Matchplay Experience

[CraigC]

John,

You are the Carl Sagan of Tennis, endlessly seeking new frontiers. I am completing my series on general tactics, but want to open a discussion of working a match. I'm curious as to the different theories of how players think under certain matchplay situations.

For example, would a player play more aggressively, or more conservatively, in the very next return game, if he had just been broken? Would a player begin playing his game right from the beginning, or go after his opponent's weakness, even if it was not his best tactic? When would I change my forehand to forehand pattern, even if it was working well, so my opponent would not get comfortable camping out on the forehand side? Do I play more consistent or more aggressive on big points, and is that dependent on my own gamestyle, or on the score? You don't have to answer these specific questions but, I'm seeking opinions on all the different ways to approach a match, that don't have to do with individual point tactics.

Hope this proves enlightening. Great SITE!

[johnyandell]

CC,
Great, great set of questions. Juast my personal view: I think each answer would depend on a number of factors and there is no right or wrong answer--circumstances of match and physical and emotional state of players at the time--and their underlying personalities and psychological defenses...I'm sure a few other people have thoughts here as well...

For example if I were broken, was it because I went for too much and made bad errors? Did I get cautious because I had just broken or was serving for a set? Where was the balance of aggression sitting in the match? Was the break a change in the nature of the points?

The second question. Some players have the weapons and believe in them and just keep using them and are certain that over time that will bring victories. And then they do. These are the few and usually champions. But the same phenomenon could occur at any level when a player knows he has the guns in a particular match up--like when I play SFTC Men's 4.0 Club Champ Steve Stoltz, to use an example at the bottom of the spectrum. I just hit him off the court corner to corner and it's really fun.

AND then there are the large number of players who don't have the weapons, and deep down inside know they don't have the weapons, but still play like they do--because that is a relatively painless way of losing...

BUT most players, most matches, the answer is going to be based on matchups and this will usually involve attacking weaknesses--unless your strength just consistently happens to dominate your opponent's strength. To give another low level example, if I was playing SFTC club 5.0 Champ Craig Allison, I'd be going the other waythan versus Stoltzie and working his forehand over, serving it virtually EVERY point because it's so bad. And there's the added bonus of pissing him off since he thinks it's good. Then I make him hit a low volley on every point--since he's gonna come in on every point. (Except when he misses all those big forehand returns...) Let's see if he can beat me that way. He won't get in as much. He'll miss a bunch of those low volleys, he'll make a bunchtoo. I'll hit some passes, I'll miss some. He'll hit some second volleys for winners, and it'll be close.

Going back to the pro level, you see even Federer adjust this way and be willing to play some very tough defensive points, something Pete Sampras never would or did do.

I truly think that it all comes from a deep knowledge of the game and of yourself. The info about the opponent you may have in advance, or pick up in the match as you go along. Few people care enough to develop all three, but if a few people gain that type of knowledge from your articles, it'll be worth it.

John

PS: By the way, this crazy person with the trick questions is Craig Cignarelli--one of the top junior coaches in the world--I just spent some time with him at the Riviera in LA and his first article is up in September...

[CraigC]

JY-

Your reply hit some of the points but I am really looking for overall theories. Some players decide to get conservative when they are down and aggressive when they are up. Some players play based on the momentum shifts of a match. Some players play their game at all times and see if it is better than anything their opponent can combat. A counterpunching claycourter breaks an opponent down mentally trying to win a match without hitting a winner. A california hardcourter tries to dictate from the first shot for a whole match, and rarely reigns it in. I know one player who works only against the mental game of an opponent by controlling the tempo in between points. SO I ask again, are there specific theories which dictate how players might play,a dn what are they, or is it purely--TO EACH HIS OWN? Open for discussion

[makhan67]

Each point should be played on its own merit regardless whether you are serving or returning! Whatever you do in a match you ought to be consistent by keeping the ball in play. I know some players and coaches do not like the word "consistency" because they think consistency means "keep the ball in play". Well, quite frankly I do not see any problem with "keeping the ball in play" until you win it or your opponent lose it. As an expert, I can describe consistency as follows and this may also answer your question:

You ought to be consistent in putting your first serve in 80% of the time with ability to move it around out wide, body, and up the T; flat, slice, topspin, etc.

