PDA

View Full Version : Nothing against ferrer but...


timnz
07-03-2012, 05:36 PM
His easy movement through the draw pretty much sumarizes everything that is wrong with wimbledon right now. I mean what is a clay courter doing to win matches so easily like he did against del potro. The courts are far far too slow and the balls far far too heavy.

As i say he seems to be great guy, but fast court players need a slam they can shine in too. All but gone.....

roundiesee
07-03-2012, 05:39 PM
I thought Roddick had him for a while, and I think had set points for a 2 sets to love lead, but eventually blew it, poor Andy :(

nereis
07-03-2012, 05:40 PM
You must be trolling.

If you saw that match you would've seen some of the best attacking tennis in the tournament.

Timbo's hopeless slice
07-03-2012, 05:43 PM
people like this don't even watch the tennis, tey just bring their preconceptions to the argument.



Todd Woodbridge in commentary was making particular note of how Ferrer has adjusted his game for grass (complete with slo mo examples). as for slow courts, the guy hit 34 clean winners!

Fate Archer
07-03-2012, 05:43 PM
As i say he seems to be great guy, but fast court players need a slam they can shine in too. All but gone.....

Look forward to Cincinnati in august.

brickner_damage
07-03-2012, 05:48 PM
I don't see the problem with Ferrer winning grass matches from the baseline. Federer is winning grass matches from the baseline too..

BeHappy
07-03-2012, 05:56 PM
Ferrer isn't actually a clay courter at all. His best results have all been on hardcourts.

Sampras has a better record on clay than Ferrer. 3 French Open QF's, a semi final, and he won Rome.

Ferrer's 5'9'' and his game is built around his big forehand so medium bouncing courts are perfect for him, the ball bounces right in his wheelhouse every time.

brickner_damage
07-03-2012, 05:59 PM
Ferrer isn't actually a clay courter at all. His best results have all been on hardcourts.

Sampras has a better record on clay than Ferrer. 3 French Open QF's, a semi final, and he won Rome.

Ferrer's 5'9'' and his game is built around his big forehand so medium bouncing courts are perfect for him, the ball bounces right in his wheelhouse every time.

Well said, very interesting points.

BrooklynNY
07-03-2012, 06:07 PM
I don't think Ferrer is a clay court specialist. He just has better movement on clay than say someone like Murray, and is way more consistent than a lot of people ranked slightly below him.

I kind of think of Ferrer as just what some people would call the 'modern baseliner' Similar to the sense that Nole is a 'modern baseliner' if that were a real term, although Djoker is just simply better at almost everything Ferrer does.

mcenroefan
07-03-2012, 06:08 PM
Ferrer is a dedicated player.

Still, your points are fodder for the arguments concerning "weak era" and homogenized surfaces.

BreakPoint
07-03-2012, 06:20 PM
You must be trolling.

If you saw that match you would've seen some of the best attacking tennis in the tournament.
Oh really? How many times did Ferrer serve and volley and/or return and charge during the match? :???:

jmverdugo
07-03-2012, 06:37 PM
Oh really? How many times did Ferrer serve and volley and/or return and charge during the match? :???:

that is the old definition of attacking, because in the old days was either going to the net (attacking) or stay at the baseline and push the ball back, now days players can actually attack you from the baseline, for instance hitting and angled topspin shot to open the court to then hit a flat shot to the other side, that is attacking.

BreakPoint
07-03-2012, 07:17 PM
that is the old definition of attacking, because in the old days was either going to the net (attacking) or stay at the baseline and push the ball back, now days players can actually attack you from the baseline, for instance hitting and angled topspin shot to open the court to then hit a flat shot to the other side, that is attacking.
Nah....that's not attacking tennis. To "attack" someone, you have to move forward closer to where they are.

cknobman
07-03-2012, 07:24 PM
Ferrer is an awesome all around tennis player and is certainly not a clay court specialist.

OP you know jack squat about Ferrer and give the impression you know even less about tennis.

Ferrer won a grass court tournament a freakin week ago! Hes also made it deep in the Australian and US Open tournaments.

90's Clay
07-03-2012, 08:12 PM
Nole and Fed's draws have barely been "tough" either.. They have reached this far and who do they got? Mayer and Youzhny?? Ughhh

OriginalHockeytowner
07-03-2012, 08:16 PM
To "attack" someone, you have to move forward closer to where they are.

