Simplistic percentage rules for SINGLES

[julian1]

go to www.uspta.org
Click the video at the UPPER RIGHT CORNER
One may try INSTEAD

http://no-cache.uspta.com/trc/OC79_02_Sohie_Keeping_control_of_the_point.mp4

[jasonfrausto]

Originally I put up a YouTube link that is private but uses tennisplayer.net point play footage, I'll post the link if that works for John? If not I think I have a different video I can use that I'll put up later today. Either way, the USPTA video shown in the clip is half right and half wrong in analysis of baseline play recovery positions. The video I want to post was originally intended to be a tennisplayer video/article instruction piece.

[julian1]

John ?

Originally I put up a YouTube link that is private but uses tennisplayer.net point play footage, I'll post the link if that works for John? If not I think I have a different video I can use that I'll put up later today. Either way, the USPTA video shown in the clip is half right and half wrong in analysis of baseline play recovery positions. The video I want to post was originally intended to be a tennisplayer video/article instruction piece.

I am NOT sure whether John reads this thread
A link from YouTube to a video of www.tennisplayer.net will NOT work in the following sense:
videos of tennisplayer.net are READ protected for people outside of tennisplayer.net

[jasonfrausto]

I am NOT sure whether John reads this thread
A link from YouTube to a video of www.tennisplayer.net will NOT work in the following sense:
videos of tennisplayer.net are READ protected for people outside of tennisplayer.net

Julian,

Instead of using tennisplayer footage I just put together a different video showing a point sequence with recovery positions. It shows that the teaching information out there right now is indeed incorrect in the vast majority of pro point play. I've used different point play sequences in the past with my own students to make the point clear where to recover to. If you have any questions please let me know. Link is below (private link).

This should be a video article John Cough cough!!! Important information

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FW-Rk_R2fDk

[tennis_chiro]

Split the angle of possible and likely shots of your opponent

Julian,

Instead of using tennisplayer footage I just put together a different video showing a point sequence with recovery positions. It shows that the teaching information out there right now is indeed incorrect in the vast majority of pro point play. I've used different point play sequences in the past with my own students to make the point clear where to recover to. If you have any questions please let me know. Link is below (private link).

This should be a video article John Cough cough!!! Important information

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FW-Rk_R2fDk

Two points:

1. They have to stop when their opponent is hitting the ball and may not have time to recover all the way back to the geometric center of their opponents opportunities.

2. More importantly, the correct recovery is to the center of the opponents' most likely and reasonable range. Consider that the pros are more able to make the down the line shot off the down the line and that recovery position has to be shaded to cover the more likely down the line return (more likely than it might be for a lesser player who doesn't want to try the riskier shot with less room for error wide and a shorter court and higher net, even though it is usually easier to hit the ball back in the line it came in at).

That's why it has to be such a tough task to play Djokovic or Murray when their backhand down the line is working as it usually does. Federer's doesn't work so well off Rafa's forehand!

Could get really complicated trying to pull up the Hawkeye data that shows where the distribution of a certain player's backhands go off cross courts vs dtl's; forehands too; but that is the subtle nature of knowing how to play a certain opponent. I hope we don't end up reducing it to a trend spit out by a computer program that analyzes video of your competitor's last 5 matches, but that is coming with analysis services like Craig Shaunessy's (spelling?). It's fascinating stuff to look at, but I'd hate to see it come to that. But the margins are getting smaller when you look at what Murray had to do to win a point against Ferrer in Sunday's final. They've taken so much air out of the ball with slower balls and courts that it will start to look like a zone defense holding an elite 8 opponent to just 39 points; oh, I'm sorry, Boeheim's team just did that on Sunday! We need to shift back to faster balls and courts that give a little more reward for offense. At least a little.

don

[jasonfrausto]

Two points:

1. They have to stop when their opponent is hitting the ball and may not have time to recover all the way back to the geometric center of their opponents opportunities.

2. More importantly, the correct recovery is to the center of the opponents' most likely and reasonable range. Consider that the pros are more able to make the down the line shot off the down the line and that recovery position has to be shaded to cover the more likely down the line return (more likely than it might be for a lesser player who doesn't want to try the riskier shot with less room for error wide and a shorter court and higher net, even though it is usually easier to hit the ball back in the line it came in at).

That's why it has to be such a tough task to play Djokovic or Murray when their backhand down the line is working as it usually does. Federer's doesn't work so well off Rafa's forehand!

Could get really complicated trying to pull up the Hawkeye data that shows where the distribution of a certain player's backhands go off cross courts vs dtl's; forehands too; but that is the subtle nature of knowing how to play a certain opponent. I hope we don't end up reducing it to a trend spit out by a computer program that analyzes video of your competitor's last 5 matches, but that is coming with analysis services like Craig Shaunessy's (spelling?). It's fascinating stuff to look at, but I'd hate to see it come to that. But the margins are getting smaller when you look at what Murray had to do to win a point against Ferrer in Sunday's final. They've taken so much air out of the ball with slower balls and courts that it will start to look like a zone defense holding an elite 8 opponent to just 39 points; oh, I'm sorry, Boeheim's team just did that on Sunday! We need to shift back to faster balls and courts that give a little more reward for offense. At least a little.

don

Don,

The computer algorithm is already in the works

I agree that courts need to be sped up, these fitness wars are getting to be a little extreme and boring. I see no problem with endurance being an important part of matches, but the balance has shifted dramatically in favor of insanely high cardio levels.

