Level-Inflation — SS #18

The very first time I played him, I won.

He was an ex-pro, had an ATP ranking in the past, and had also played in the qualifying draw for Queens. If you know tennis, you know that’s a really high level.

What’s more, he absolutely creamed the ball off both wings. A clean, efficient, and fast forehand and a similar one-handed backhand with a great defensive slice to boot.

It had been a baseline game to 10. And I managed to eek out the win by slicing a lot of balls, scrambling, rushing, and just getting one more ball back into the court.

I was ecstatic!

I had beaten him!

This guy who had played at a professional tournament.

I had won.

A few weeks later, still giddy off my win, I challenged him to play a set after a quick training session.

My ego was huge; I can beat this guy. I just beat him a few weeks ago when we played. There’s no reason I can’t repeat the feat here.

Can you believe how incredibly stupid I was?

How irrational?

Because as soon as the set began my false reality started to crumble.

He was so competent at playing off his serve and using his speed to get the first strike on me.

My weak, pathetic second serves?

Crunched easily.

I struggled to win a game.

And I think I went home that day on an unicycle (the colloquial way of saying you lost a set 0–6).

Baseline Games Mean Very Little

Why am I sharing this story?

Because I see it replayed often at different levels of club, semi-pro, and perhaps even professional tennis.

The underdog wins a baseline game.

All of a sudden they puff up their chests, strut around, and think that they’re on to bigger and better things.

Hey, if I can beat this person in a baseline game… then maybe they’re not as good as I thought… and maybe I’m better than i’ve been giving myself credit for

The reality is that baseline games mean very little as a means of deciphering skills.

It’s an oft-quoted statistic, but most points in tennis are extremely short. Well below four total strikes. This means that they don’t recreate the reality of how most points are played.

And if you’ve been reading long enough, you’ll know once you have efficient technique (within an acceptable range), you want to practice in scenarios that are realistic and challenging.

Now compare that with how most players practice and perceive their level: by playing baseline games!

How the hell does that even make sense?

The proliferation of baseline games at the club & rec level makes my head hurt.

It’s a mistake that I’ve made in the past with my training, but I try to not make it anymore. (The challenge, though, is to find practice partners who are on the same page as you.)

The Longer the Format, The More Legitimate the Result

Lots of pros have wins over Novak Djokovic in a best of three sets format. Players you would not have thought twice about. Names like Dan Evans and Dusan Lajovic.

But as any informed tennis fan will know, beating someone over three sets is an entirely different story to beating someone over five sets.

Why? Because the format is longer. And when the format is longer, you have a truer gauge of skill.

As an example, Universal Tennis’ UTR rating weighs matches in longer formats as heavier indicators of your rating compared to shorter formats. In other words, if you beat a player rated higher than you in an eight game pro-set, that will count for less in your rating than if you were to beat that player in a best-of-five set encounter. (I used to write for Universal Tennis back in the day.)

Out of 10

The real questions you have to ask yourself is this:

Think of a rival or a practice partner with whom you have a familiar, jostling, and competitive relationship. Perhaps you recently got the best of them.

Now if you played that person 10 times in a best-of-three-set match, who would win more matches? Would you win eight out of 10? three out of 10?

And if you’re giving yourself a win ratio of less than five out of 10, think about the skills you need to add to your own repertoire to start increasing your win percentage.

Were they floating a lot of balls through the middle of the court? Do you need to add being comfortable in the forecourt to your skillset?

Was it difficult to hold serve? Do you need to earn more free points off your serve?

Take Botic van de Zandschulp’s win over Carlos Alcaraz at the 2024 US Open. Does anyone really think that van de Zandschulp is an overall better player than Alcaraz? (Nothing taken away from his supreme performance and all credence to him).

Or take Alexei Popyrin’s fantastic, pure performance against Novak Djokovic. What would that match-up be like after 10 occasions?

But this is the trap that club and recreational players often fall into. You think that beating someone in a baseline game means a lot. Frankly, it means jack shit.

And for God’s Sake: Work on Your Serve & Return Patterns!

So many players neglect the first two shots of the point—the serve and the return—which are arguably the most crucial. These two set the tone for the entire exchange. If your serve isn’t putting your opponent on the defensive or your return isn’t at least neutralizing their serve, you’re already behind in the rally.

Yet so many players spend endless hours rallying from the baseline but devote a mere fraction of that time to their serve and return. This is where matches are won and lost. Your ability to start the point on your terms or, at the very least, avoid starting it on your opponent’s terms is what will help you win more matches.

So, if you want to elevate your level, stop spending so much time playing baseline games and start focusing on the skills that matter the most—your serve and return. They are the foundation of your entire game, and improving these will give you a better chance of winning, not just a baseline game, but the entire match.

Want to Improve?

Here’s what a former participant had to say:

As always, thanks for giving me your time.