I started training in the late 80's so I had old school and new school coaches at a academy and a club and I was never taught to approach from the backhand down the line. Always down the line or inside out from the forehand side to the backhand.
The problem with this is that they appear to assume that if the forehand approach shots they surveyed had a 76% success rate in general, they will continue to have that success rate (or a higher-one-than-backhands-would) *regardless of what position you hit them from,* even if you start hitting them from more and more disadvantageous parts of the court. Presumably a majority of the forehand approaches they drew the 76% figure from were hit *off balls that had come to the forehand side,* and since most players' forehands are better than their backhands, it naturally yielded a higher success rate. However, running around the ball to hit a forehand approach off the backhand side means that you are taking the ball later (giving your opponent more time) and approaching from a diagonal instead of down the center of the court (a positional disadvantage, giving them a bigger opening for a pass). I am not at all convinced that the advantages conferred by hitting a forehand stroke actually outweigh the disadvantages of extending/compromising (unless it is a fairly small adjustment off a reasonably central ball), and that it would not be better to hit a backhand approach off such a ball. To really prove the point they are pushing here, you would need to cut out deuce-side forehand approaches from your statistical analysis and show that approaching off the forehand *from the ad side* still yields a higher success rate than approaching off the backhand from that side (and perhaps break down how far across the ad side that remains the case -- eg. I think there is no way that forehand approaches hit from right next to the ad side doubles alley are more advantageous than backhand ones).
So you can beat Novak Djokovic? If you watch all top players, they frequently run around their backhand? Why? Because 100% of players have more power , control and opportunities with the forehand. So if you don’t think the pct increase is real, fine. But renember you only have to get a point winning pct of 55%+ to win all your matches.
I actually dont think approaching crosscourt is the difference maker. I think COVERING crosscourt is the difference maker. Olden days with wooden rackets, players couldn't hit with enough spin to dip the ball and produce crazy angles crosscourt, like they do today. If you approach down the line, and cover the crosscourt, A. you are taking away the shot most likely to come from your opponent, B. the opponent going down the line is an even better outcome for you. Going DTL, the opponent has to hit over the highest part of the net with the least amount of court to work with. If they miss too far to the middle, you are there. If they miss too far the other side, the ball is out. Basically they have to hit it in the perfect spot and with enough pace to where you dont have the time to take a couple steps over WHILE hitting it high enough to clear the net but not too high to send it long. Its a low percentage shot for the opponent. I'm shocked more pro's dont use that tactic and I really feel like Roger could have beat Novak much more often, utilizing that strategy. Approach the ball to Novak's backhand and cover crosscourt. He'd have to hit a flat backhand pass up the line over and over and over again over 5 sets. And the flat backhand has a limited flight path, the same issue I mentioned with the wooden racket passing shots.
Yeah even the basketball analogy is bad. The best teams in the nba and often the teams that win take a bunch of midrange jumpers. Because the shot has become rarer, teams aren't as prepared to defend against it and give up a bunch of eaay looks at this range. If you were playing against a perfect tennis bot then analytics are everything but if you neglect some of these "sub optimal" shot options you'll have a bunch of holes in your game and you will become SUPER predictable and someone WILL take advantage of you. Shout out tennis Mike D'Antoni tho 🙏🏾
Only problem with this analysis is that if you look at NBA scoring and field goal % since the 80's, 90's, and 00's they are all down. So call me a skeptic in applying that to tennis.
I’m very confident with my backhand passing shot because I have a devastating backhand. I can hit deep, flat or topspin or angle it off . In this situation,, I would runaround my backhand and hit a down the line shot . It’s a straight line and gets to my target quicker. The cross court is diagonal and requires more time. So if I’m receiving his cross court approach shot ,, I’ll run around my backhand and hit it down the line.
Not saying they are wrong about what you should do, but at 6:15 he says it is much harder to hit a backhand passing shot because you cannot get the same amount of spin. Sorry, what? lol. Everything from rackets, strings, grip, etc in todays game contribute to giving players significantly more spin than even 20 years ago. I need clarification on what he meant.
I love that your advocating the cross court approach shot as Vic Braden did. Vic was way ahead of past and present coaches!! American tennis would not have lost it dominance if we had listened to Vic.
