Why is MEP effective?

optic yellow said:
How is someone supposed to learn from failure if they don't reflect on what they did wrong and what they need to improve.
Click to expand...

Winners don't think like that- they don't analyze what went wrong. If something they tried didn't meet their objective, they try to look for ways to achieve the goals.
It's only folks who think they lost that pause and try to analyze what went wrong and they will be analyzing the causes for a long time and continue to lose, when the ultimate winners go on immediately to the next thing. that's why I like to study the behaviors of winners and not how losers analyze what went wrong.
 
AnyPUG said:
Winners don't think like that- they don't analyze what went wrong. If something they tried didn't meet their objective, they try to look for ways to achieve the goals.
It's only folks who think they lost that pause and try to analyze what went wrong and they will be analyzing the causes for a long time and continue to lose, when the ultimate winners go on immediately to the next thing. that's why I like to study the behaviors of winners and not how losers analyze what went wrong.
Click to expand...
what?
 
AnyPUG said:
Good question. tbh, that's exactly the response expected from more than 99% of the population.
But, listen to how champions think at 8:00

Click to expand...
Ok, nice video, but you gave the impression by saying Winners don't do that, in response to analyzing what went wrong and formulating a strategy. Djoker is meaning don't dwell on something going wrong, but for sure winners analyze. Maybe it's a language barrier?
 
FuzzyYellowBalls said:
Ok, nice video, but you gave the impression by saying Winners don't do that, in response to analyzing what went wrong and formulating a strategy. Djoker is meaning don't dwell on something going wrong, but for sure winners analyze. Maybe it's a language barrier?
Click to expand...

It's about what do right and not what not to do or what went wrong. There's a world of difference - but I don't expect the vast majority to understand the difference or practice it.
But we can always shield ourselves in concepts such language barrier, communication impediment, literary divide or translation mishaps.
 
AnyPUG said:
It's about what do right and not what not to do or what went wrong. There's a world of difference - but I don't expect the vast majority to understand the difference or practice it.
But we can always shield ourselves in concepts such language barrier, communication impediment, literary divide or translation mishaps.
Click to expand...
I'll probably need to take my place amongst the majority.
 
AnyPUG said:
That's the conventional and average wisdom. But winners (in any field) ignore what's not to do and just focus on what to do. That's why averge folks don't succeed like small percenters.
Click to expand...
Distinguish between moments of analysis and moments of constructive energy.
 
optic yellow said:
You can't have figuring out why someone does win if you don't look at why someone doesn't win. These things are intrinsically connected because they are the opposite sides of the same coin. How is someone supposed to learn from failure if they don't reflect on what they did wrong and what they need to improve. They should not overindulge negative framing so if that is what you are really complaining about then I agree. Note however that talking about comparative advantages on certain surfaces and in certain conditions is not something anyone reasonable would consider such overindulgence.
Click to expand...

Well said.
 
MEP is effective because:
1. he accepts his game and isn't trying to hit super aggressive shots that result in him missing more. He's content to hit slices and move you around.
2. his shot tolerance is very high. he likes longer rallies while most of us don't
3. he's fit and is content to stay out there for 3 sets of long rallies knowing he can wear down your legs
4. with his high shot tolerance and good fitness, he is also comfortable breaking down his opponent mentally. I've seen good players have their brains fried by pushers because the pushers are content to run all day and have long rallies
5. his game isn't totally defensive because he can create openings with placement and place the ball into the open court

All in all, he's a very good player but his game looks like ****. I've played guys like this in the past. Most of them have pretty good hand eye coordination too as most players with "ugly" technique aren't as consistent as MEP. Years ago I was 6-0 in league singles play and played a tall skinny guy in the final match. I warmed up and thought he doesn't have a lot stroke wise. He beat me in a close match because he had uncanny hand eye, was able to place the ball well and was willing to stay out there all day. He rarely hit topspin, his serve was a waiter's tray serve and flat, his groundstrokes were mostly flat (as in read PENN coming at you) or a bit of slice. But, he was a good athlete and had great hand eye.
 
