have not got it so far...I have never begrudged your idea of what 'fun' is. If your idea of 'fun' is to freely go for your strokes, go for it. Why would it bother me? What bothers me is that you seem to want to impose your definition of what 'fun' is on others too, and feel that if someone is playing a more cautious style, then they are not having fun. Don't keep making assumptions about others.
 

sureshs

Bionic Poster
Make my opponent run side to side and front and back.
Hit to where your opponent isn't is the only strategy you need at the rec level. That covers all your cases through angular Smart Targets TM shots, deep crosscourt or DTL shots, drop shots, and lobs.

Whether you can do those consistently is not a matter of consistency but control and skill!
 
Hit to where your opponent isn't is the only strategy you need at the rec level. That covers all your cases through angular Smart Targets TM shots, deep crosscourt or DTL shots, drop shots, and lobs.

Whether you can do those consistently is not a matter of consistency but control and skill!
No disagreements but it is easier to keep the ball in play and move the opponent around than go for full blooded strokes. The latter requires much more skill and years of practice. This is why pros preach the former, because they are correct that most rec players don't have the ability to do the latter consistently.

Now it's a different thing altogether on how you as a rec player wants to approach the game. Everyone has their own idea of why they play this sport and what makes it enjoyable. Just because a pro player tells you to follow a certain strategy, it doesn't mean that you have to follow that, because what you want to get out of the few hours you are on the court during a week might be totally different.
 
If two consistent players play each other with "65% of their potential" whatever than means, and one loses, he is not having fun.
My meaning was best summed up by Navigator. But he was smart enough not to put a number on it.
- Focus on placement and consistency (as opposed to power and spin); in baseline exchanges, any ball that my opponent can't consistently attack is a good shot
If it helps you and @user92626, try to forget the 65% number. I thought that would be helpful. It wasn't.

I only mentioned the 65% number to stress how much you can "throttle back" and still hit rally balls that keep you neutral (at worst).

At this point, feel free to interpret this any way you want to. Doesn't bother me any. If this isn't helpful advice, ignore it.
 
Last edited:
You will never know your potential power unless you exert yourself. Rec players don't have the time to get balls fed to them by someone or a machine for hours and drill with ever increasing power till they find their current maximum potential. That is how juniors develop their power and then learn to tone it down. A rec player needs to try some of this as he is playing to get even an approximate idea of his potential.
You might find out by hitting as hard/fast as you can, when playing, but that would cost you the probability to succeed hitting it inside the court. If pulled out, lot of people start thinking, that this is the shot I’m capable of at any part, any position of the court and any given situation. Were they smart, they’d know it was a strike of lightning and will not hit the same spot, player in the same game nor a match.


——————————
No more on pain meds - all contributed matter and anti-matter are still subject to disclaimer
 
I bet you don't have fun when you do that and lose.
No one will lie and say that losing is fun. The question is are you playing tentatively or not. You can play a pusher style and still play freely. I play a style that maximizes my strengths. So I'm happy.

The only time I don't have fun, and this usually happens always in doubles than in singles, is that I start getting tentative because I'm afraid of letting down my partner. Win or lose, when that happens, it's not fun.
 

sureshs

Bionic Poster
My meaning was best summed up by Navigator. But he was smart enough not to put a number on it.

If it helps you and @user92626, try to forget the 65% number. I thought that would be helpful. It wasn't.
At the pro level, it means trading power for consistency. As a rec player, you have to make sure what it does NOT mean - abbreviating your swings with incomplete finishes. That becomes a bad habit and gets worse under pressure.
 
I think you are saying fun on the court is related to winning. I have watched innumerable USTA matches and volunteered in tournaments from the low juniors to the pros, and generally the better player wins. Whether he/she is having fun or not is not clear.

