Of course
Why is MEP effective?
- Thread starter tennis3
- Start date
Turbo-87
G.O.A.T.
optic yellow
Legend
Honestly I think all things being equal you prefer the slice with forehand grip. Maybe part of this is my own lack of experience with conti but I simply don't think that grip promotes the same level of fine touch with the hands that strong Eastern or SW does. There is that sort of cutting laser that is pretty much deterministic if you do the orthodox stroke that isn't quite the same level of guaranteed consistency but pretty much anything else the difference in feeling of control for me does not compare.
I had not thought about the disguise aspect in terms of identifying grip because to be honest I am not good at noticing the difference between grips during a rally but it is true it allows for switching between the two shot families pretty trivially very late in the preparation. Not sure about the contact point angle because I was taught you also ideally want the conti slice in front a bit and you can still make it work at max stretch with the FH grips. Ideal contact point in general though is not something I understand well enough to feel comfortable even bullshitting on. The BH slice grip thing is true, but as you say, minimally relevant; also, if you are comfortable using a forehand grip to slice, it is likely you are comfortable using an unconventional grip on the BH wing as well.
Last edited:
FuzzyYellowBalls
Legend
socallefty
G.O.A.T.
Play styles don’t decide outcomes unless the players are close in level already. If someone is a mid-high 5.0, they will crush almost all 4.5s, a mid-high 4.5 will crush all 4.0s, a 7.0 pro will crush all college players etc.
travlerajm
Talk Tennis Guru
Yes. Except for when they don’t.
can you provide a verifiable match results from a tournament/league play where they 'don't'? I suppose we could argue what 'crush' mean. Are you suggesting the end result may not be a 'crush like' score? Or that the lower ranked player would actually beat the higher ranked one sometimes?
curly_2350
Rookie
It probably does happen a bit at the amateur level because ratings systems really only function properly when people play a lot of matches regularly, and amongst each other, not in siloed groups. So lack of recent form and regional variation will introduce a lot of inaccuracy, that will compound on the playstyle 'inaccuracy' which itself is completely subjective as well.
If we had 500 players in a league that all played frequently with each other over a decent period, we probably could start to do some analysis on how likely the outcome a match is between a 1 UTR, or 2 UTR, or 3UTR difference is and how much playstyle variation might effect that. But that's basically a pipedream. UTR themselves would have that data for sure though, it would be fundamental to their algorithm. As in, their starting definition of UTR 1 difference is probably a 80% chance to win, 2 UTR is 90% etc, same as it works with Elo. If they did play a lot you could have a head2head system easily enough, but extrapolating that usefully into playstyle against players that have never played is probably impossible.
The funny thing is the above scenario of 100 players, playing over and over against each other all the time does happen, on the ATP tour. And there they don't attempt to use any sort of mathematical model to rate the player's ability. There it purely comes down to tournament results and a (fairly) arbitrary point system. Which in a way is a recognition itself that pressure and matchup do matter very much in tennis, at least at the pro level. You beat the world #1 in first round of a 250 and no one really cares, but you play the exact same match and win a grand slam and you're now the king of the world.
If we had 500 players in a league that all played frequently with each other over a decent period, we probably could start to do some analysis on how likely the outcome a match is between a 1 UTR, or 2 UTR, or 3UTR difference is and how much playstyle variation might effect that. But that's basically a pipedream. UTR themselves would have that data for sure though, it would be fundamental to their algorithm. As in, their starting definition of UTR 1 difference is probably a 80% chance to win, 2 UTR is 90% etc, same as it works with Elo. If they did play a lot you could have a head2head system easily enough, but extrapolating that usefully into playstyle against players that have never played is probably impossible.
The funny thing is the above scenario of 100 players, playing over and over against each other all the time does happen, on the ATP tour. And there they don't attempt to use any sort of mathematical model to rate the player's ability. There it purely comes down to tournament results and a (fairly) arbitrary point system. Which in a way is a recognition itself that pressure and matchup do matter very much in tennis, at least at the pro level. You beat the world #1 in first round of a 250 and no one really cares, but you play the exact same match and win a grand slam and you're now the king of the world.