I did the analytics way back 17-19 years ago (Vic and I discussed approach shots a couple times). I did a study on different approach shots (backhand topspin, slice, crosscourt, forehands, DTL, XC, IO, etc). Crosscourts are not great, however, the worst percentage was the backhand DTL (slice or topspin) usually around 55% in my analysis (similar to Craig). Craig and I also discussed analytics (but not approach shots). The best approach in my study/analysis was inside-out forehands (so a bit of crosscourt, but not really...it's from the middle of the court maybe 3-4 ft from the ad court for a righty) and second best was down-the-line forehands. I don''t recall the exact data but they were around 66-69%. Slightly shorter (e.g., around service line) was better than deeper unless exceptionally deep but that's not high percentage contrary to popular opinion since the initial miss is higher. Interestingly, approach shots had highest winning percentage when played from just inside the baseline, not farther in (e.g., approach shot from 8 ft in does not produce the same results as on the baseline, so "approaching on short balls" may not produce the best numbers although still good). Also looked at types of footwork on approaches to see which was best...it was usually open to square moving forward. The very aggressive inside-out forehand takes away angled passes so the backhand DTL can be met with a short FH volley. That is a very common tactic on ATP tour today. Times change so it can depend on population, technology, etc.
I stopped doing this. I am around 3.5 - 4.0 level. In such case most of my opponents hit winner down the line or lob me, because I don't have pro athleticism and my approach shot has not pro level penetration. Therefore it's sufficient for them to just push the ball high and deep so It's pretty safe bet since I don't have pro level high volley/overhead either, so In case I can meet the ball I just spoil the volley. I am seeing this not only when I play but others as well. My point is, that It makes sense but In my humble opinion I don't think that this tactics is applicable for recreational level tennis.
Just some posting some feedback on this product. Purchased at the weekend, I love craig’s insights and have enjoyed a lot of FYB content. Was debating whether to purchase Craig’s 25 golden rules of singles instead but was hoping the more video / strategy board FYB content aimed at rec players would be more useful to me (4.0, 4.5 aspiring all court player). First off, nice format and usability. But content is a little underwhelming. Looks like it’s just one long video cut up into 20 individual clips. Length of clips vary but all are pretty short - 2-3 mins or less i’d say. So overall, your probably getting an hour or so of content, maybe 90mins. But it’s not a lot. Also as a result of being clipped up most rules feel rushed and each point left only half explained and not super thorough. On the whole my feeling was not enough time spent examining the different aspects of each idea. Most I’m left thinking well, what about in this or that scenario, or how would this translate in the ad court, or playing a lefty or whatever. That being said, the fundamental strategy suggestions are interesting and have got me thinking about new approaches. Though here again, I’m left wondering how suitable / usable these new data led strategies are to rec players. Not doubting Craig’s insights at all! But most new rules seemed to based on studying one dataset (a 30 game sample of Tsitispas over one season). Wether this is a big enough dataset to rewrite a tennis rule book is one thing, but nowhere is any evidence or research offered as to how and why this would work at the recreational / club level. Most the time we’re talking about an opponent who will be ‘expecting x’ or will typically return your wide inside out FH with a cross court BH rather than the junk ball or block that 80% of sub 4.5 players will be hitting. Anyways. Not saying I’m not enjoying the ideas. But just a little disappointed with the amount of content, or the scope offered for $67. Imagine if I’d paid the $600 retail value. 😮 Cheers FYB for the effort of doing something new. Genuinely do appreciate the content that’s freely made available. 🙏
I like technique and am always looking to improve that. But superior strategy and thinking can overcome average technique. I like both, but often find too many videos focus on the low hanging fruit of "here's how to hit a better _______." Strategy and tennis pattern videos are not as common. To be sure I've benefitted from technique videos. But appreciate these as I'm trying to get better with what skill/tools I do have.