As far as recovery positions, it would be nice if the USPTA or other instructional organizations/websites would get the correct information out there, pro players simply are not recovering in the way that is being promoted in the first post.

[DougEng]

Two points:

1. They have to stop when their opponent is hitting the ball and may not have time to recover all the way back to the geometric center of their opponents opportunities.

2. More importantly, the correct recovery is to the center of the opponents' most likely and reasonable range. Consider that the pros are more able to make the down the line shot off the down the line and that recovery position has to be shaded to cover the more likely down the line return (more likely than it might be for a lesser player who doesn't want to try the riskier shot with less room for error wide and a shorter court and higher net, even though it is usually easier to hit the ball back in the line it came in at).

That's why it has to be such a tough task to play Djokovic or Murray when their backhand down the line is working as it usually does. Federer's doesn't work so well off Rafa's forehand!

Could get really complicated trying to pull up the Hawkeye data that shows where the distribution of a certain player's backhands go off cross courts vs dtl's; forehands too; but that is the subtle nature of knowing how to play a certain opponent. I hope we don't end up reducing it to a trend spit out by a computer program that analyzes video of your competitor's last 5 matches, but that is coming with analysis services like Craig Shaunessy's (spelling?). It's fascinating stuff to look at, but I'd hate to see it come to that. But the margins are getting smaller when you look at what Murray had to do to win a point against Ferrer in Sunday's final. They've taken so much air out of the ball with slower balls and courts that it will start to look like a zone defense holding an elite 8 opponent to just 39 points; oh, I'm sorry, Boeheim's team just did that on Sunday! We need to shift back to faster balls and courts that give a little more reward for offense. At least a little.

don

Don, you hit the bull eye's. Actually the USPTA video is correct. And also Jason is correct on his observations in his video. The difference is ideal vs. practicality. The ideal recovery is as the USPTA video states. However, that is ideal and Jason points out the actual recovery.

In addition, I don't believe the DTL is that much more effective and neither risky. I did statistical analysis of directionals 7 years ago on another site. What I actually found over that study and in recent tactics:

1) There are now 3 basic directions. Not XC or DTL. It is DTL, XC and Angle.
That's due to the spin that strings today can produce. Players today play inside and behind the baseline with 3 shots primarily. (As opposed to playing the net, the offensive zone is a couple feet inside the baseline). The game has become more lateral with side-to-side movement inside and behind the baseline. The traditional game was forward and backwards with some lateral movement. However, the percentage of winning still increases far more significantly with moving forward than moving laterally or center. Therefore, playing inside the baseline is still more important than moving your opponent side to side.

2) The DTL contrary to popular belief is NOT a highly risky shot. Most of it is conjecture based on repeated myths. Just try a statistical study. I did one of 7500 shots years ago with the women and maybe there is a 1% difference between DTL and XC in terms of errors. That is you might have a 86% chance of hitting a good XC but a 85% chance of hitting the DTL in. Over many shots, it it true that could help win the match (just like odds in poker or blackjack). I would love to do the study again especially with the men and more modern technology (and strings).

3) The major difference is that there more relative % winners on the DTL than XC simply because most players try to cover XC. In absolute terms, the XC produces more winners. That's because the highest probability of winning combinations is XC off a short DTL. So playing a DTL and not recovering is a mistake. If one has the 85% chance of hitting the DTL in and 86% chance of hitting the XC in, what this also suggest that the DTL might have a 16% chance of winning outright whereas the XC has a 12% chance of winning outright. That is because players tend to cover the XC better off a XC. So in the XC-XC rally, the XC may have the lowest probability of winning at 12%. A DTL off the XC might have a 16% chance of winning. The XC off the DTL might have a 25% chance of winning especially if an angle. Overall in absolute numbers, the DTL wins more points than the XC off the DTL simply because of higher frequency (there are more XC rallies, and hence more DTL winners). For example, a match might have 62% XC, 23% DTL and 15% angles. Due the Jason's practicality (of movement) coverage, the XC is usually the most covered shot.

4) The reason players do it is as Don mentions it is due to the speed of the game. The game is simply too fast to recover to the suggested position. That makes the DTL risky. It's not missing the DTL as many people think (which I think is one of the biggest myths in tennis). Jason also points out the DTLs are now more effective. It is the inability to cover the XC or angle that makes the DTL risky. It is time to revisit how we see baseline tactics since I think some of it was never quite correct in the first place (e.g, directionals). For a player to realistically cover to the opposite side would require the player to play a slow slice or loop. Hence, the highest combination of winning is probably the angle off the DTL.