I think MEP would fit right in level-wise w Mark and Chris. I think Michelle might be a little too much.
Assuming they're at a similar level, I think Chris can close out points at the net and would beat MEP. Mark is basically MEP, so neither outcome is favored.
MEP would most likely beat the other common play testers on the West Coast (troy, Brittany, Tiffany, Jason, et al.). I have no clue about the East coast play testers.
Assuming they're at a similar level, I think Chris can close out points at the net and would beat MEP. Mark is basically MEP, so neither outcome is favored.
MEP would most likely beat the other common play testers on the West Coast (troy, Brittany, Tiffany, Jason, et al.). I have no clue about the East coast play testers.
Racquets would be rated on slice, dropshot and lob potential only
although I would enjoy an MEP racket review.
FuzzyYellowBalls
Legend
FuzzyYellowBalls
Legend
nope.
Are they? The two most important strokes are serve and return. The sliced return, which was a staple of Federer, is a liability in doubles and a weakness in singles. Modern pros do not slice their return.
optic yellow
Legend
I was returning serves against a 4.5/5.0 player and beat him several times with sliced returns. Two maybe he could have got if he was running at full energy but one was right at his feet and completely fooled him.
onehandbh
G.O.A.T.
Leander Paes disagrees with you.
Happi
Hall of Fame
At rec level sliced return can be a very effective shot both in singles and doubles.
Sure, if it is a sliced lob, not otherwise
He is retired
Umm, I took group lessons from a pro now in his mid-50s who was ranked in top 700 and took a few games of Pat Cash. He actually played on our mixed doubles team which is mostly 4.5 players and some 5.0 USTA players. He hits almost exclusively slice returns and for that matter hits probably 80% slice overall from the baseline. I think lower level rec players think you have to blast topspin returns in "modern" tennis but nothing could be farther from the truth. It's also much more difficult for about 90% of the rec population to hit aggressive topspin or flat returns off a decent serve than it is to simply slice it back CC and low or slice it deep. Watch tournaments of 50 and over players and you'll see a lot of slice returns in singles and doubles.
Yes, this is even true at 4.5 level and 5.0 level. A good slice is wicked.
vex
Legend
^^^^^
A former pro is a different matter. I sometimes slice a return in doubles if I am sure I can go crosscourt by a wide margin but otherwise it will be toast
Absolutely LOVE playing MEPs (that's a new term to me - heh good one). They expose any flaws in your game and force you to stay sharp, be creative and really move.
My two keys to beating the MEP consistently: big first serve (they ain't returning that..) and mix it up with kickers and slice. Also, since they typically have a high % but very weak serve you need to be really sharp on hitting good topspin winners from mid court. If you can serve well and hit the mid court winners they're typically not hard to beat. I try to keep the points very short and not get in their preferred grinding rally.
Big heavy topspin often will not do the job against the MEPs they'll just back up and figure out a way to slice it back.
My two keys to beating the MEP consistently: big first serve (they ain't returning that..) and mix it up with kickers and slice. Also, since they typically have a high % but very weak serve you need to be really sharp on hitting good topspin winners from mid court. If you can serve well and hit the mid court winners they're typically not hard to beat. I try to keep the points very short and not get in their preferred grinding rally.
Big heavy topspin often will not do the job against the MEPs they'll just back up and figure out a way to slice it back.
Happi
Hall of Fame
Well 2-3 years ago I watched the ITF world champion ship, and the German player who won the 65+ catagory in singles only sliced his FH and BH, not a single topspin shot. So I would say even in high level rec tennis, slice is a weapon.
There can be only one.
tlm
G.O.A.T.
This is 100% true.
I think your point would apply to the classic pusher who lobs high ball all the time with zero pace. In case of Mep I think he builds a lot his own points, often putting opponents on the defense. Just doesn't do that using big shots but more using other tools like drop shot and slice. Furthermore how many rec players do you know that are really great at the net? Even players bombing first serves at 120 mph consistently would beat Mep, but who could do that?
Similar threads
