Last weekend, I played a match in the Fort Worth Tri-Level tournament against an opponent who was absolutely crushing the ball. That often put my doubles partner and me back on our heels as we tried to handle the pace long enough to find a way back into the point. At almost every pause in the action, we reminded ourselves of the tried-and-true tennis mantra: “Always make them hit one more ball.”
It worked… to a certain extent. When the dust settled, we lost the match 10-8 in the deciding superbreaker. That outcome means that a point or two in either direction could have easily changed the result.
I have been kicking around an “Unplugged” series of posts examining the role consistency plays in competitive tennis for quite a while. Last weekend’s match was one of the main reasons this topic rose to the top of my queue.
Consistency is one of the first things tennis players are taught to value. Beginning players are encouraged to keep the ball in play, and for good reason. At lower levels of competition, a player who can reliably hit the ball in the court will almost always win against an opponent who makes more errors. Coaches spend a lot of time encouraging players to develop dependable strokes before worrying about hitting winners.
At the same time, consistency is much more than simply keeping the ball in play. As the competition level rises, simply getting the ball back may not be enough. A short ball that lands in the middle of the court is technically a good shot, but it can also give a skilled opponent easy opportunities to put the ball away. Consistency is also the ability to maintain enough depth, placement, and control to prevent the player on the opposite side of the net from taking charge of the rally.
That is easier said than done when you are already in a defensive position. A player who gets to play a ball well inside the baseline has considerably easier options than someone scrambling to dig a missile out of a deep corner. Under pressure, there may be little opportunity to execute the shot you’d prefer. Sometimes the best available choice is to get the ball back with enough height and depth to simply give yourself time to recover.
“Always make them hit one more ball” doesn’t mean we completely abandon the possibility of attacking. It also sure as heck doesn’t mean anyone should spend the entire match hoping the other players will make mistakes. Rather, it means recognizing that when we’re under pressure, our immediate objective is to keep the point alive. If we can get another ball back, we create another opportunity to recover our court position, neutralize the exchange, or eventually get a ball we can do something with.
Of course, the opponents may simply hit a winner. When that happens, there is nothing to do but acknowledge the good shot. However, even aggressive players have to execute. Forcing them to hit another ball increases the chances of something going wrong. It also means they have to sustain their level of play rather than relying on a single well-struck shot to finish every point.
Consistency has a strong psychological component beyond the technical ability to play shots into the court. When opponents are wailing on the ball, it’s tempting to respond by trying to match their pace. Sometimes that works, mostly because you can reflect back their power rather than having to generate your own. However, that can also lead to attempting shots that are outside your normal capabilities, adding your own unforced errors to the pressure the opponents are already creating. It is a slippery slope toward the opposite of consistency.
Sticking with consistency as a strategy requires some discipline, especially when the score isn’t going your way. You have to accept that there will be points where you do everything reasonably well and still lose. You also have to resist the urge to change tactics simply because the previous point didn’t work out. A good decision can produce an unsuccessful result, just as a poor decision can occasionally produce a winner.
Consistency doesn’t necessarily mean doing the same thing over and over. In fact, predictability can become a liability against an opponent who recognizes what you’re going to do. A consistent player still needs to adjust to different opponents, court conditions, and match situations. What remains consistent is the ability to make reasonable decisions and execute them with acceptable reliability.
Being consistent also requires recognizing when it’s time to make an adjustment. If an opponent starts leaving balls short, there’s an opportunity to become more aggressive. On the other hand, if they’re comfortably handling everything you send their way, you may need to accept more risk and aim for more difficult targets. Sticking with a strategy makes sense as long as it’s giving you a reasonable chance to succeed. Continuing with it when the circumstances suggest otherwise is another matter.
Our Tri-Level match gave us plenty of chances to think through those distinctions. We were facing an opponent who could hit through the court, and there were points where our best efforts to extend the exchange weren’t enough. At the same time, we also managed to keep ourselves competitive throughout the match. We weren’t simply conceding points because the opponents were hitting harder. We made them continue executing, and we took our opportunities when they presented themselves.
After losing a superbreaker 10-8, it’s hard not to reflect back on a few points and lament what might have been. I can certainly identify a couple of shots where I’d like a do-over. However, I wouldn’t change our overall approach to the match. We were competitive against opponents who were hitting the ball exceptionally well, and we came within a couple of points of winning. Sometimes that’s just how tennis goes.
I’ve been thinking about consistency beyond the tennis court as well, particularly how much we depend on being able to anticipate what will happen when circumstances become difficult. In tennis, we develop reliable habits and strategies, so we have something to fall back on when the opponent takes control. Those habits don’t eliminate mistakes, and they certainly don’t guarantee that we’ll win.
They do, however, give us a better chance to respond effectively when things aren’t going our way.
Tomorrow, I want to consider consistency from a different perspective. Tennis organizations also establish rules and procedures that participants depend on, and the consequences of applying those rules inconsistently can extend well beyond a single match.
