Shot Tolerance

What is Shot Tolerance and how does it decide matches?

When I was playing professional tennis, I developed a concept that helped me understand the games of others players, and how I might be able to beat them. That concept is Shot Tolerance.

This was in the days before you had coaches, and nutritionists, and trainers, and agents, and you had to do some things for yourself. So I would go out and watch matches and I would just count. What I found was that all players have a limit beyond which they don't want to play the point anymore. That point is their Shot Tolerance.

I would watch matches, and I would count and I would see that this guy's shot tolerance is between these numbers. I found there was some real consistency to it. It was kind of amazing actually.

What I found was that certain players had a higher shot tolerance than I did. So against them I knew I was going to have to find a way to do something. There were other players I studied that I found had a lower shot tolerance than I did. So I knew, as long as I stayed in long enough, in the end I would win because they would miss.

Ivan Lendl: a high shot tolerance and the ability to finish.

One example where this worked for me was against a player named Johann Kriek. He was a very dangerous player who hit the ball early, was very fast, a great shot maker, a top ten player, but had a low shot tolerance. I was lucky enough to beat him all three times we played. I knew he was going to hit his share of winners, but I knew if I stayed in long enough and made him play enough balls, he would miss. The longer the points, the better it was for me.

When we walked on the court, there were guys I played who I know were thinking, "I don't want to hit this many balls." They walked on the court hating that. And, you know, that was an edge, knowing that my shot tolerance was better than most of the people that I played. They'd start missing before the match started.

On the other hand, when I played some of the clay courters where I felt their shot tolerance was higher, I would try to hurt them very early in the point. I would attack off the second serve. As the rallies got longer, it became harder and harder to create something. So I would try to do it earlier.

Better shot tolerance was one key to Andre's greatest success.

If had to play Ivan Lendl, there was no way my shot tolerance was that high. So I had to try to create something, and that's what made him so difficult. It was very hard to create something against him. He hit the ball very deep, and very solidly, and he was very fit. He didn't miss. He would hurt you if you hit short. It was very hard to find a way to get him to make unforced errors.

I think shot tolerance was a big part of what Brad Gilbert did for Andre Agassi. I played Andre at the end of my career, and actually I felt he was wild. I actually felt if I could hit enough balls back, I could beat him. I just couldn't do it. I felt he was not patient and he would go for winners very early in the point.

And I think that's what Brad taught him. You don't have to win every point. You cannot win every single point. You have to give your opponent a chance to lose. So Andre became more consistent. He learned to play points. He learned to move people around. He stopped trying to end the point so quickly. And this is the same thing Brad seems to be doing for Andy Murray.

Did Nadal's shot tolerance get under Roger's skin?

As big as everybody's hitting the ball, look at the people that are winning. Roger Federer makes very few errors, but I think that his shot tolerance, at least on clay, is less than Rafael Nadal. I think it's one of the things that got to him a little bit this year. In those big clay court finals, Nadal knew he could just play the way he normally plays, and it was good enough, because his shot tolerance is higher. That turned out to be a little different on grass, or on an indoor court in Shanghai.

If a player hits his shot tolerance it doesn't matter who he or she is, even if it's Roger Federer or Justine Henin-Hardenne. Suddenly they'll hit a drop shot from four feet behind the baseline. Or they'll go for some absurd winner. Or they'll make a surprising error on a relatively easy ball in the middle of the court. They don't want to hit any more balls.

This point is going to end on this shot, no matter what, one way or the other. They have reached the end of their shot tolerance. Some people hit their shot tolerance at five or six balls. Others go into the 30's and 40's. But it's the same effect no matter when it happens.

I feel the concept of shot tolerance is just as valid now as it was when I was playing, at the pro level and also in junior tennis. As big as everybody hits the ball today, it's still the same.

Even Joachim Johansson couldn't hit 48 winners.

If you take any two out of three set match, you have to hit a minimum 48 winners to win, assuming that tennis is only a game of winners. That's 4 winners for one game, 24 winners for one set, and 48 winners to win two sets. The real number is obviously higher, because you will hit winners even in games you may end up losing. But Roger Federer, or Pete Sampras, or Serena Williams, on their best day will never hit 48 winners. It's impossible.

I remember watching a match a few years ago in the Australian Open, Joachim Johansson and Andre Agassi, after he had transformed himself into the player we think of today. And Joachim Johansson hit something like 65 winners, and Agassi hit something like 10. It was an incredible difference.

It wasn't a small difference, it was an incredible difference, and Agassi won the match because the errors went the other way. Agassi made very few unforced errors, and eventually Johansson couldn't hit enough winners, and hit his way out of the match.

No matter what the score, you have to have the confidence to hit.

The reality is that to win any match, no matter how many winners you hit, you have to give the other person a chance to miss. You have to keep the ball in play. Notice I didn't say push. Because that's not what I am talking about. What I mean is you have to have the confidence to hit the ball hard and still keep it in play. How many balls can you hit hard and deep and crosscourt? That's your shot tolerance.

With young players, I want them to hit the ball. I think it's important at a young age to get some power and learn how to hit the ball, and to hit the ball hard. But I also want young players to understand how to work points. As they get older I want them to learn to develop a shot tolerance level so they're not making bunches of unforced errors. That is what will beat people.

How many balls to reach your opponent's tolerance?