Or use artillery, in the form of punishing groundstrokes from the baseline! :)

Winner_DownTheLine
07-03-2012, 08:19 PM
leave the blue collar player alone!

nereis
07-03-2012, 09:02 PM
Nah....that's not attacking tennis. To "attack" someone, you have to move forward closer to where they are.

Ferrer won 17 of 19 net approaches in a three set match.

For comparison:

Federer won 34 of 39 in a four set match.

Tsonga won 21 of 29 in a four set match.

Djokovic won 17 of 20 in a three set match.

Murray won 11 of 15 in a three set match.

Mayer won 25 of 36 in a four set match.

Kohlschreiber won 17 of 21 in a three set match.

Youzhny won 40 of 54 in a five set match.

For the above players through to the next round we have the following average number of net approaches per set to control (imperfectly mind you given the length of each set is not the same, but this will do for an apples to apples comparison). (2 decimal places)

Ferrer - 6.33

Federer - 9.75

Tsonga - 7.25

Djokovic - 6.67

Murray - 5.00

Mayer - 9.00

Kohlschreiber - 7.00

Youzhny - 10.8

Now for the success rate at net (%)

Ferrer - 89

Federer - 87

Tsonga - 72

Djokovic - 85

Murray - 73

Mayer - 69

Kohlschreiber - 81

Youzhny - 74

We can observe that Ferrer's game has been directly comparable to his peers in terms of aggression. In fact, he is more aggressive than Murray has been if we go by your definition of forays into the net and is in the same ballpark as Djokovic and Tsonga when we extend a 95% CI (assuming a t-distribution). Moreover, he has the highest success rate when he does go to the net.

Those numbers are even better when we apply the usual definition these days (given the ability to hit winners from the ground) of the ratio of forced points versus unforced errors by the opponent.

Tony48
07-03-2012, 09:16 PM
LOL @ people saying that he's not a clay courter

Clay Court Masters: 2 finals, 4 semi-finals
Hard court Masters: 1 final, 2 semi-finals

8 clay titles to 5 HC titles.

Seriously, people?

Saying that his best results are on HC is a myth that nobody ever bothers to check.

DownTheLine
07-03-2012, 09:20 PM
Nah....that's not attacking tennis. To "attack" someone, you have to move forward closer to where they are.

No.

10char

darrinbaker00
07-03-2012, 09:21 PM
His easy movement through the draw pretty much sumarizes everything that is wrong with wimbledon right now. I mean what is a clay courter doing to win matches so easily like he did against del potro. The courts are far far too slow and the balls far far too heavy.

As i say he seems to be great guy, but fast court players need a slam they can shine in too. All but gone.....

Once upon a time, there was a young man named Bjorn.....

Bobby Jr
07-03-2012, 09:25 PM
I don't know why people are so upset the conditions allowed Ferrer, a supposed clay courter/grinder, to win. It's not like the guy he beat is renown as an all-courter or for being adaptable to varying conditions. If Ferrer is a grinder then Del Potro surely was the epitome of a one trick pony in this match?

Ferrer turned up with a game-plan for playing Del Potro, executed it almost perfectly and made his strengths work for him. You can't say the same for Del Potro.

Boomgoesthedynamite
07-03-2012, 09:35 PM
I don't know why people are so upset the conditions allowed Ferrer, a supposed clay courter/grinder, to win. It's not like the guy he beat is renown as an all-courter or for being adaptable to varying conditions. If Ferrer is a grinder then Del Potro surely was the epitome of a one trick pony in this match?

Ferrer turned up with a game-plan for playing Del Potro, executed it almost perfectly and made his strengths work for him. You can't say the same for Del Potro.

accurate observation!

Sentinel
07-03-2012, 09:35 PM
Nah....that's not attacking tennis. To "attack" someone, you have to move forward closer to where they are.
You mean as in "bump them hard during a changeover". That kind of attacking tennis has almost died down ... can't remember seeing it in a looooong time.

Orion3
07-03-2012, 09:43 PM
He's a modern day Chang.