Sounds like you basically optimized hitting your strong approach shot with forehand to your opponent’s backhand. Then forcing an error if they try to pass down the line, or you hit a winner if they hit cross court as you covered it
Okay what about the fact that my backhand is exceptional? And, the fact that I’m left handed naturally, so my backhand will go right to their backhand anyway. And I don’t even use two hands on my backhand, because I spent 12 years developing it with just one…
Hey Will, you made the same pitch about the singles playbook: "Pay $67 and you not only get the playbook, but you also get...." except I didn't get any of that bonus stuff.... and I've emailed about it 27 times now without a response from you. So how about that money back guarantee? I guess email is out. Do I just keep posting on videos you publish and sponsor?
Hey Darryl, sorry about the headaches, not sure why your emails aren't reaching us, but if you go to our website there is a chat box where you can talk directly with our support staff and we'll get you up and running. Please let me know if that works.
@@fuzzyyellowballs I’ve emailed and left numerous voicemails and used the box in the app about a refund for Crush It. Received zero responses. Will never purchase a product from you again.
So, there actually was a rule to hit an approach ball with your mostly inferior site onto the better side of your opponent with little time to come to the net? This seems odd.
I think it was from the wooden racket days, when shots tended to be flatter due to heaviness of rackets, and Bjorn Borg’s heavy top spin was the exception.
These strategies heavily depend on whether or not you know your opponents. If you are familiar with their play then you should adjust to the player rather than doing this generic % strategy. If you have no idea of their play then it’s safer to play with these strategies till you can figure your opponent out. Art of war :)😊
Do the math: if middle court shot improve from 50% to 60% then 2points x 0.6 = 1.2points!!!!!! So practice your middle court shots is as well worth!!!!
i just dont understand , why to bother to run more and place a forehand to the enemy backhand when i can make the same shots better with my backhand from the same position and even earlier,i know data dont lie, but this seem strange.
I like Craig but how you calculate approach shots inside out ones is very misleading. There is a major flaw when I see this approach One is it depends on where the contact is made , how far below the net. If it is too low and you hit hat shot the opponent had a better chance of getting to it . This is very misleading . Second the modern volleyers do not have the ability to guess as. Mac and Edberg did. The approach shot also depends on how far the baseline risk. Novak had so many other factors coming to where he is , namely nutrition yoga and mindfulness along with the fact that he controls depth better than anyone, yes it is one way ,but approaching at th opponenent if they are Near the baseline is a great option, check out how Becker beat Chang in open. The old rule of hitting into the open court was never thee. For forty years I have opposed that for years. So he is correct that the first volley should not be hit into open court correct.. Hitting first volleys is a lost art. Check out Edberg he will prove Craig right on that. Once again disagree with the inside out approach . If the ball sits above the net and you are inside the service One then yes but then it is not an approach but a quasi winner
My understanding is basically optimize hitting your strong approach shot with forehand to your opponent’s backhand. Then forcing an error if they try to pass down the line, or you hit a winner if they hit cross court as you covered it
Admit it....when you guys watch Novak play, sure the flexibility, the fight, the athleticism is all impressive. But are you wowed like when Rafa hits the banana shot winners, Roger hits the backhand overhead like its nothing? I'm not. Why does he win so much? Analytics. He plays a near flawless, GTO strategy. Novak makes the other guy take all the risk and when he runs into a rare opponent, willing to play the same solid but passive strategy, he has the ability to take the initiative and control the point without taking much risk. IE coming to the net, hitting safer shots down the line and attacking short balls. This cheat code, much like analytics in baseball, poker etc. may end up making the game "solved" and therefore, boring, but the goal is to win. Ugly or not.
@@fuzzyyellowballsstill haven’t gotten the extra 3 books buying that I’ve emailed voicemails and did the text box chat thing everything you mentioned before I’ve tried I would like a money return and free ones at this point or even just free 3 ones because I atleast want something
The way these guys use stats is irresponsible. It's everything naive and misleading about statistical analysis that one learns not to do in Stats 101. Saying the shot increases from 52% to 76% is either intenionally fraudulent or woefully uneducated.
This is an unpublish book which has common sense ideas you have to go out a play tennis to understand what the process tennis players go through. Basketball is nothing like tennis you and Craig are missing the whole objective. If you were a tennis player, you would have a better understanding. You guys just want to sell this book to make money that's your sole purpose.
This could have been a 45 second reel.