I don't care what else you can do, if you can't hit the ball hard, deep, and cross court, you're in trouble. With all the new shots in the game, and the big serves, you've got to be able to hit this basic shot and do that consistently. I call it the meat and potatoes.

You have to wait for the right ball to end the point ,and if it takes 20 or 30 shots to get there, then it takes 20 or 30 shots to get there. But you've got to hit quality balls to have a chance to get there.

I remember once telling a player I was coaching to play another guy's forehand. So he starts hitting the ball short to the guy's forehand and the guy starts hitting winners. And he starts yelling at me, "good coaching." But unfortunately, he missed the point. You can't just hit the ball short and soft, because your opponent is going to end the point long before you push him to his tolerance level.

Go for it on the right ball.

One of the things I always try to teach people is this: don't be scared of missing. A lot of people say "that seems like a contradiction." But it's not. If you get the right shot, you get a short forehand, and you've got an open court, you should go for a winner. Because if you get that shot ten times, you might miss it once or twice but you're going to make it eight or nine times.

But if you're four or five feet behind the baseline, and the court's not open, and you try that same shot, you might make it once. The odds are that throughout the match, you're going to miss a lot more of those than you're going to make. And you're going to lose. It's like playing blackjack. No matter how well it's going, if you play long enough, eventually the odds will catch up with you.

As basic as it gets: hard deep and crosscourt.

One of the most basic drills I do with junior players is feed them balls and have them hit hard crosscourts. And I do it until the player reaches ten. If they miss, they have to start over. What happens sometimes when they get to eight or nine, they'll push. And if they do I will start over. I will not let them get away with pushing at eight or nine. I will start over. I want them to feel like they can hit it hard, deep, and cross court at any time. I don't want them to bring it in because now it's getting tighter.

This way they'll know what to do when they get the same feeling in matches. "I'm now at four all in the tiebreaker in the third. I've already been through this at nine." I want them to have the mentality that they can play the same way no matter what the score.

I want them to hit. I don't want them to be scared of missing. I want them to hit the same at three as they do at nine, but I also don't want them missing. You've got to be able to hit the ball hard regardless of the score.

A variation: one player can do anything, the other can't. Then the reverse.

There is another game we play that develops the same thing. I have the players play backcourt points. One player plays normally. He can do what he wants, hit winners, come to the net, hit drop shots, whatever. The other player can't. If he hits a winner, the point starts over. He can hit a passing shot if the other guy comes in, or a volley if the other guy brings him in. Other than that he's going to have to work every point. Then we reverse the roles.

The interesting thing is that these games end up being very close, no matter who plays which role. Surprisingly at almost any level, the results end up about the same. It doesn't matter if we do it with 13 year old boys, or if we do it with pro players. So it shows the real value of staying in the points.

Sometimes even top players could play a few more balls.

Here's an interesting story from years ago when I was coaching Taylor Dent and he was practicing on clay with Pete Sampras. They were playing this exact game. And actually, it was very interesting. The guy who wasn't allowed to hit the winners was winning every one. You've got two guys who were both very impatient, and as soon as they knew they could hit winners, they actually would try to hit more winners. And that might explain why neither one did all that well on clay.

I think these games are good for anybody at any level. It helps players understand they can play a few more balls. They don't have to force everything and try to win every point.

Here's another variation that's especially valuable in the age of the two-handed backhand. We play backcourt points, but one person has to slice every backhand. And again, this helps to add to shot tolerance, besides, obviously, helping with the slice backhand. It helps with shot tolerance because the players know they're not going to hit many slice backhand winners.

Another variation: the players take turns hitting all slice backhands.

The other thing I like about this drill is helps players learn how to use the forehand. If you look at Roger Federer or Steffi Graf, players with big forehands, they hit the backhand slice, the ball stays down low, and the other player has to hit up. You can run around and hit a forehand. I've never understood why players with big forehands, wouldn't develop a good slice.

It's important to understand that shot tolerance is an individual thing. There are actually players I've worked with where I've tried to bring their shot tolerance level down. Justin Gimlestob, for example.

Justin is about 6 foot 5, pretty slow, good serve, good volley. But Justin kind of likes to think of himself as a grinder. So he often plays too far behind the baseline and tries to play too steady, and eventually he gets moved around and loses points. When this happens to him, he sometimes tries to hit winners from ridiculous places.

Could a great attacking player like Pat Rafter rush Roger?

I told him once: "I don't want your points lasting more than five shots." The way I wanted him to end the points was at the net. I didn't think he should try to hit winners from the baseline. Within five shots I wanted him at the net. To beat him up there, someone's got to hit a passing shot.

So it's not necessarily that I think a high shot tolerance is somehow better. If you have a lower shot tolerance but you have the legitimate weapons to finish points you can be very successful. It's a question of tailoring your shot tolerance to your abilities.

High shot tolerance, incredible shot making.

I think even now that on a faster court a great attacking player with a low shot tolerance would have a chance against Roger Federer. Someone like Stefan Edberg, or Patrick Rafter, or Pete Sampras. A player that could possibly rush him--rush his second serve, and rush his backhand, but everybody plays the same way now, so at this moment we don't really have an answer for that question.

What we do know is that Federer is awfully tough from the baseline because he combines the best of both worlds, incredible shot making and, when he needs it, a very high shot tolerance. That's a tough combination to beat.

Shot Tolerance

Elliot Teltscher