TennisCJC said:
He rarely hit topspin,..., his groundstrokes were mostly flat...
Click to expand...
hehe, sometimes i think hitting topspin is a tool for less talented folks like me, to get the ball in the court... i think it's waaay harder to hit flat hard accurate & consistent....
imagine if playing nadal, i was able to hit everything flat&hard, on the rise (from inside the baseline), corner to corner, and consistent... i'd be able to take time away from him, not allowing him to recover...
that said, i'm not that talented (nor is anyone else), so i/we need to resort to hitting topspin for more consistency (except nadal, in this example, does it better :P)
 
TennisCJC said:
MEP is effective because:
1. he accepts his game and isn't trying to hit super aggressive shots that result in him missing more. He's content to hit slices and move you around.
2. his shot tolerance is very high. he likes longer rallies while most of us don't
3. he's fit and is content to stay out there for 3 sets of long rallies knowing he can wear down your legs
4. with his high shot tolerance and good fitness, he is also comfortable breaking down his opponent mentally. I've seen good players have their brains fried by pushers because the pushers are content to run all day and have long rallies
5. his game isn't totally defensive because he can create openings with placement and place the ball into the open court

All in all, he's a very good player but his game looks like ****. I've played guys like this in the past. Most of them have pretty good hand eye coordination too as most players with "ugly" technique aren't as consistent as MEP. Years ago I was 6-0 in league singles play and played a tall skinny guy in the final match. I warmed up and thought he doesn't have a lot stroke wise. He beat me in a close match because he had uncanny hand eye, was able to place the ball well and was willing to stay out there all day. He rarely hit topspin, his serve was a waiter's tray serve and flat, his groundstrokes were mostly flat (as in read PENN coming at you) or a bit of slice. But, he was a good athlete and had great hand eye.
Click to expand...
This is the best analysis of MEP I have seen, well done!
 
travlerajm said:
“I have not failed. I’ve just found 10,000 ways that won’t work.”
- Thomas Edison (speaking for adult rec tennis players)
Click to expand...

Exactly! It's definitely not "Analysis Paralysis".
The quote is NOT - "I may succeed eventually. But right now I'm busy analyzing why the first 100 ways didn't work".
 
TennisCJC said:
MEP is effective because:
1. he accepts his game and isn't trying to hit super aggressive shots that result in him missing more. He's content to hit slices and move you around.
2. his shot tolerance is very high. he likes longer rallies while most of us don't
3. he's fit and is content to stay out there for 3 sets of long rallies knowing he can wear down your legs
4. with his high shot tolerance and good fitness, he is also comfortable breaking down his opponent mentally. I've seen good players have their brains fried by pushers because the pushers are content to run all day and have long rallies
5. his game isn't totally defensive because he can create openings with placement and place the ball into the open court

All in all, he's a very good player but his game looks like ****. I've played guys like this in the past. Most of them have pretty good hand eye coordination too as most players with "ugly" technique aren't as consistent as MEP. Years ago I was 6-0 in league singles play and played a tall skinny guy in the final match. I warmed up and thought he doesn't have a lot stroke wise. He beat me in a close match because he had uncanny hand eye, was able to place the ball well and was willing to stay out there all day. He rarely hit topspin, his serve was a waiter's tray serve and flat, his groundstrokes were mostly flat (as in read PENN coming at you) or a bit of slice. But, he was a good athlete and had great hand eye.
Click to expand...
Too much texts.

MEP is effective because his level is way better than his opp's. Like he underplays by a whole level.

Raise his opponent's level by one whole point and let see if he can still keep his consistency, shot tolerance.
 
optic yellow said:
It is disappointing how he does not respond positively and constructively even when people are trying to reach and see things from his point of view. That is not what I would call winner behavior.
Click to expand...

It’s a bit more than that. When someone starts saying that Nadal was not a favorite on clay courts just to hold on to some lame argument then you know they are not making any sense. Plus he threw out that there were other clay court specialists. That means he knows certain surfaces favor certain folks. Else why call them clay court specialists? He realized he was losing his own argument there. So he quickly moved off that.

So now he spun some new argument of why winners win because they only focus on what it takes to win and not why they lost. As you mentioned figuring out what it takes to win is not mutually exclusive from analyzing why you lost. So then he claims losers focus too much on why they lost. Again other than him no one seems to be doing this.