I started training in the late 80's so I had old school and new school coaches at a academy and a club and I was never taught to approach from the backhand down the line.
Always down the line or inside out from the forehand side to the backhand.
Good coaching!
The problem with this is that they appear to assume that if the forehand approach shots they surveyed had a 76% success rate in general, they will continue to have that success rate (or a higher-one-than-backhands-would) *regardless of what position you hit them from,* even if you start hitting them from more and more disadvantageous parts of the court. Presumably a majority of the forehand approaches they drew the 76% figure from were hit *off balls that had come to the forehand side,* and since most players' forehands are better than their backhands, it naturally yielded a higher success rate. However, running around the ball to hit a forehand approach off the backhand side means that you are taking the ball later (giving your opponent more time) and approaching from a diagonal instead of down the center of the court (a positional disadvantage, giving them a bigger opening for a pass). I am not at all convinced that the advantages conferred by hitting a forehand stroke actually outweigh the disadvantages of extending/compromising (unless it is a fairly small adjustment off a reasonably central ball), and that it would not be better to hit a backhand approach off such a ball.
To really prove the point they are pushing here, you would need to cut out deuce-side forehand approaches from your statistical analysis and show that approaching off the forehand *from the ad side* still yields a higher success rate than approaching off the backhand from that side (and perhaps break down how far across the ad side that remains the case -- eg. I think there is no way that forehand approaches hit from right next to the ad side doubles alley are more advantageous than backhand ones).
So you can beat Novak Djokovic? If you watch all top players, they frequently run around their backhand? Why? Because 100% of players have more power , control and opportunities with the forehand.
So if you don’t think the pct increase is real, fine. But renember you only have to get a point winning pct of 55%+ to win all your matches.
I actually dont think approaching crosscourt is the difference maker. I think COVERING crosscourt is the difference maker. Olden days with wooden rackets, players couldn't hit with enough spin to dip the ball and produce crazy angles crosscourt, like they do today. If you approach down the line, and cover the crosscourt, A. you are taking away the shot most likely to come from your opponent, B. the opponent going down the line is an even better outcome for you. Going DTL, the opponent has to hit over the highest part of the net with the least amount of court to work with. If they miss too far to the middle, you are there. If they miss too far the other side, the ball is out. Basically they have to hit it in the perfect spot and with enough pace to where you dont have the time to take a couple steps over WHILE hitting it high enough to clear the net but not too high to send it long. Its a low percentage shot for the opponent. I'm shocked more pro's dont use that tactic and I really feel like Roger could have beat Novak much more often, utilizing that strategy. Approach the ball to Novak's backhand and cover crosscourt. He'd have to hit a flat backhand pass up the line over and over and over again over 5 sets. And the flat backhand has a limited flight path, the same issue I mentioned with the wooden racket passing shots.
Yeah even the basketball analogy is bad. The best teams in the nba and often the teams that win take a bunch of midrange jumpers.
Because the shot has become rarer, teams aren't as prepared to defend against it and give up a bunch of eaay looks at this range.
If you were playing against a perfect tennis bot then analytics are everything but if you neglect some of these "sub optimal" shot options you'll have a bunch of holes in your game and you will become SUPER predictable and someone WILL take advantage of you.
Shout out tennis Mike D'Antoni tho 🙏🏾
Only problem with this analysis is that if you look at NBA scoring and field goal % since the 80's, 90's, and 00's they are all down. So call me a skeptic in applying that to tennis.
I’m very confident with my backhand passing shot because I have a devastating backhand. I can hit deep, flat or topspin or angle it off .
In this situation,, I would runaround my backhand and hit a down the line shot . It’s a straight line and gets to my target quicker. The cross court is diagonal and requires more time.
So if I’m receiving his cross court approach shot ,, I’ll run around my backhand and hit it down the line.
I must be a freaken genius because I wouldn’t think about approaching with my backhand
Not saying they are wrong about what you should do, but at 6:15 he says it is much harder to hit a backhand passing shot because you cannot get the same amount of spin. Sorry, what? lol. Everything from rackets, strings, grip, etc in todays game contribute to giving players significantly more spin than even 20 years ago. I need clarification on what he meant.
