Marginal Gains: Are You a Right Side or Left Side Player?

[J011yroger]

Thanks for the comments. This series is specifically targeted for players to 'work with what they've got'. Lower level and recreational players may never have had the opportunity to test for eye and leg dominance, and will have spent years developing their game-style without that information. Practically many rec players don't have the time to invest in making fundamental changes to their game, should eye and leg dominance tests suggest that's whats needed. However, all players should be able to use the info in these articles to improve the effectiveness of the skills they already have.

I would simply say that for advanced players, hopefully they have acquired the knowledge regards eye and leg dominance, and that has already contributed to the development of their skills and strengths.

Lateral movement will also naturally push players towards developing strengths, so someone who doesn't move as well to the right side, will probably find their strengths have naturally developed on the left side. I believe everyone can improve their weaker side with enough desire and opportunity, but yes it will probably always remain their weaker side, so this series is more about working with that, not trying to change it.

That makes a lot of sense.

Thanks!

J

[nickw]

Thanks for the post, don't mind long ones! The main question you have is indeed very clear, and well worth discussing.

I would start with the following two points:

Firstly, there is an obvious benefit to developing the ability to regularly hit a risky shot successfully, and that is the opponent won't be expecting it! They may also not be great at counter-acting it as a result. Tennis matches can often become wars of attrition, and sometimes a few unexpected plays can make all the difference, if executed successfully. Yes, down the line is riskier, but there's no reason a player can't become skilled enough to use it more often, and make it pay off, as you have found in the past with your down the line backhand.

Secondly, find out just how effective your risky choice actually is, by tracking the outcomes in a match. You probably won't find an app that will do it, but you could easily set up a manual tracker, where you perhaps choose your daughter's inside-in shot, and track the following: Every time she has a chance to hit the inside-in, make a note of what happened. It should be one of these options:

She went for it, and it won the point (worth noting whether it was her winner, she forced the error, or opponent hit an unforced error)
She went for it, and the point continued (worth noting whether she remained in control, or her opponent gained control)
She went for it, and opponent hit a winning shot (likely to the open space)
She went for it, and missed
She chose to go inside-out (and you could even track the outcome when she chose this option)

It's simple to get this data, which will then give you an idea of whether it's paying off or not, and more importantly why it's paying off or not. That data can then be used to fine-tune the strategy, and the long-term goal of how much time to invest in getting good at this play.

Thirdly, it does very much depend on the player as an individual. An aggresive player may be better suited to going after riskier shots more often if they feel confident to do so. Our different personalities can often be a very big influence, and how we play tennis is often an expression of our personality. An extrovert will more likely be drawn to a higher-risk game-style (Kyrgios is a classic example!), whilst an introvert may well have the most success by getting really good at playing the percentages, and sticking to that 80-90% of the time. What I've certainly learned over the years, is working with what players feel most comfortable and happy with, always has the best results, even if as a coach you may not feel it makes the most sense.

I think the series will address this question further as it develops, when we look at managing risk, and adjusting to what your opponents style of play is. The next article, working out your own game-style, will also slot in another piece of the puzzle, and may make it easier to decide how best to get the right balance.

[arturohernandez]

Let's discuss Nick Wheatley's article, "Marginal Gains: Are You a Right Side or Left Side Player?"

I have enjoyed both articles a lot. Sorry for the longish post but hopefully it is a question that others have as well.

My question revolves around playing the way one likes to play vs. the way one should play. For example, I love hitting backhands down the line. In fact, when it is on, I have beaten better players than me by simply ripping down the line backhands for winners.

Over the years, I have had to make adjustments. One is to actually hit a lot more backhands cross court. It is just too risky to hit down the line all the time. So I have developed a short angled cross court backhand which is much safer and also opens the court. From there I can hit inside in or inside out with my forehand. The second adjustment is that sometimes players with two handed backhands will simply not miss. They can just neutralize my backhand and push me back until I miss. Against these players, I have learned to slice a lot more. Sometimes I will slice everything cross court because it makes them cough up a short ball. Sometimes, just feeding slices against a two hander leads to increased errors or they are forced to come in and I pass them.

So I could build my game to elicit a ball that I can attack with my down the line backhand. But this is a really low percentage shot.

I have found my own solutions to this dilemma by developing other shots that are higher percentage. So now I probably hit around 30% of my backhands down the line. 70% will involve other shots that go cross court (i.e cross-court backhands, short angled backhands, or inside out forehands, slice backhands). So I now have four options that are high percentage one lower percentage option. And my favorite shot only appears every so often almost to mix things up rather than as my primary aim.

Now I am working with my daughter to try and develop her game tactically. She is 14 years old so most of the players simply outlast the others at this age. Rarely, does she face someone who wipes her off the court. She plays in high school and USTA tournaments. She is not playing ITF or nationals in the US which is a whole other level.

My daughter really likes inside-in forehands and down the line forehands. But both of these create risk. To me it makes more sense to develop the short angled and inside-out forehands which are much less risky. Down the line and inside-in forehands should be secondary patterns which she prefers but does not use as often.

I realize that your articles are for rec players but given the choice, should we not try to develop the highest percentage shots more and leave shots that we prefer if they are lower percentage in our back pocket?

Even Nadal returns a lot of serves from the deuce court with his backhand. It is too risky for him to run around every return on that side. Wawrinka and Djokovic will run around their backhands when given time.

How do you balance what you like with what you should do? Given the time, what would your approach be with a junior player?

Thanks again for the informative articles.

[nickw]

I found it odd that there was no mention of lateral movement; almost everyone moves better to one side than the other.

The other issues that were surprisingly not addressed were eye and leg dominance.

J

Thanks for the comments. This series is specifically targeted for players to 'work with what they've got'. Lower level and recreational players may never have had the opportunity to test for eye and leg dominance, and will have spent years developing their game-style without that information. Practically many rec players don't have the time to invest in making fundamental changes to their game, should eye and leg dominance tests suggest that's whats needed. However, all players should be able to use the info in these articles to improve the effectiveness of the skills they already have.

I would simply say that for advanced players, hopefully they have acquired the knowledge regards eye and leg dominance, and that has already contributed to the development of their skills and strengths.

Lateral movement will also naturally push players towards developing strengths, so someone who doesn't move as well to the right side, will probably find their strengths have naturally developed on the left side. I believe everyone can improve their weaker side with enough desire and opportunity, but yes it will probably always remain their weaker side, so this series is more about working with that, not trying to change it.

[J011yroger]

I found it odd that there was no mention of lateral movement; almost everyone moves better to one side than the other.

The other issues that were surprisingly not addressed were eye and leg dominance.

J

[John Yandell]

Let's discuss Nick Wheatley's article, "Marginal Gains: Are You a Right Side or Left Side Player?"