Not to mention none of these were ever claimed as sole reasons why MEP lost to the ET guys or why Trav lost to MEP. All that was said was outcomes might have been different or at least contests more evenly matched on home court surfaces when both players are ranked almost evenly. Instead of understanding the point this guy goes on some rant about playing the victim card and then all his other convoluted arguments. Waste of time as someone else mentioned.
 
Last edited:
The guy knows what to do on a tennis court. Big difference to your average amateur 3.5 who doesn't have a clear idea on how to hurt his opponent in a competitive match.
He has, if you want, limited tools but he knows well how to use them. On the contrary, many rec players try to develop pro level technique but in the end fail to use it effectively.
Metaforically, he knows very well how to drive his own average car. Many less effective players want to use faster cars but don't know how to drive them.
 
user92626 said:
Too much texts.

MEP is effective because his level is way better than his opp's. Like he underplays by a whole level.

Raise his opponent's level by one whole point and let see if he can still keep his consistency, shot tolerance.
Click to expand...
You can say this for all players regardless of good technique or bad technique. I think people struggle with MEP style players because you watch them play or you play against them and you think they shouldn't be as strong as they play. The question is how does he win when his technique looks 3.5 or 4.0 and he wins at 4.5. If you moved anyone up a whole USTA point above their actually rating, they would struggle.
 
mcs1970 said:
It’s a bit more than that. When someone starts saying that Nadal was not a favorite on clay courts just to hold on to some lame argument then you know they are not making any sense. Plus he threw out that there were other clay court specialists. That means he knows certain surfaces favor certain folks. Else why call them clay court specialists? He realized he was losing his own argument there. So he quickly moved off that.

So now he spun some new argument of why winners win because they only focus on what it takes to win and not why they lost. As you mentioned figuring out what it takes to win is not mutually exclusive from analyzing why you lost. So then he claims losers focus too much on why they lost. Again other than him no one seems to be doing this.

Not to mention none of these were ever claimed as sole reasons why MEP lost to the ET guys or why Trav lost to MEP. All that was said was outcomes might have been different or at least contests more evenly matched on home court surfaces when both players are ranked almost evenly. Instead of understanding the point this guy goes on some rant about playing the victim card and then all his other convoluted arguments. Waste of time as someone else mentioned.
Click to expand...

He did this, and that. He realized x, thought y and wrote abc and wasted my time and hurt my feelings.
Why not argue the topic instead of attacking the person? Too late now, +1 ignore list.
 
He is effective because most players cannot put away an overhead.

In the simplest terms, you really only need to be excellent at one shot to beat MEP and that's the overhead.

The approach doesn't have to be perfect, just semi-deep and you know he is going to lob you. If you can put away overheads, or at least force an error from them, you will win with ease.
 
shazbot said:
He is effective because most players cannot put away an overhead.

In the simplest terms, you really only need to be excellent at one shot to beat MEP and that's the overhead.

The approach doesn't have to be perfect, just semi-deep and you know he is going to lob you. If you can put away overheads, or at least force an error from them, you will win with ease.
Click to expand...
Overheads are difficult because most of us do not look upwards in daily life. It is an evolutionary artifact because most threats came from a level plane.
 
TennisCJC said:
You can say this for all players regardless of good technique or bad technique. I think people struggle with MEP style players because you watch them play or you play against them and you think they shouldn't be as strong as they play. The question is how does he win when his technique looks 3.5 or 4.0 and he wins at 4.5. If you moved anyone up a whole USTA point above their actually rating, they would struggle.
Click to expand...
No you cannot say this about many other players who enjoy ball bashing or enjoy near level competition. Right?



I can play suboptimal strokes (with 4.0 movements and handling skills) with a 3.0, and look like MEP. And you will ask how... No?

You didn't understand my point about a whole level higher.

Not raising anyone's.

But for MEP or MEP style players to seek out an opponent with 1 point higher than MEP'S current opponents.

That would mean for meps to hit faster balls, sharper angles, to win, instead of these dinky middle of the court. Got that?
 