TeflonTom
07-03-2012, 10:09 PM
Once upon a time, there was a young man named Bjorn.....borg didnt win wimby playin his claycourt game. brought the pain with lotsa s&v. one reason y his channel slams way more impressive than nadz's.

that said, this thread is stupid. ferrer is a hardcourt grinder/counterpuncher. they've been winnin at wimby for a decade - see hewitt

courts r too slow but they haven't suddenly got this way n allowed ferrer to get to qfs. been this way for years

Timbo's hopeless slice
07-03-2012, 10:16 PM
so slow the grinder hit 34 clean winners including 17 from 19 trips to the net...

Defcon
07-03-2012, 10:22 PM
Wow, people are totally missing the point, which is not Ferrer, but the courts that are so slow these days. It's been that way for a long time now, and allows defensive players to compete at Wimbledon which is a total joke.

TeflonTom
07-03-2012, 10:22 PM
dood even i could hit 34 winners against del floptro on grass

tudwell
07-03-2012, 10:26 PM
Sampras has a better record on clay than Ferrer.

:lol:

That's a pretty good one.

timnz
07-03-2012, 10:29 PM
Finding out some interesting things through this thread.

BeHappy
07-03-2012, 10:36 PM
:lol:

That's a pretty good one.

Sampras has 3 QF's and a semi at RG, Robredo has two QF's and a semi at RG. Sampras ahead by one QF there.

Sampras won a claycourt masters (Rome). Ferrer didn't.

Sampras faced a claycourt field of Courier, Brugera, Muster,Agassi, Chang, Kafelnikov, Berasatugai etc when he got all those results I posted.

Ferrer faced a field of Federer and Nadal, Robredo and Almagro (both have worse records than Sampras on clay too).

Sampras was in a different league. And he wasn't a claycourt specialist, what does that make Ferrer, Robredo and Almagro?

BreakPoint
07-03-2012, 11:06 PM
No.

10char
Yes, because when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, the entire Japanese Navy stayed back in Tokyo Bay.

mandy01
07-03-2012, 11:30 PM
His easy movement through the draw pretty much sumarizes everything that is wrong with wimbledon right now. I mean what is a clay courter doing to win matches so easily like he did against del potro. The courts are far far too slow and the balls far far too heavy.

As i say he seems to be great guy, but fast court players need a slam they can shine in too. All but gone.....

Exactly what I said in the match thread. Del Potro just couldn't hit through the court and Ferrer was reaching balls that he'd have no chance of getting to had the surface been low-bouncing.

NadalAgassi
07-03-2012, 11:37 PM
Grass has been Del Potro's worst surface since he came on tour, even on todays half grass if you will (and no dont anyone say something ******** like it is even slower and higher bouncing than clay or Australian hard courts). So based on this evidence why on earth would more faster and true grass help him. More likely he would struggle even worse than he does on the current grass, which plays closer to a hard court than old grass would and helps him. He is very tall and not particularly athletic or nimble even at his peak, I cant imagine how he would be handling extremely low and skidding balls coming at him. Yeah they would help some of his shots skid through more, but he still has to get to the balls and get in position to hit them too.

Would those conditions help him vs the rare opponent like Ferrer? Perhaps. However under faster and truer grass conditions he probably wouldnt have even survived someone like Robin Haase who he eked past in 5 sets in the first round, a more natural grass court player.

NadalAgassi
07-03-2012, 11:42 PM
Ferrer is a dedicated player.

Still, your points are fodder for the arguments concerning "weak era" and homogenized surfaces.

True, it is a weak era with 3 great players, 1 very good one, a few decent but clearly not potential slam winning caliber ones, and a bunch of no hopers mostly after that.

That and the homogenized surfaces is why we see the same group of players dominating, and whichever plays happens to be playing the best that year always dominating year round (eg- Nadal in 2008 and 2010, Djokovic 2011, Federer 2004-2007). There is no such thing as surface specialists now as the playing conditions dont even encourage players to try for that, the rewards arent even there anymore.

nereis
07-04-2012, 12:15 AM
Yes, because when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, the entire Japanese Navy stayed back in Tokyo Bay.

To extend your analogy, if China/Russia/America/France/Britain wanted to attack anywhere in the world right now and wipe it off the face of the earth they would be sending ICBMs with nuclear warheads launched from submarines hiding under the Arctic ice.

If they wanted to use conventional weapons they would be launching ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, ASM and guided bombs from the safety of their carrier strike group.

Come now, I hope you're trolling because clearly, if the Japanese had been capable of launching the same assault from the safety of their bases they would have.