That isn't what he said. You are hitting over the high part of the net into the shorter court.
I love that your advocating the cross court approach shot as Vic Braden did. Vic was way ahead of past and present coaches!! American tennis would not have lost it dominance if we had listened to Vic.
I did the analytics way back 17-19 years ago (Vic and I discussed approach shots a couple times). I did a study on different approach shots (backhand topspin, slice, crosscourt, forehands, DTL, XC, IO, etc). Crosscourts are not great, however, the worst percentage was the backhand DTL (slice or topspin) usually around 55% in my analysis (similar to Craig). Craig and I also discussed analytics (but not approach shots). The best approach in my study/analysis was inside-out forehands (so a bit of crosscourt, but not really...it's from the middle of the court maybe 3-4 ft from the ad court for a righty) and second best was down-the-line forehands. I don''t recall the exact data but they were around 66-69%. Slightly shorter (e.g., around service line) was better than deeper unless exceptionally deep but that's not high percentage contrary to popular opinion since the initial miss is higher. Interestingly, approach shots had highest winning percentage when played from just inside the baseline, not farther in (e.g., approach shot from 8 ft in does not produce the same results as on the baseline, so "approaching on short balls" may not produce the best numbers although still good). Also looked at types of footwork on approaches to see which was best...it was usually open to square moving forward. The very aggressive inside-out forehand takes away angled passes so the backhand DTL can be met with a short FH volley. That is a very common tactic on ATP tour today. Times change so it can depend on population, technology, etc.
I stopped doing this. I am around 3.5 - 4.0 level. In such case most of my opponents hit winner down the line or lob me, because I don't have pro athleticism and my approach shot has not pro level penetration. Therefore it's sufficient for them to just push the ball high and deep so It's pretty safe bet since I don't have pro level high volley/overhead either, so In case I can meet the ball I just spoil the volley. I am seeing this not only when I play but others as well. My point is, that It makes sense but In my humble opinion I don't think that this tactics is applicable for recreational level tennis.
Just some posting some feedback on this product. Purchased at the weekend, I love craig’s insights and have enjoyed a lot of FYB content. Was debating whether to purchase Craig’s 25 golden rules of singles instead but was hoping the more video / strategy board FYB content aimed at rec players would be more useful to me (4.0, 4.5 aspiring all court player).
First off, nice format and usability. But content is a little underwhelming. Looks like it’s just one long video cut up into 20 individual clips. Length of clips vary but all are pretty short - 2-3 mins or less i’d say. So overall, your probably getting an hour or so of content, maybe 90mins. But it’s not a lot. Also as a result of being clipped up most rules feel rushed and each point left only half explained and not super thorough. On the whole my feeling was not enough time spent examining the different aspects of each idea. Most I’m left thinking well, what about in this or that scenario, or how would this translate in the ad court, or playing a lefty or whatever.
That being said, the fundamental strategy suggestions are interesting and have got me thinking about new approaches. Though here again, I’m left wondering how suitable / usable these new data led strategies are to rec players.
Not doubting Craig’s insights at all! But most new rules seemed to based on studying one dataset (a 30 game sample of Tsitispas over one season). Wether this is a big enough dataset to rewrite a tennis rule book is one thing, but nowhere is any evidence or research offered as to how and why this would work at the recreational / club level. Most the time we’re talking about an opponent who will be ‘expecting x’ or will typically return your wide inside out FH with a cross court BH rather than the junk ball or block that 80% of sub 4.5 players will be hitting.
Anyways. Not saying I’m not enjoying the ideas. But just a little disappointed with the amount of content, or the scope offered for $67. Imagine if I’d paid the $600 retail value. 😮
Cheers FYB for the effort of doing something new. Genuinely do appreciate the content that’s freely made available. 🙏
Yep. Normal standard of the offering from FYB. Promise the world and deliver sweet FA.
As an OG fan of the channel I miss the old technique videos.
I like technique and am always looking to improve that. But superior strategy and thinking can overcome average technique. I like both, but often find too many videos focus on the low hanging fruit of "here's how to hit a better _______." Strategy and tennis pattern videos are not as common. To be sure I've benefitted from technique videos. But appreciate these as I'm trying to get better with what skill/tools I do have.
