There is a number that gets repeated in clinics and YouTube breakdowns and the occasional coaching certification: players win something like 60 to 70 percent of the points they finish at the net. It sounds like a license. Come forward more, the number seems to say, and you win more. Approach shot fundamentals get taught as if the only problem is getting to the net at all, and the points will take care of themselves.
We want to take that number seriously, because it is roughly real, and then explain why it tells you almost nothing about whether to approach the short ball in front of you right now.
Where the 60 percent comes from
The figure traces back to net-point win percentages pulled from match statistics — the kind logged ball-by-ball at tour events since electronic tracking became standard, and visible in the per-match "net points won" lines on broadcasts and sites like the ATP's own stat sheets. Across large samples of professional matches, net points won sits in the high 50s to high 60s as a percentage, depending on surface and era. On a fast grass court it climbs. On slow clay it sags.
So the number is not invented. What it measures, though, is narrower than it looks. "Net points won" counts every point in which a player touched a volley or overhead, regardless of how they got there — serve-and-volley, a forced scramble, a put-away off a sitter, a desperate lunge on a ball they had no business chasing. It is an outcome statistic. It records what happened after the decision, never the quality of the decision itself.
That distinction is the whole game.
What the number doesn't measure
A pro comes to net roughly when the situation already favors them. They approach off a ball that has dropped short and sat up, against an opponent already moving backward, with a strike that takes time away. The 60-something percent is conditional on that selection. It is, in plain terms, survivorship: you are looking at the win rate of well-chosen approaches, not at the win rate of approaching in general.
Run the experiment the number tempts you to run — approach on every short-ish ball regardless of height, depth, or your own balance — and you do not inherit 60 percent. You inherit a worse number, because you have added all the bad approaches the pros simply never make. The statistic describes the reward of good selection. It is silent on the cost of bad selection, and bad selection is exactly the 3.5-to-4.5 player's actual problem.
So the useful reframing is this: the question is never "should I come in more." The question is "is this specific ball worth it, and can I hit it well enough to keep the advantage I'm claiming."
The decision, in the order it happens
An approach is not one skill. It is a short sequence of judgments, each gating the next, and they happen in a fixed order whether you train them or not.
First, the read. Before your feet move, you are answering one question: how far inside the baseline can I take this ball, and how high will it be? The honest threshold is contact at or in front of the service line, at a comfortable strike height — roughly between your knee and your chest. A ball you have to take below the knee, or one you reach behind the service line, is not an approach ball. It is a recovery ball you are about to turn into an unforced error.
Second, the commitment. Reads and commitments get tangled in club play. A player half-decides, takes two steps in, sees the ball drop lower than expected, and arrives at the net behind a weak shot with no time to set their feet. The discipline is to decide while the ball is still in front of you, not after. If the ball clears the threshold, go all in. If it doesn't, stay back and reset. The worst outcome is the in-between — the tentative drift forward that earns you a passing shot you watched go by.
Third, the strike. Now placement matters more than pace. The ball you hit should land deep enough that your opponent makes contact behind their own baseline, and ideally toward an opening that shortens the angles they can pass into. Down the line is the conventional choice for a reason: it puts you in position to cover both passing lanes with fewer steps, because you cut the court rather than standing in the middle of it.
Fourth, the close. You do not run to the net. You move forward and split-step as your opponent strikes, so your weight is balanced and you can push off either way. A player who is still moving forward when the pass comes cannot change direction. This is the step that separates an approach from a sprint into a wall.
The depth-and-placement tradeoff, honestly
There is no single correct approach. There is a tradeoff, and it depends on what your shot can actually do.
| If your approach is... | You should stand... | Because... |
|---|---|---|
| Deep and firm, down the line | Closer to the line you hit toward | The opponent's best pass is cross-court, and you've shortened your run to it |
| Deep but slower (slice) | A step further back, around the service line | A slower ball gives them time; you trade net coverage for reaction time |
| Short or floaty | You shouldn't have approached | This is the ball that feeds the 40 percent you don't see in the headline stat |
The slice approach deserves a note. It is not a weaker shot — it stays low, it skids, it forces a rising contact that is hard to pass with. But it travels slower, which gives the passer more time, so you make up the difference by closing a half-step less aggressively and trusting the low bounce to do the work.
A rule of thumb that the evidence actually supports
Approach only off a ball you can strike between knee and chest height, with contact at or inside the service line. If the ball forces you below that window, stay back and rebuild the point. Hit the approach deep first, placed second, hard third — in that priority. Then split-step before your opponent's racquet meets the ball, not after.
That is the entire system, and it is boring on purpose. The skill it builds is not in the swing. It is in the read — the half-second judgment of whether this ball clears the threshold, trained until you stop guessing.
Back to the 60 percent
The number is true and it is a trap. Players do win the majority of points they finish at the net, but only because the points they finish at the net are the ones they chose well. The statistic is not a reason to come in more often. It is a description of what happens when you come in correctly. Learn to read the short ball, and the number stops being a promise and becomes a result.