You probably think going for your strokes freely and losing is not fun. But playing consistently and losing is also not fun. If two consistent players play each other with "65% of their potential" whatever than means, and one loses, he is not having fun.
Not having fun while playing will inevitably ruin your intrest. Winning is one aspect of having fun, but it does not undermine the fact, that losing a tight match, when playing your best game is also fun. Unfortunate though to lose, but it is a game, where the margins sometime are quite thin.


——————————
No more on pain meds - all contributed matter and anti-matter are still subject to disclaimer
 
My meaning was best summed up by Navigator. But he was smart enough not to put a number on it.

If it helps you and @user92626, try to forget the 65% number. I thought that would be helpful. It wasn't.
Don't cop out. You did well. ;) Frankly , imo Navigator wasn't much clearer or better.

Naturally anyone coming into a game would want to hit the ball in enough times (consistency), no? Then, to places where they CAN (placement), no?

Navigator said the obvious but then add a caveat "my opponent can't consistently attack" which may effectively cancel out his consistency/placement point.

I mean, what if the only good shot that my opponent can't attack is one that's hit powerfully well inside the court (negligible placement) and has 15% chance which is enough to beat my opponent's 10% chance of returning it. Then, what? Still stick with Placement and 90% consistency"?
 

sureshs

Bionic Poster
You can play a pusher style and still play freely.
I don't recognize a pusher style. I lob a lot in doubles and people call me a pusher, old fart, play like a real man etc. I call it a lob. I sometimes play against a guy who has only 2 strokes - wicked backhand and forehand sidespin slices. People call him a pusher - I call them slices.
 
I don't recognize a pusher style. I lob a lot in doubles and people call me a pusher, old fart, play like a real man etc. I call it a lob. I sometimes play against a guy who has only 2 strokes - wicked backhand and forehand sidespin slices. People call him a pusher - I call them slices.
An opponent, who hits dinks with either spin is hard to overcome. Usually their gameplan is to keep the ball in play as long as possible. It will wear a heavy hitter out, if they can reach every ball landing on their side. Takes a toll to put speed on the ball shot in shot out.

If one is able to do the same, it is really troublesome for lot of those relying on the other players ball speed.


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

sureshs

Bionic Poster
My meaning was best summed up by Navigator. But he was smart enough not to put a number on it.
Unlike you, I have played him a couple of times. I didn't read his post but I suppose it was about traditional strokes and consistency. Don't read too much into it. He has incredible stamina (plays for hours on end at the biggest tennis facility here), has a personal clay court at home, executes deep low slices, and an incredibly fast approach to the net. It is not consistency, it is skill and fitness. If he was a junior today, he would be hitting more topspin, that is all, but with the same results.
 
Don't cop out. You did well. ;) Frankly , imo Navigator wasn't much clearer or better.

Naturally anyone coming into a game would want to hit the ball in enough times (consistency), no? Then, to places where they CAN (placement), no?

Navigator said the obvious but then add a caveat "my opponent can't consistently attack" which may effectively cancel out his consistency/placement point.

I mean, what if the only good shot that my opponent can't attack is one that's hit powerfully well inside the court (negligible placement) and has 15% chance which is enough to beat my opponent's 10% chance of returning it. Then, what? Still stick with Placement and 90% consistency"?
What it means to me is hitting with sufficient depth. I'm actually not all that concerned with placement. And by depth, I don't mean hitting it near the back line. My aim is the service line or perhaps just a bit deeper. The depth comes from the spin.
The spin also keeps the ball out of my opponents "sweet spot" strike zone.

I don't think this is as hard as you are making it. It's pretty fundamental

You don't have to hit the cover off the ball when hitting this shot. Not only will you increase your errors, but many opponents won't find it easy to block back a ball with no pace. Part of what I'm doing is making the "blocker" uncomfortable. Making him generate some of his own pace. And I also don't want to groove the baseline basher. Most of these guys prefer pace. I try to hit a little softer than they like. It messes with their timing and generally just makes them angry / annoyed.