You ought to be consistent in returning the serve: Difficult serve, return it cross court or down the middle; easier, return it down the line! But you must make the return! Do not play an outrageous shot -- a shot you know you cannot make it!

You ought to be consistent when you are rallying deep from the baseline: When you find your body position several feet behind baseline think of more topspin, cross court, or deep down the middle. That's how you handle red balls (difficult balls).

You ought to be consistent in hitting powerful ground strokes when your body position is inside the baseline and you are handling yellow balls (medium difficulty)!

You ought to be consistent in approaching the net on shorter/easier/lower than the net balls (light green balls): down the line approaches followed by angled cross-court volley.

You ought to be consistent in putting away balls (winners) that are shorter/easier/higher than the net (lush green balls)!

You ought to be consistent in handling midcourt shots using inside out and inside in combinations (green balls)!

You ought to be consistent in your passing shots when you are attacked by your opponent (great defence).

I trust you like the above answer.

John Yandell can tag behind to correct my answer!

Mahboob Khan, Islamabad, Pakistan
email: makhan67@hotmail.com

[CraigC]

Mahboob-

Love the consistency theory. Since you believe that each point is played on it's own merits, does that assume you would not be more aggressive at 40-0 than at 40-40? Can I really tell my player that every return must go crosscourt off a hard serve? If I have a great backhand and a palyer serves me wide to my forehand, must I give in to his control of the point, or can I take some shots down the line to set up my backhand? At 0-30, I would like to think I could, but perhaps not at 40-40.
If each point is played on its own merit, and frankly many people agree that it is, then if I am losing, what would dictate a strategic change?
Lastly, I will have to disagree that you OUGHT to put your first serve in 80% of the time as I cannot remember even 1 player in history to do so over their career. High 50's low 60's would be pretty good for the men. I believe this is explained as an aggressive first serve generally wins the point outright and a lower percentage of first serves in, is ok when the winning percentage of those first serves, reaches a certain level. The risk reward ratio is the critical issue here, and I would strongly disagree that an 80% consistency rate is right for everyone, especially if one has to forego power to get there. Let's keep up the discussion. I'm quite sure we can both learn something.
CC

[makhan67]

CC: I agree with you. If you are 40 love up, take one or two calculated risks within your game, of course, by all means. But we have seen that players become tentative when they take a lead whether in points, games, or sets! They expect others to lose to them!

First serve 80% in: That's the maximum bar, I guess! Even at higher levels, some players achieve this,, and some are around 55-60% as you observed. If I say first serve 60% then students assume 45% is also ok!

Yes, if you are winning, do not change the winning game; if you are losing, change things around depending on your ability!

In any situation, you ought to see the makability of the shots! Whether you can make the shot? One should not try a new shot -- a shot not practiced in practice.

I mean, you ought to be consistent in what you do! (But not a consistent loser).

Good points!

[CraigC]

Mahboob, and anyone else who wants to join this thread--

Watching the USOPEN I heard some arguments claiming the following. When a player is way down in the 4th set (5-2 two breaks), but is up two sets to one, it is wise for the player to conserve energy for the final set. The announcers, and I won't metion their names, all agrred. Now, here is the scenario. The player who was down was in much better condition than his opponent. I believe that he should have fought like crazy to keep his opponent out there for the fourth set and make him work as long and hard as possible for the points. Perhaps some very long baseline rallies, drop shots, etc....The announcers thought the set was foregone and said it was time to begin thinking about the fifth. So where are we on this issue? If the player up 2 sets to 1 was in better physical condition should he have made the other guy play? or not? If he was in worse condition, then should he have dumped the set? or not? Again, I am trying to probe into matchplay decisions without talking point-specific tactics.

CC