Top Poster: Lawn Tennis
Welcome to our newest member, RX48
1 members and 113 guests
No Members online
Most users ever online was 601, 08-31-2009 at 09:36 PM.
How do you determine a good - non-pro player?
Okay, I've been asking many people about this, but what makes a great non=pro player good? Define good?
Is it the ability to read balls, and hit well and consistently into corners or taking control of the game and changing the momentum or plainly hitting it hard at each other consistently?
I've seen alot of good players who are capable of bashing teh ball like hell forward, and return a very fast ball back to their opponent, but is a good player when you are able to dictate the game? Move the ball to your advanatge? Take control of the situation and hit for example, into corners when needed?
How do you define someone as a player, and be able to help them improve if you do not know exactly what weaknesses or strengths there are in correlation to differing styles between opponents?
Ultimately, I'm also asking, is there a universally good player? I know I'll get returns saying everyone has their own style, and depending on blah blah blah. But I'm asking is there a universal way to improve themselves?
Originally Posted by Apple
This is kind of an unusual question. I don't know fi I am getting what you really want to ask. How you define a good player. You think every player who is on his way of turning pro is a good player. Well, those probably are pretty good, who reach an atp tournament, or a slam, that's even better.
Take Federer for example. He is a universally good player. Good on every surface. Maybe not that super good on clay, but he plays well there too.
How come, you don't recognize the strengh or weeknes of someone? I mean if you see him play, you see, he has a blasting forhand, but it might be too inconsistent...you work on consistency, you take the pace off of the shot a bit, and you practice. You play, you try to get some match practice. You train your shots...I am not sure at all I answered you question...but listen...Chris Evert's father said, he tried to creat decent tennis players from his kids. Well, Evert's brothers played pretty good tennis as well. Evert was the master in the family. I think, Evert's brothers were the good players, Chris Evert was the super player.
Take Fernando Gonzales for example. He has a blasting shot. His forhand. When it comes in, you are in trouble. Huge trouble. If he is not consistent...easy...
Yeah, just look at what is suffering, and basically analyse the problem find alternatives and adapt the solution.
I'd say, talent is being able to play with a crappy racket and still being able to win. I saw this guy playing comp, he had a six-one Wilson one time, and he won the compettion. The next, he plays with some Dunlop that seemed small enough to be a junior racket, and came into the finals. That's pretty impressive.
Top players adapt to anything, nevertheless, you see the brilliance beaming out of their intelligence with the ball. Just pure instinct threaded with adaptability defines 'talent' in my lexicon.
By AlexLogan in forum Pro Players Forum
Last Post: 02-28-2010, 04:49 AM
By tennisking1 in forum Pro Players Forum
Last Post: 08-14-2009, 12:14 AM
By bwindy123 in forum New TW Member Introductions
Last Post: 05-03-2009, 01:24 PM
By moogie in forum Pro Players Forum
Last Post: 04-26-2005, 08:16 PM