We still talk about tennis. And much more.
https://talkabouttennis2.com/
It's kind of a difficult skill to quantify - it really reflects in Winners/UEs, I guess. I think the way that's perceived in a match is really who has the momentum? The player who is more "precise" and is playing in form, is likelier ot be dictating the points in an otherwise similarly-matched encounter, because they're controlling their shots and the opponent positioning/shot choice because of precision.mick1303 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 17, 2024 1:53 pm What I've noticed, when watching matches and listening to the commentary, is that tennis commentators (and this includes Youtube analysts) rarely if ever pay attention to such attribute, as precision - specifically applied as ability to consistently hit close to the lines, while not making mistakes. Recently I watched Bautista Agut against Etcheverry from Stockholm, and IMO it was an illustration how precision separated them. Etcheverry is not slower on his feet (probably even faster) and his shots do not lack pace, comparing to RBA. But he was consistently slightly later a little bit, and over the course of a point this "slightly" was accumulating to the sizable advantage for RBA. Why do you think this skill is often overlooked, when commentators analyze the strengths/weaknesses of the players?
Thanks for explaining your reasoning regarding this shot. You say it a lot but now, in this context, I get what you mean.ponchi101 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 21, 2024 6:45 pm I say it is more what Borg used to do. I know, people now talk of Borg as some sort of God, which he was, but his playing style was super conservative. His margin of error was huge, as he seldom went for the lines. So he could hit the same shot, again and again, with great precision.
Another one was Connors. As aggressive as he was from the back court, Connors' length was ridiculous. He could find the back of the court with regularity.
That is the reason I think the swinging volley is such a stupid shot. It is hit frequently into the middle of the court, seldom for a winner. Because the precision for the shot is something that few players have.
But I think that's different than what Mick first postulated, which I udnerstood to be more about the ability to consistently convert on somewhat risky shots, like down the line.ponchi101 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 21, 2024 6:45 pm I say it is more what Borg used to do. I know, people now talk of Borg as some sort of God, which he was, but his playing style was super conservative. His margin of error was huge, as he seldom went for the lines. So he could hit the same shot, again and again, with great precision.
Another one was Connors. As aggressive as he was from the back court, Connors' length was ridiculous. He could find the back of the court with regularity.
That is the reason I think the swinging volley is such a stupid shot. It is hit frequently into the middle of the court, seldom for a winner. Because the precision for the shot is something that few players have.
The risk level, to me, IS a factor. I would say the Fededer one is an example of consistency - because slight errors wouldn't necessarily lose him the point - while the Djokovic one is consistency AND precision.ponchi101 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 21, 2024 11:49 pm Oh, sure. Lendl's BH down the line was a risky shot because it came from a cross court shot. Going from CC to DTL is always risky, as opposed to going from down the line to cross court. That sort of precision is also what we are talking about.
But, another example. We were all in awe of Roger's strokes. He did produce the miraculous one with frequency. But we don't talk about his simple "serve wide to the FH on the deuce court, hit a winner with HIS FH going inside out". He must have hit that shot thousands of times, and seldom missed, both because it was high percentage and he had the precision.
And few players have ever been as good at going down the line with his backhand, from a cross court shot, as Novak. That is a precision shot, if there ever was one.