If you want to get really basic and fundamental, it's what Bill Tilden says in his book "Spin of the ball". You're just trying to make your opponent uncomfortable. To mentally check out. That's probably my biggest goal.
 
Last edited:

sureshs

Bionic Poster
An opponent, who hits dinks with either spin is hard to overcome. Usually their gameplan is to keep the ball in play as long as possible. It will wear a heavy hitter out, if they can reach every ball landing on their side. Takes a toll to put speed on the ball shot in shot out.

If one is able to do the same, it is really troublesome for lot of those relying on the other players ball speed.


——————————
No more on pain meds - all contributed matter and anti-matter are still subject to disclaimer
With this guy, it was more about how close to the net he would place the slice, making you run forward and then deal with the turn after the bounce. It doesn't work in doubles though, because the net guy puts it away. In singles, he was doing that because he had incredible speed to get the ball in the first place, but now he wears knee braces and cannot do that anymore and is showing up less and less frequently. That is the big problem with the pusher game - if fitness goes, a lot of the tricks disappear, while a "regular" player can keep playing much longer.
 
Unlike you, I have played him a couple of times. I didn't read his post but I suppose it was about traditional strokes and consistency. Don't read too much into it. He has incredible stamina (plays for hours on end at the biggest tennis facility here), has a personal clay court at home, executes deep low slices, and an incredibly fast approach to the net. It is not consistency, it is skill and fitness. If he was a junior today, he would be hitting more topspin, that is all, but with the same results.
Every strategy is tied to skill/fitness anyway. When someone says consistency is the strategy, you should still have the talent to be able to serve well, return good paced shots from your opponent sufficiently well so that he doesn't have a sitter,..etc. When someone says the strategy is to move the player off the court and then hit to the bh followed by an approach to the net, that still takes skill.

So it goes without saying that skill/fitness are the top tools for any strategy. However, within the skillset toolbag, certain skills are easier to acquire than others. It's easier to play the percentages and let your opponent make mistakes, than consistently hit winners. So, asking someone to play the percentages and be consistent is certainly a valid 'strategy'. It is understood that you still need a certain skill level to execute that relatively low level strategy.
 
What it means to me is hitting with sufficient depth. I'm actually not all that concerned with placement. And by depth, I don't mean hitting it near the back line. My aim is the service line or perhaps just a bit deeper. The depth comes from the spin.
The spin also keeps the ball out of my opponents "sweet spot" strike zone.

I don't think this is as hard as you are making it. It's pretty fundamental
It's interesting how I think what I say is pretty simple and fundamental but yet get accused of making it hard. :)

But this goes to show perceptions and levels (in many things) can be vastly different.

Example: it's routine/consistency for you to hit past the service line but it's high risk for someone like sureshs, who feels he needs to hit much shorter and bounces twice. But like You, sureshs' shots are also kept out of his opponent's strike zone. Hehe.


Never thought you'd see the say where you get compared to sureshs? :)
 
Every strategy is tied to skill/fitness anyway. When someone says consistency is the strategy, you should still have the talent to be able to serve well, return good paced shots from your opponent sufficiently well so that he doesn't have a sitter,..etc. ...

It is understood that you still need a certain skill level to execute that relatively low level strategy.
Unless your opponent is the rimspin specialist, who seems to be hitting the ball, but allways finds the ball with the edge of the racket or face. Consistent like h-e-l-l, getting the racket onto the ball and into the court, but without any consistent ball flight.



——————————
No more on pain meds - all contributed matter and anti-matter are still subject to disclaimer
 
It's interesting how I think what I say is pretty simple and fundamental but yet get accused of making it hard.
My original question was "What is your main singles strategy"?

My answer in it's most basic form is: I prioritize depth of shot above all else.

I can anticipate your response. "Do you mean you try to hit the back fence or even over the fence"? Yes, that's what I try to do and what I mean by depth.
 
Top