user92626
G.O.A.T.
Nothing wrong with your strategy.
But you're crazy if you anticipate that kind of response from me.
In fact, my first response to you was about having sufficient power, to which you said "right".
What is your main singles strategy?
- Thread starter r2473
- Start date
But you're crazy if you anticipate that kind of response from me.
In fact, my first response to you was about having sufficient power, to which you said "right".
BulldogLouisiana
Rookie
Nothing about sureshs is pointed.
user92626
G.O.A.T.
Ahh but for a person with limited fitness (talking about a friend here) an aggressive strategy may actually be a higher percentage strategy!
Take Dr. Ivo. He admits his groundstrokes are not good by pro standards and blames it on practicing only what he liked, namely serves, when he was a junior is Croatia. For him, a S&V strategy is perhaps a higher percentage play. For Federer, who doesn't have the groundstroke tolerance or margin of Nadal or Djokovic, his wins over them came through aggression.
Which is actually low percentage play and contradicts your previous claims. It is hence practiced intensively by pros with cone targets, especially the WTA. I once watched Jankovic at IW asking for the cones to be placed deeper and deeper as she hit harder and harder trying to cross them. High percentage play is less depth and more topspin and easier.
S&V-not_dead_yet
Talk Tennis Guru
Not necessarily. It depends on how well he's returning. The poorer he's returning, the less aggressive I need to serve. And that's not an unrealistic scenario: I've played many matches where my opponent just wasn't hitting enough quality returns. And, by the same token, I've played plenty where he was. I start with medium aggressive and adjust from there.
user92626
G.O.A.T.
@S&V-not_dead_yet
Do you observe the returner first then begin your s&v game? Or, by default, you always s&v?
Do you observe the returner first then begin your s&v game? Or, by default, you always s&v?
S&V-not_dead_yet
Talk Tennis Guru
I don't think I've ever begun a match by serving and staying back, even when I know his returns are better than my net game [unless I'm deliberately working on my ground game]. I guess I'm hoping I can catch him on an off day. Because he knows I'm probably coming in.
How soon I abandon plan A for something else depends on how badly he's smoking the return and if I suspect he'll be able to maintain it.
- In one match, I was down 0-3 but kept to S&V and ended up winning 6-3.
- In another match, I was down 0-3 after losing the first set before I finally threw in the towel and switched to plan B [I ended up squeaking out a win].
But, in several other matches, I just kept going back to the well and won or lost without changing strategy. I'd like to think on the losses I at least made them sweat a bit.
user92626
G.O.A.T.
Haha that sounds a bit crazy and well non-structural. Basically, you just play your games. If you feel like changing, then you change. If not, you don't. No rhyme or reason in the grand scheme.
I guess a lot of players are like you. They do what they do. Very hard to detect a structure or system. Do you try harder (with the same things)?
S&V-not_dead_yet
Talk Tennis Guru
Haha that sounds a bit crazy and well non-structural. Basically, you just play your games. If you feel like changing, then you change. If not, you don't. No rhyme or reason in the grand scheme.
I guess a lot of players are like you. They do what they do. Very hard to detect a structure or system. Do you try harder (with the same things)?
In general, I do switch to Plan B. I can think of a few times when I did not. *Most* of the time, in those cases, I lost by a small margin [ie 4-6 4-6] so I could be excused for sticking with Plan A. The "no excuse" scenario is when I'm clearly losing and yet still didn't change. Fortunately, I can only think of two incidents of that in the last year.
I don't think I try harder; I don't think that's going to work for me. I try to make better decisions.
Kind of difficult now because Craigslist closed down its personal ads section?
I would say go for Smart Targets (TM).
5263
G.O.A.T.
of course....how better to earn shorter weak balls to attack?
My main singles strategy has always been to serve to the deuce side, serve to the ad side, serve to the deuce side again, and serve to the ad side again.
My plan is to only hit the ball 4 times.
If I have to do more than that, my winning percentage goes down.
I have won quite a few matches with that strategy, though.
My plan is to only hit the ball 4 times.
If I have to do more than that, my winning percentage goes down.
I have won quite a few matches with that strategy, though.