Let's move onto a more apt analogy and stay on topic for what constitutes 'attacking tennis' in this day and age.

beast of mallorca
07-04-2012, 12:20 AM
Yes, because when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, the entire Japanese Navy stayed back in Tokyo Bay.

To extend your analogy, if China/Russia/America/France/Britain wanted to attack anywhere in the world right now and wipe it off the face of the earth they would be sending ICBMs with nuclear warheads launched from submarines hiding under the Arctic ice.

If they wanted to use conventional weapons they would be launching ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, ASM and guided bombs from the safety of their carrier strike group.

Come now, I hope you're trolling because clearly, if the Japanese had been capable of launching the same assault from the safety of their bases they would have.

Let's move onto a more apt analogy and stay on topic for what constitutes 'attacking tennis' in this day and age.

You will have to pardon Breakpoint, he's old and stupid......case in point ^^

TheNatural
07-04-2012, 02:07 AM
Op hasn't been watching - Ferrer adapted to the grass and took the ball earlier and the grass helped Ferrer hit through the court and blast a load of winners v Delpo.

Nadalfan89
07-04-2012, 11:28 AM
Ignore BreakPoint. The guy has almost 34000 posts on an online message board.

BreakPoint
07-04-2012, 11:39 AM
Ignore BreakPoint. The guy has almost 34000 posts on an online message board.
Yes, because I have so much knowledge to share. :)

Oh, and you don't "attack" from the baseline. You "bash" from the baseline and hope to win the point through a error or a winner. You didn't "attack" your opponent. You just made him miss his shot.

Nadalfan89
07-04-2012, 11:41 AM
Yes, because I have so much knowledge to share. :)

Oh, and you don't "attack" from the baseline. You "bash" from the baseline and hope to win the point through a error or a winner. You didn't "attack" your opponent. You just made him miss his shot.

So when Ferrer is running back and forth across the baseline barely getting his racquet on the ball while Nadal blasts corners without having to move...that's not attacking?

BreakPoint
07-04-2012, 11:43 AM
So when Ferrer is running back and forth across the baseline barely getting his racquet on the ball while Nadal blasts corners without having to move...that's not attacking?
No, it's not. That's baseline bashing. Now if Nadal served and volleyed on every point, THAT would be "attacking" tennis. :)

Nadalfan89
07-04-2012, 11:46 AM
No, it's not. That's baseline bashing. Now if Nadal served and volleyed on every point, THAT would be "attacking" tennis. :)

That would be called "losing" tennis.

TennisCJC
07-04-2012, 11:52 AM
Ferrer is an agressive baseliner in the mode of Agassi and Davydenko. They take the ball early near or inside the baseline and hit it hard to force errors or hit winners. Ferrer is not an attacking player to me because an attacking player is looking for ways to get to the net.

I think the basic premise of this thread is valid. Courts, balls, rackets and strings give the power baseliner and the retriever baseliner too big an advantage and things need to be shifted back toward the faster courts to give the shot makers more of a chance.

Coming to net should be a bigger part of the game. There is too much baseline play in today's game. The contrast in styles is fun to watch when you have a baseline and attacking player.

To me "attacking" means coming in to the net as in "he attacked the net".

BreakPoint
07-04-2012, 11:58 AM
That would be called "losing" tennis.
Maybe for Nadal, but not for "attacking" players like Sampras, Becker, Fish, Ivanisevic, Rafter, Edberg, McEnroe, etc.

darrinbaker00
07-04-2012, 12:11 PM
Yes, because I have so much knowledge to share. :)

Oh, and you don't "attack" from the baseline. You "bash" from the baseline and hope to win the point through a error or a winner. You didn't "attack" your opponent. You just made him miss his shot.

"So much knowledge to share" being a euphemism for "too much free time and no friends," of course. ;)

Russeljones
07-04-2012, 12:50 PM
You must be trolling.

If you saw that match you would've seen some of the best attacking tennis in the tournament.

OP is partially correct. On Queens or Halle grass Murray would have won in 3 easy sets.

jmverdugo
07-04-2012, 06:17 PM
Yes, because I have so much knowledge to share. :)

Oh, and you don't "attack" from the baseline. You "bash" from the baseline and hope to win the point through a error or a winner. You didn't "attack" your opponent. You just made him miss his shot.

