Where do pros aim?

[mrhalley]

Do the pros aim their shots to land on the other side of the court, or do they aim to hit above the net? It seems in my play, when I aim to hit above the net, I get many more balls in the court than when I aim at a point on the other side of the court.

[johnyandell]

I don't think it's possible to "aim" in that respect. That concept to me at least is too stagnant--like pointing a gun, holding it still and pulling a trigger. Tennis is more dynamic than that--a lot more.

This actually relates directly to your other question above. "Aiming" here or there implies that you do "different" things depending on where you "aim." It's not like that. The stroke is a fluid continuous motion. It can be adjusted to vary ball height, trajectory, speed, spin etc. You need to think of it as a continuum. Right now I have a mental image of a beautiful, flowing forehand. Just a slight variation in the arc of the swing can increase my ball arc, depth, and/or spin. I can flatten it out and hit harder. I can increase my hand rotation and sharpen up the crosscourt angle, etc.

If you have the components of the stroke right, then you see how you can alter them to produce different ball flights while staying fluid and within the bounds of your basic technique.

Hope this helps!

[maverick1]

When I saw the subject line of this thread, I had something else in mind. That is still an interesting question to me - What spots on the court do pros aim for? Eg: If they are hitting a deep groundshot, (presumably) the best spot is one of the two corners. But (presumably) they would like to have some margin for error, and they aim some distance inside the court. But what is that distance?

It would also be intereresting to see the difference between where the pros think they aim and where they actually do. The latter can be ascertained visually by looking at where the shots actually land and taking their average location.

In my limited search, I haven't encountered an article that analyzes where on the court a given pro's shots land. I would guess Federer lands his shots a lot closer to the lines than Roddick, and that would explain the difference between them, though it won't teach us how to hit with Federer's accuracy.

I can see that this kind of study would be hard for independent researchers like Tennisplayer.net to do. But Hawk Eye must have all the data. I would love to see graphics with a yellow spot on the court showing where each shot (including errors) landed, for a point, game, set or match. That would tell us a lot about the quality of play.
You get a lot of these cool graphics when you watch cricket on TV(if Hawk Eye is used in the match)

[veena]

I think that what Maverick mentioned, charting where the ball lands, could also be a good technique for us recreational players to use just to see how and where we are hitting (if you can get someone to chart you of course!)

[jhm36]

Yeah, maverick1, it's kind of frustrating, isn't it, knowing that Hawkeye is recording so much data and yet we see so little of it? What's up with that? Not wanting to give out the information for free collected on instruments that cost so much money to create and operate? Why don't they post the stats someone on a website? We do get some pretty detailed information on serves at the grand slams. Maybe they'll start doing groundstroke information as well soon.

[maverick1]

Yeah, maverick1, it's kind of frustrating, isn't it, knowing that Hawkeye is recording so much data and yet we see so little of it? What's up with that? Not wanting to give out the information for free collected on instruments that cost so much money to create and operate? Why don't they post the stats someone on a website? We do get some pretty detailed information on serves at the grand slams. Maybe they'll start doing groundstroke information as well soon.

Jim,

Yeah, I agree it would be awesome if they posted all the data on a website.
We hear about painstaking 3-d analysis that Tennis coaches are doing. But Hawkeye already has almost all the 3-d data you would want.
The only thing I am not sure is whether they have data on the rate of spin. It should be possible to infer the spin from the speed and trajectory of teh ball.

I wounder if Hawkeye will sell data to these researchers at a price cheaper than it costs to collect it with fancy cameras?

BTW, Hawkeye perfected their technology mostly in Cricket, and there they do show on TV pretty much every type of analysis you can think of. But then there is a lot empty time to fill in Cricket.

[CraigC]

Hang Tight

If you guys hang tight for a bit, I'll lay it out for you in an upcoming article. (John-hint hint!) That is exactly the type of thing I watch during tennis matches. I find it fascinating to see how little of the court is actually used by professionals. You can pretty much take out the middle 1/3rd of the court except for the 5 feet closest to the baseline. Most players think depth is the relevant issue but I'd argue that many professional shots are hit closer to the service line than the baseline. BUT, and this is a large one, the angle of the balls is the critical component. Pros play much more width than the average amateur. Vertical tennis is almost non-existent these days because the top players move so well.
I have created a puzzle-type layout of black gym mats for the court. They look like tetris pieces and the ball bounces pretty well on them. I give them to high level juniors and entry level professionals and ask the players to lay them out on the court. The object is to place them in the spots that pros hit the ball. Most often, the younger players cover the center of the court and the corners of the baseline. The older players cover the short angles and the deep baseline corners. It seems they know something that the kids don't.
Someday I'd like to see a court that doesn't have lines, but rather odd shaped targets of where pros hit the ball.

I'd suggest the following exercise. Take a piece of paper and draw a tennis court on it. Then put on your favorite match and grab a marking pen. Hold the pen above your paper and tap the paper in the corresponding spot every time the ball hits the court. You'll find it fascinating that the average depth is probably very different than you'd expect.

As an aside, Mr. Gretzky took a young wayne and had him use a marker to draw a line, following the puck, on a chalkboard during televised hockey games. wayne begin to notice patterns of play during games over the course of a season. Leter in his career, you'd often hear announcers talk about how Gretzky appeared out of position but somehow the puck just seemed to find him.

I know everyone loves to study strokes, but really, there is so much beauty in the strategy of the game.

CC

[gzhpcu]

I feel that the game having evolved towards heavy topspin results in lots of balls landing closer to the service line than the baseline. The days of the long Rosewall slice backhand have been replaced by topspin.

Interesting also I find is that when you see the distribution of the serves, these too are not that close to the service line. I used to get frustrated when practicing my serves on our clay courts and then looking at the impact marks. But when I see the stats on pro impact points, I don't feel so badly anymore.