What do people think about aggressively attacking the second serve? I know Andy Gerst on one of his recent podcasts advocates for attacking the 2nd serve as a way to put pressure on the server to make their serves and can result in more doublefaults. Recently, I've had success with hitting a few winners off my forehand DTL in the deuce court(I'm a lefty). I know this may not be the highest percentage play but you're really not going to get an easier ball to put away then a relatively weak second serve.
Hmgraphite1
Hall of Fame
I was having some issues with winning points against light hitters, so I moved up to 3 feet from service line and teed off on the second serves putting pressure on the opponent, usually getting a winner. This helped balance out my ue and made the match more enjoyable for me. I caught it at the apex instead of on the drop close to the court reaching forward.
S&V-not_dead_yet
Talk Tennis Guru
Agassi recommended it.
jhick
Hall of Fame
Aggressive mindset. On serve I look for placement, spin, and mix in different speeds. Being a lefty helps me here. Try to get free points on my serve first and foremost. Like to serve and volley though I'm slower than in my youth and first volley is not as strong, so I mix it in about 35-40% of the time. Always looking to move in and exploit angles, before my opponent exposes me. Look to hit on the rise and on or inside the baseline when at all possible. I tend to get into trouble when either my opponent hit heavy topspin balls consistently deep in the court, or he has really good passing shots, or he's really fast and can get to a ton of balls.
stealthfighter69
Rookie
Very simple: during the warmup, a weak side (forehand or backhand) is usually observed. I hit to that side for the majority of the match, looking for a short ball to attack the net with.
If the person isn't fit, I'll implement the above strategy but will try to move the person side to side with a few more drop shots. The drop shots don't have to be especially good; the point is to tire the person out.
If the person isn't fit, I'll implement the above strategy but will try to move the person side to side with a few more drop shots. The drop shots don't have to be especially good; the point is to tire the person out.
TagUrIt
Hall of Fame
This thread has been an interesting read. I’m pretty accurate with my serves, I can place it pretty much where I want. I generally “Serve Plus One” (serve wide and attack the return).
If the return is good, I’ll work the point until I can go for the winner. I’ve learned to patient and not always go for the winner just to end the rally soon.
If the return is good, I’ll work the point until I can go for the winner. I’ve learned to patient and not always go for the winner just to end the rally soon.
Morch Us
Hall of Fame
It is in-fact more important to go high percentage shots, and less "pushing limits" when the opponent is of equal strength, especially at below pro level. The guy playing low %, will wins some "wow" points. But eventually the percentage plays its part when the "strength" or skills are equal. As many pointed out one player loses eventually, the the one who loose most probably would be the "pushing the limits" lower % guy. The guy who knows to hit "neutral" balls most of the time, would wins against the guy who hits only defense or offense.
Now once you reach pro, both players understand the % game, and then "calculated risks" at specific points rewards the winner, which is infact more of a mental skill than anything else. At rec level, even when players insist that they know the "%" game, they really don't in practice.
Another time you can go for low % game is, against a higher skilled opponent. So theoretically the higher skilled opponent would win most of the "neutral rallies" since his neutral is better than your neutral. In this case, taking some risk, may reward you, and it is not a bad options since you were anyway expected to loose.
Now once you reach pro, both players understand the % game, and then "calculated risks" at specific points rewards the winner, which is infact more of a mental skill than anything else. At rec level, even when players insist that they know the "%" game, they really don't in practice.
Another time you can go for low % game is, against a higher skilled opponent. So theoretically the higher skilled opponent would win most of the "neutral rallies" since his neutral is better than your neutral. In this case, taking some risk, may reward you, and it is not a bad options since you were anyway expected to loose.
Morch Us
Hall of Fame
One example of this is applying extreme pressure on the 9th or 10th game of the set, when opponent is serving at either 4-4 or 5-4. Depending on the style some examples would be going for a low percentage return winner on first point of that game (if it rewarded, you moved a step in mental battle, if not nothing happened), or inviting a close-combat (net game or inviting to net), or extreme open court battle (extreme angles battle or extreme change of directions).
The key is that even pro players can apply such extreme pressure only for a short period, and they have to time it properly against an equally otherwise skilled opponent.
The key is that even pro players can apply such extreme pressure only for a short period, and they have to time it properly against an equally otherwise skilled opponent.
Morch Us
Hall of Fame
Q1: Is the opponent considered to be same skill level as you?
Q2: Do you have a neutral shot on top of just offensive and defensive shots?