So when you attack the net how exactly are you expecting to win the point? ... isn't it with either error or a winner? Or there is other way to win a point in tennis?

Service Ace
07-04-2012, 06:28 PM
No, it's not. That's baseline bashing. Now if Nadal served and volleyed on every point, THAT would be "attacking" tennis. :)

So now you're arguing semantics?

Pathetic.

BreakPoint
07-04-2012, 06:29 PM
So when you attack the net how exactly are you expecting to win the point? ... isn't it with either error or a winner? Or there is other way to win a point in tennis?
You win the point by moving forward and attacking, not by staying back behind the baseline bashing the ball and hoping your opponent misses. When you move forward and attack, your opponent usually comes nowhere near the ball because there's no time for them to react.

BreakPoint
07-04-2012, 06:32 PM
So now you're arguing semantics?

Pathetic.
Um...you need to look up the definition of the word "semantics".

"Baseline bashing" is in no way, shape nor form, a synonym for "attacking tennis".

Go ask Paul Annacone what "attacking tennis" means.

Timbo's hopeless slice
07-04-2012, 06:44 PM
you still haven't commented on Ferrer's 34 clean winners including 17 from 19 forays to the net..

BreakPoint
07-04-2012, 07:10 PM
you still haven't commented on Ferrer's 34 clean winners including 17 from 19 forays to the net..
If you drop shot Ferrer, of course he's going to come to the net.

The relevant question as far as "attacking tennis" is concerned, is how many points did Ferrer win by serving and volleying and/or by returning and volleying? Attacking the net is not the same thing as being forced to come to the net because the ball was so short.

jmverdugo
07-04-2012, 07:48 PM
You win the point by moving forward and attacking, not by staying back behind the baseline bashing the ball and hoping your opponent misses. When you move forward and attack, your opponent usually comes nowhere near the ball because there's no time for them to react.

So you hit a winner right? Just as from the baseline? Or if you hit a ball from the baseline that is so fast and accurate that your opponent cannot come nowhere near the ball then it is not a winner? Also not every shot you hit from the net is meant to be a winner, you also usually hit one first to open the court and then the next one is probably meant to be a winner. And finally if you can blow your opponent away from the baseline why bother to go to the net? That is why Federer doesn't have to got to the net because he wins points attacking from the baseline, or are you going to tell me that Federer doesn't play attacking tennis?

BreakPoint
07-04-2012, 08:31 PM
So you hit a winner right? Just as from the baseline? Or if you hit a ball from the baseline that is so fast and accurate that your opponent cannot come nowhere near the ball then it is not a winner? Also not every shot you hit from the net is meant to be a winner, you also usually hit one first to open the court and then the next one is probably meant to be a winner. And finally if you can blow your opponent away from the baseline why bother to go to the net? That is why Federer doesn't have to got to the net because he wins points attacking from the baseline, or are you going to tell me that Federer doesn't play attacking tennis?
Federer doesn't play nearly as much attacking tennis as he used to. I think he would win more if he did. He seems content to bash from the baseline more these days. Although he did play attacking tennis against Raonic in Madrid this year.

Watch the entire Tsonga-Kohlschreiber QF from today. There was a lot more attacking tennis in that match than in any of the Federer matches at this tournament.

Hitting a winner from the baseline is not "attacking tennis". There was no "attack". There was only a winner because your opponent was in the wrong place. Although hitting a winner while moving forward to the net can be considered "attacking tennis", and Federer does this often.

Rickenbacker4003
07-04-2012, 08:32 PM
"So much knowledge to share" being a euphemism for "too much free time and no friends," of course. ;)

Of course. How else does someone with 34 million posts have time for things like having a job or a woman? Hold on honey baby, I gotta respond to all these people for 5 hours a day every day.

BreakPoint
07-04-2012, 08:40 PM
Of course. How else does someone with 34 million posts have time for things like having a job or a woman? Hold on honey baby, I gotta respond to all these people for 5 hours a day every day.
Maybe I'm just an incredibly fast reader and typist? :)

Besides, if you click on my profile, you'll see that I only average 11 posts per day. So unless you can't walk and chew gum at the same time, anyone should be able to write 11 posts in a day with one hand tied behind their back and spend no more than a total of 10 minutes doing so. :)

jmverdugo
07-04-2012, 08:44 PM
Federer doesn't play nearly as much attacking tennis as he used to. I think he would win more if he did. He seems content to bash from the baseline more these days. Although he did play attacking tennis against Raonic in Madrid this year.