I watched almost all of old ones!
@@aquamansurfer they are really good! I used their videos to first learn how to do the “windshield wiper” forehand. Great stuff.
Sounds like you basically optimized hitting your strong approach shot with forehand to your opponent’s backhand. Then forcing an error if they try to pass down the line, or you hit a winner if they hit cross court as you covered it
The geometry would be different if one of the players are lefty
Okay what about the fact that my backhand is exceptional? And, the fact that I’m left handed naturally, so my backhand will go right to their backhand anyway. And I don’t even use two hands on my backhand, because I spent 12 years developing it with just one…
Is this about basketball or tennis?
Hey Will, you made the same pitch about the singles playbook: "Pay $67 and you not only get the playbook, but you also get...." except I didn't get any of that bonus stuff.... and I've emailed about it 27 times now without a response from you. So how about that money back guarantee? I guess email is out. Do I just keep posting on videos you publish and sponsor?
Hey Darryl, sorry about the headaches, not sure why your emails aren't reaching us, but if you go to our website there is a chat box where you can talk directly with our support staff and we'll get you up and running. Please let me know if that works.
@@fuzzyyellowballs I’ve emailed and left numerous voicemails and used the box in the app about a refund for Crush It. Received zero responses. Will never purchase a product from you again.
I also didnˋt get my money back for another product, many years ago. After that I have never bought nothing else from FYB.
@@Casolo74 I hear ya. I even emailed Will directly and got no response.
😂🎉🎉عق
What percentage of passes are hit backhand cross V Line? Also curious as to where each forehand approach is hit from ie inside baseline etc
So, there actually was a rule to hit an approach ball with your mostly inferior site onto the better side of your opponent with little time to come to the net? This seems odd.
I think it was from the wooden racket days, when shots tended to be flatter due to heaviness of rackets, and Bjorn Borg’s heavy top spin was the exception.
Backhand slice gives time to come in, they used to use it a lot.
Hello Will and Craig, based on this strategy , what if you have a better backhand then forehand ?
If your backhand is better than your forehand just hit a cross court backhand approach shot. Medvedev does this.
You're f***d. Lol
@@fuzzyyellowballs thanks ! Anyway the concept still the same to wrong foot the opponent !
@@fuzzyyellowballs دغضششبشغدلضظبضدلضداضدضظلضظدضظدظضدضظاددضظ😊
These strategies heavily depend on whether or not you know your opponents. If you are familiar with their play then you should adjust to the player rather than doing this generic % strategy. If you have no idea of their play then it’s safer to play with these strategies till you can figure your opponent out. Art of war :)😊
Totally disagree .old style down the line is not effective because the volleyers never learn to guess .
I do agree on going behind on the first volley
It's the 2019 wimbledon final Will, in 2018 novak beat Kevin Anderson 😊
Lol ya whoops
dzaba im sva priča
kad je nole iznad svega
Do the math: if middle court shot improve from 50% to 60% then 2points x 0.6 = 1.2points!!!!!! So practice your middle court shots is as well worth!!!!
i just dont understand , why to bother to run more and place a forehand to the enemy backhand when i can make the same shots better with my backhand from the same position and even earlier,i know data dont lie, but this seem strange.
The problem is everyone knows this and will adapt as well so not worth it
I like Craig but how you calculate approach shots inside out ones is very misleading. There is a major flaw when I see this approach One is it depends on where the contact is made , how far below the net. If it is too low and you hit hat shot the opponent had a better chance of getting to it . This is very misleading . Second the modern volleyers do not have the ability to guess as. Mac and Edberg did. The approach shot also depends on how far the baseline risk. Novak had so many other factors coming to where he is , namely nutrition yoga and mindfulness along with the fact that he controls depth better than anyone, yes it is one way ,but approaching at th opponenent if they are
Near the baseline is a great option, check out how Becker beat Chang in open.
The old rule of hitting into the open court was never thee. For forty years I have opposed that for years. So he is correct that the first volley should not be hit into open court correct..
Hitting first volleys is a lost art. Check out Edberg he will prove Craig right on that.