5) In the future, I would love to do this analysis again. It is risk analysis. Like in game theory. A few years ago, I suggested a tennis statistic called payoff. Someone suggested recently efficiency (errors/total shots). Payoffs = (winners - errors/total shots). For example, Maria Sharapova might hit 270 FHs in a match and 247 BHs. She makes 15 FH winners, 18 FH errors, 12 BH winners and 2 BH errors. Her payoff for FH is -1% and for BH is +4%. Her efficiency is 93% FH and 99% BH. Inside the baseline, she might actually have payoffs of FH = +14% and backhand +10%. In which case, behind the baseline on defense, she might have a payoff of -30% FH. (These numbers are based on actually what I measured but just randomly also given as case). Effectively that means, keep her deep on her FH.

Howard Brody, a well-known physicist who writes about tennis suggested more research in risk analysis. Craig O'Shannessey writes a great deal on general probability with court position. He does a half qualitative and half quantitative analysis (blogs with NY Times).

[jasonfrausto]

Doug,

Great post and information. To me at least, the main problem with going down the line is the battle of court position. IMO, pro players do not recover to the ideal position because it is in fact not ideal unless as you stated they hit a loopy or slow ball. When they don't hit a loopy or slow ball, or hit a neutral or damage ball, the recovery position leans more towards center or shading the same side. The problem with hitting a neutral shot down the line is it really leaves you vulnerable to an aggressive CC/DTL shot from your opponent immediately after. I would imagine you see the higher percentage of DTL winners not only because of the tendency to cover the CC, but also because when a player is going down the line they are being aggressive with some type of opening in the point which produces the winner.

I agree that DTL is not as risky as people think in terms of strictly changing direction of the ball, where the true risks lies is in the battle for court position on the baseline and being vulnerable to either an aggressive CC or DTL shot. I feel as though the players do not fully recover because they have to honor the ability of the other player to play either direction with the ball, thus they tend to shade the same side or go towards the center. Either way, they put themselves in a potentially worse position unless they do damage or neutralize their opponents attacking ability with their DTL shot. So it makes sense that DTL shots are typically aggressive, otherwise you leave yourself open to be attacked on the next ball to either side.

[DougEng]

Doug,

Great post and information. To me at least, the main problem with going down the line is the battle of court position. IMO, pro players do not recover to the ideal position because it is in fact not ideal unless as you stated they hit a loopy or slow ball. When they don't hit a loopy or slow ball, or hit a neutral or damage ball, the recovery position leans more towards center or shading the same side. The problem with hitting a neutral shot down the line is it really leaves you vulnerable to an aggressive CC/DTL shot from your opponent immediately after. I would imagine you see the higher percentage of DTL winners not only because of the tendency to cover the CC, but also because when a player is going down the line they are being aggressive with some type of opening in the point which produces the winner.

I agree that DTL is not as risky as people think in terms of strictly changing direction of the ball, where the true risks lies is in the battle for court position on the baseline and being vulnerable to either an aggressive CC or DTL shot. I feel as though the players do not fully recover because they have to honor the ability of the other player to play either direction with the ball, thus they tend to shade the same side or go towards the center. Either way, they put themselves in a potentially worse position unless they do damage or neutralize their opponents attacking ability with their DTL shot. So it makes sense that DTL shots are typically aggressive, otherwise you leave yourself open to be attacked on the next ball to either side.

Well, yes. Exactly, Jason. Most players are trained to be aggressive when going DTL since a good XC can hurt them (the most effective combo is the angle XC off a DTL).

If one realizes there are 3 shots. The central shot is the XC. The "out of position" shots are the DTL and angle. So from the DTL or angle, one has to be aggressive since one player is out of position. But the angle cannot be played as aggressively in terms of velocity but in terms of spin and placement. It is a riskier shot than the DTL or XC and the hardest shot. But without it, today's players such as Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, etc cannot rule.

BTW, after the angle or good XC, DTLs actually don't need to be that aggressive. A good observation, is that many DTLs are not that deep or hard hit. They are well placed with the opponent already off the court. In fact, many short DTLs are better shots than deep DTL since many players still run along the baseline, even the pros (since they expect a deep aggressive DTL).

Thank you for the input, Jason.

[stotty]

With top level players I tend to trust (almost entirely) in their innate sense of which parts of the court to cover. With many hours tennis and matchplay under their belt, I feel they probably know best. Equally I tend to err toward trusting (by no means entirely in some cases) their sense of risk...when to make the move. I agree much positional play might be down to sheer conditioning, but player intuition can easily override coaching with these things. Do players naturally sense that DTL is more tricky than XC or have they been programmed to believe so? You tell me. I think it's the former. When the nerves are jangling XC likely seems the bigger, easier target than DTL.

If DTL means exactly that, then the risk is higher than XC. If DTL means hitting merely in a straight line, then this is much less risky and no less risky than XC.