If the answer is "yes" to both, then you know that the below statement has to be re-phrased.
Q2: Do you have a neutral shot on top of just offensive and defensive shots?
If the answer is "yes" to both, then you know that the below statement has to be re-phrased.
thehustler
Semi-Pro
My goal is to find out what irritates my opponent and do that repeatedly. Everyone has something they don't like, like maybe some pace taken off shots, or running too much, or someone coming to the net, body serves, too many shots to their weakness, etc. I just like to exploit that stuff. Wind up hearing so many excuses about the wind, sun, etc. It's great. I find in doing that I make the court smaller for my opponent and it drives them even crazier as they just don't know what to do.
user92626
G.O.A.T.
I specifically said my opponent was equal (in playing). Not equal strength if that makes any different with what you're saying.
I'm comfortable hitting the ball hard well inside the court. With this one opponent, even more so since I wanna take advantage of my better years/strength. And, naturally, he wants to go for the side lines. Much lower % than me. All in all, he's kicking my butt when he's on and when I'm not at my usual level.
I dont' know how else to put this but to think his lower % game play beats my high %.
pushing_wins
Hall of Fame
i like to push
SystemicAnomaly
Bionic Poster
My basic singles strategy is to hit high-bouncing, heavy topspin balls to Federer's backhand. But this has not been working quite as well as it once did. Will have to tweak my strategy somewhat to beat Roger.
.
.
StringSnapper
Hall of Fame
My strategy: inject risk into every shot if I can (hit pretty hard), hit crosscourt unless the ball is shallow, slice if I'm on defense (inc. Lobs if they come in)
ScotianTennis
New User
Awareness is key, understand opponent and use my strengths. I play so many guys that continuously hit to my backhand which is my strength. Mainly because I deliberately hit/miss hit backhands, slice & hack it as ugly as I can in warm up. My forehand is pretty but actually my weaker shot and people assume because its 'pretty' that its good. So the whole match I get to hit my favorite shot, my backhand. Always interesting to see how long it takes players until they realise.
-Against righties, overpower their almost always weaker backhand with down the line and inside out forehands when you get the opportunity. Lefties, crosscourt and inside in forehands. Everything else just push...if that fails...
-hit junk. Moonballs, drop shots, forehand sidespin slice, underhand serves.... if fails, lose.
-hit junk. Moonballs, drop shots, forehand sidespin slice, underhand serves.... if fails, lose.
Arrrggghh, I hate you.
Curious
G.O.A.T.
It shouldn’t take more than 2 games for an average IQ person!
ScotianTennis
New User
Not even close. Even most smarter players will not pick up on it until end of 1st set and even then it's extremely rare (once) for someone to notice my forehead is my weakness at any point in a match.
Hmgraphite1
Hall of Fame
Curious
G.O.A.T.
I wouldn’t call them smart then.
ScotianTennis
New User
. With most 5.0 level players that hit with consistency and conformity on both sides it is difficult to detect the weaker side in just a few games. I also play short points making it difficult to detect my weaker side.
Curious
G.O.A.T.
But do they attack your backhand thinking that that’s usually the weakest side or they insist it will break down as it looked weak during the warm up? The latter doesn’t really sound smart especially at the level you’ve mentioned.
S&V-not_dead_yet
Talk Tennis Guru
If you spend the entire warmup hacking ugly slices and then the first shot of the match you hit a great TS shot, I'm going to assume you were faking the warmup.
peoplespeace
Professional
Hit CC until he makes a mistake or gives u a short ball, then hit winner!
My strategy is to keep it simple stupid. Keep hitting to the BH shoulder height (80/20) even with my serves until I get an attackable ball. It's predictable but effective for me.
Why? Because 90% of players 4.5 and below out there have better FH than BH. If they run around their BH, they have to do it all match long because hitting a few winners running around their BH wouldn't make me changing my strategy.
They can slice, lob, or drop shot to counter but the ball is going to come back to where it came from.
Why? Because 90% of players 4.5 and below out there have better FH than BH. If they run around their BH, they have to do it all match long because hitting a few winners running around their BH wouldn't make me changing my strategy.
They can slice, lob, or drop shot to counter but the ball is going to come back to where it came from.
acintya
Legend
my main strategy is too return with two hands on both sides,then play onehanded.
Similar threads
- Poll