Once again disagree with the inside out approach . If the ball sits above the net and you are inside the service
One then yes but then it is not an approach but a quasi winner
how does this apply to when you're not both the same handed player?
I'm lefty and I'll still hit my approach shot cross court at a righty's backhand
My understanding is basically optimize hitting your strong approach shot with forehand to your opponent’s backhand. Then forcing an error if they try to pass down the line, or you hit a winner if they hit cross court as you covered it
Love this! 🎉
how many videos are there included and how many are there total? Also, how long is this deal open for?
Hey Coal, 20 new rules (each one is its own video), bunch of bonuses, deal available until Thursday, March 30
ບ
What if I don’t have time to run around to my forehand on the backhand approach should I still hit it cross or just okay it down the line
Depends on the situation, but probably hammer a backhand cross court and see if you get a weak reply you can run around.
Silly question:
Is this interactive strategy board available somewhere?
It's an LG CreateBoard. We had custom graphics made but the software to make everything work comes out-of-the-box.
@@fuzzyyellowballs what is the size of that createboard?
So in summary..hit it into their backhand
Admit it....when you guys watch Novak play, sure the flexibility, the fight, the athleticism is all impressive. But are you wowed like when Rafa hits the banana shot winners, Roger hits the backhand overhead like its nothing? I'm not. Why does he win so much? Analytics. He plays a near flawless, GTO strategy. Novak makes the other guy take all the risk and when he runs into a rare opponent, willing to play the same solid but passive strategy, he has the ability to take the initiative and control the point without taking much risk. IE coming to the net, hitting safer shots down the line and attacking short balls. This cheat code, much like analytics in baseball, poker etc. may end up making the game "solved" and therefore, boring, but the goal is to win. Ugly or not.
Do you have new rules for doubles?
How the hell did I end up here? RUclips algorithm is wild. LoL
Welcome to the channel! 😂
@@fuzzyyellowballsstill haven’t gotten the extra 3 books buying that I’ve emailed voicemails and did the text box chat thing everything you mentioned before I’ve tried I would like a money return and free ones at this point or even just free 3 ones because I atleast want something
Is that an app / tablet you are holding in your video? Is this a book or app? Book is not useful as App can be easily be with you on your phone,
Ya I'm holding an iPad and the program "lives" in an app, not a physical book
analytics? ... well well well, isn't that special. .... lol ...good stuff FYB :-)
hey is ebook available?
Ya check out the link in the description - it will take you to the page where you can get it
Nobody learns Tennis on a whiteboard and marker. It is hard work.
Not with that attitude 😂
Yep, I’m a Fed fan with uncomfortable emotions 😢
😭
Follow Vic Braden the math and science does not lie
What about someone like me? I am left handed
I'm lefty too! Just hit your forehand crosscourt and come in.
Verbose
Explanations are often long winded.
They must cater to the rest of us newbies, not the know-it-alls.
❤❤❤❤
The way these guys use stats is irresponsible. It's everything naive and misleading about statistical analysis that one learns not to do in Stats 101. Saying the shot increases from 52% to 76% is either intenionally fraudulent or woefully uneducated.
Worked well enough for Djokovic to hire this guy to help coach him. I guess you should ask Djokovic how the data helped him.
This is an unpublish book which has common sense ideas you have to go out a play tennis to understand what the process tennis players go through. Basketball is nothing like tennis you and Craig are missing the whole objective. If you were a tennis player, you would have a better understanding. You guys just want to sell this book to make money that's your sole purpose.
************** Hey be more variety of shot selection is still best *****************
da je novak đoković ovoliko slušao i buljio u tablu
ništa ne bi bilo od njega
pobeđivao bi ga i izner i fric
😃😁
Great, lets just kill all creativity and make tennis as much robotic as possible, nice...
Nothing is stopping you from continue to play in creative way, but if winning is most important to you, then statistics can help you.
Joker sucked in 2017 so Craig didn't help him at all.
Early in the year he was getting over an elbow injury
nole je uvek bio najbolji
od kako je kročio na teniski teren
Please. Do your research. Novak was recovering from an injury/surgery.
@@LeadershipAlliance 👍🏼
Bullshit literally everything they said here.