TennisCJC said:
The question is how does he win when his technique looks 3.5 or 4.0 and he wins at 4.5.
Click to expand...
Maybe it is because it is not about how a technique ‘looks’ especially on video, but how effective it actually is on court. Also, proper footwork/movement, mental toughness, good tactics/strategy, good decision-making, competitive instincts, physical fitness, frequency of play all go a long way to determine who wins on court. It is not only about technique.
 
dannyslicer said:
Because technique has nothing to do with winning tennis matches.
How can you not figure out this very basic conclusion?
Click to expand...

You are equating technique with what pleases to the eyes. All winners have solid and more consistent technique than those who lose.

Which car is more useful? One that can be slowed down at turns and stop signs or a bright and shiny red car with malfunctioning brakes?
 
Last edited:
nyta2 said:
hehe, sometimes i think hitting topspin is a tool for less talented folks like me, to get the ball in the court... i think it's waaay harder to hit flat hard accurate & consistent....
imagine if playing nadal, i was able to hit everything flat&hard, on the rise (from inside the baseline), corner to corner, and consistent... i'd be able to take time away from him, not allowing him to recover...
that said, i'm not that talented (nor is anyone else), so i/we need to resort to hitting topspin for more consistency (except nadal, in this example, does it better :p)
Click to expand...
soderling
 
dannyslicer said:
Because technique has nothing to do with winning tennis matches.
How can you not figure out this very basic conclusion?
Click to expand...
Interesting view point but my view differs. I have played years of 4.5 and one year of 5.0. My experience is the higher you go in rating, the better technique becomes. When I watch 3.0 and 3.5 level players, I see weak technique that can be exploited. At 4.0 and 4.5, the technique becomes better and at 5.0 it improves yet again. At the higher levels, the technique becomes more fundamentally sound in general. But, there are exceptions and MEP is an exception. My view is it is easy to see. I see better grips, better preparation, more fundamentally sound swing paths and more fluid strokes at the higher levels. And, the higher levels will win against the lower levels.
 
Yes, results matter the most but my experience is technique is the number one criteria in determining who wins in rec tennis. I consistently win against players that have 1 or 2 technically weak strokes but have difficulty or lose when a player has better technique than me. When I am warming up, I like it when I see my opponent has a stroke or 2 that looks technically weak but I hate it when my opponent looks solid on all the strokes. MEP is one of those guys that you warm up against and think "I can exploit his weak groundstrokes and serve" but then he hits you with his consistency and grit in the match. My experience is at 4.5 and below the players with the best technique will win the majority of the time.
socallefty said:
Maybe it is because it is not about how a technique ‘looks’ especially on video, but how effective it actually is on court. Also, proper footwork/movement, mental toughness, good tactics/strategy, good decision-making, competitive instincts, physical fitness, frequency of play all go a long way to determine who wins on court. It is not only about technique.
Click to expand...
 
So people still trying to hold MEP up as an example and use the smallest n sampling of players as a larger conversation that technique isn't important, or greatly diminish the importance. I think maybe it helps feel vindicated for not learning technique themselves or such, but as you look at all but those select few players at every level of tennis, improved technique continues to be a big factor moving up. Sure, the lower levels of rec in 3.0 and 3.5 you can easily get away with it, especially if you have solid proprioception, coordination and fitness/athleticism. As you get to 4.0, you start seeing more technique applied, but a few outlier still move up there with that fitness/athleticism and some strategy starting to make impact. At 4.5 though, an MEP player is rare, but has been able to effectively apply their fitness/movement and strategy/strokes to make a move to play above their punching weight. I will tell you though, I have been at 4.5 Nationals here in Surprise for as long as they have had them (over a decade) and I can only recall a few times ever seeing somewhat questionable strokes and technique. Most have long pedigree of training and play. And it isn't they have exemplary strokes, quite the opposite. Many still have visible flaws, but their technique ticks a lot of the technique points.

As far as champions or whatever not doing self-analysis and reflection on losses, that is ridiculous. Even MEP started going to coaches to find where they have holes in their game and improve. You cannot look to improve on anything if you don't look at what went wrong. It is a principle of every discipline of development, be it software, sports, business process, project management or anything. The cycle ALWAYS includes evaluation and improvement in its' iterations.
 
ChaelAZ said:
So people still trying to hold MEP up as an example and use the smallest n sampling of players as a larger conversation that technique isn't important, or greatly diminish the importance. I think maybe it helps feel vindicated for not learning technique themselves or such, but as you look at all but those select few players at every level of tennis, improved technique continues to be a big factor moving up. Sure, the lower levels of rec in 3.0 and 3.5 you can easily get away with it, especially if you have solid proprioception, coordination and fitness/athleticism. As you get to 4.0, you start seeing more technique applied, but a few outlier still move up there with that fitness/athleticism and some strategy starting to make impact. At 4.5 though, an MEP player is rare, but has been able to effectively apply their fitness/movement and strategy/strokes to make a move to play above their punching weight. I will tell you though, I have been at 4.5 Nationals here in Surprise for as long as they have had them (over a decade) and I can only recall a few times ever seeing somewhat questionable strokes and technique. Most have long pedigree of training and play. And it isn't they have exemplary strokes, quite the opposite. Many still have visible flaws, but their technique ticks a lot of the technique points.

As far as champions or whatever not doing self-analysis and reflection on losses, that is ridiculous. Even MEP started going to coaches to find where they have holes in their game and improve. You cannot look to improve on anything if you don't look at what went wrong. It is a principle of every discipline of development, be it software, sports, business process, project management or anything. The cycle ALWAYS includes evaluation and improvement in its' iterations.
Click to expand...
Also, it should be said, there ain't nothin ugly about MEP's FH slice technique.
 
sureshs said:
Overheads are difficult because most of us do not look upwards in daily life. It is an evolutionary artifact because most threats came from a level plane.
Click to expand...
MyFearHand said:
I’m not sure if this is a joke…
Click to expand...
It's not a joke.

To add to sureshs' point, Evolution has also arranged our genitalia low, much lower than our line of sight, so we always look down if we want to procreate to extend our species.
 
user92626 said:
It's not a joke.

To add to sureshs' point, Evolution has also arranged our genitalia low, much lower than our line of sight, so we always look down if we want to procreate to extend our species.
Click to expand...
OK. Just wanted to say that certain motions are unnatural to humans as they were not as critical to survival as others. If we had been around when there were Pterodactyls, we might be hitting overheads naturally.
 
optic yellow said:
Also, it should be said, there ain't nothin ugly about MEP's FH slice technique.
Click to expand...
i think it's impressive that he can slice with a fh grip...
if he starts ripping topspin shots, he can easily disguise his slice/drop without changing his grip (i've tried with no success)
some cons, in not using a conti grip,
* might give up some reach because the contact has to be out in front more
* loses some ability to really knife it like Niculescu, but neither does anyone else in rec...
* he has to switch grips on his bhslice... but at the pace he's dragging everyone down to, doesn't really matter.
 
sureshs said:
OK. Just wanted to say that certain motions are unnatural to humans as they were not as critical to survival as others. If we had been around when there were Pterodactyls, we might be hitting overheads naturally.
Click to expand...

I just don’t think this is the main reason why people suck at overheads. I’d hazard the guess that it’s because they hit almost no overheads in practice.
 
MyFearHand said:
I just don’t think this is the main reason why people suck at overheads. I’d hazard the guess that it’s because they hit almost no overheads in practice.
Click to expand...
I think your guess is correct. Of course, they hit almost no overheads in practice because they are not used to swatting giant dragonflies buzzing over their heads, as giant dragonflies are extinct.
 
sureshs said:
OK. Just wanted to say that certain motions are unnatural to humans as they were not as critical to survival as others. If we had been around when there were Pterodactyls, we might be hitting overheads naturally.
Click to expand...

I guess that explains why frequent flyers hit better overhead than folks who rarely fly. The oh practice they get by using the overhead luggage compartment, perhaps.
Want better overhead? fly more often.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
Effective 2nd serve---What is the most important element?
Replies
12
Views
2K
Bungalo Bill
Bungalo Bill
G
Using a Ball Machine to Gain Valued Benefits
Replies
26
Views
640
SystemicAnomaly
SystemicAnomaly
rk_sports
Why a pro player struggles?
Replies
9
Views
996
jwr1972
jwr1972
L
Pretty and Perfect vs. Effective and Realistic
Replies
24
Views
1K
coupergear
C
K
Ball speed threshold and why pushing work
Replies
11
Views
1K
ktncnttl
K
Back
Top