Watch the entire Tsonga-Kohlschreiber QF from today. There was a lot more attacking tennis in that match than in any of the Federer matches at this tournament.

Hitting a winner from the baseline is not "attacking tennis". There was no "attack". There was only a winner because your opponent was in the wrong place. Although hitting a winner while moving forward to the net can be considered "attacking tennis", and Federer does this often.

OK, I guess you need to talk with the commentators, like one John McEnroe, because he is mistaken, he thinks - like me- that a winner from the baseline is in fact a winner, hence the use of the word winner ... and when they count winners - even the Winbledom guys - I know! The horror! - they include both shots from the baseline and from the net as winners. And if your opponent is in the right place not even a smash can be a winner.

I guess this is one of those cases where the rest of the world is wrong but BP is right.

Service Ace
07-04-2012, 08:48 PM
Of course. How else does someone with 34 million posts have time for things like having a job or a woman? Hold on honey baby, I gotta respond to all these people for 5 hours a day every day.

http://clunkbucket.com/wp-content/uploads/sledge_hammer.jpg

BreakPoint
07-04-2012, 08:53 PM
OK, I guess you need to talk with the commentators, like one John McEnroe, because he is mistaken, he thinks - like me- that a winner from the baseline is in fact a winner, hence the use of the word winner ... and when they count winners - even the Winbledom guys - I know! The horror! - they include both shots from the baseline and from the net as winners. And if your opponent is in the right place not even a smash can be a winner.

I guess this is one of those cases where the rest of the world is wrong but BP is right.
Um..did you mis-read what I wrote? I said hitting a winner from the baseline is a "winner":

Hitting a winner from the baseline is not "attacking tennis". There was no "attack". There was only a winner because your opponent was in the wrong place. Although hitting a winner while moving forward to the net can be considered "attacking tennis", and Federer does this often.
You're confusing "attacking tennis" with hitting "winners". A "winner" is any ball that your opponent fails to make contact with. They can be hit from anywhere in the court, including serves. "Winners" and "attacking tennis" are two completely different things. "Attacking tennis" is a style of play. A "winner" is just a name given to how a point ended, just like an "error" is. It is not a style of play. You can hit winners all day long without playing attacking tennis, and you can play attacking tennis all day long without ever hitting a winner.

okdude1992
07-05-2012, 12:19 AM
^^ dude what in the world are you talking about. nobody prescribes to your definition of "attacking tennis" but you.

yes s&v or chip n charge is attacking. nobody does that anymore, players hardly ever even come to net period nowadays. but what you call "bashing" everyone else knows is another form of attacking.

in both cases, you are the one dictating play while the opponent defends against your attack

jmverdugo
07-05-2012, 03:44 AM
Um..did you mis-read what I wrote? I said hitting a winner from the baseline is a "winner":

You're confusing "attacking tennis" with hitting "winners". A "winner" is any ball that your opponent fails to make contact with. They can be hit from anywhere in the court, including serves. "Winners" and "attacking tennis" are two completely different things. "Attacking tennis" is a style of play. A "winner" is just a name given to how a point ended, just like an "error" is. It is not a style of play. You can hit winners all day long without playing attacking tennis, and you can play attacking tennis all day long without ever hitting a winner.

Yes you did say that but what I am trying to point out is that there is no difference between playing "attacking tennis" from the net and playing "attacking tennis" from the baseline. You said that from the baseline you only "bash" expecting for your opponent to either make an error or you hit a winner, to which I told you that this is exactly what you expect to happen when you go to the net - to which you said something on the lines that when you go to the net you win the point by hitting a shot that your opponent doesn't have a chance to hit back - which is called a winner.

What I am trying to explain you is that "attacking tennis" is not related - at least not these days - to where you are in the court, it is related to a way to play, if you are being aggressive, dominant, going after your opponent weak, etc you are paying "attacking tennis". Is there any difference between this 2 scenarios:

1. you hit a kick serve wide, go to the net and hit a volley to the other side of the court and hit a winner.
2. you hit a kick serve wide, and set yourself to hit next a FH to the open court and hit a winner.

in both cases you are being aggressive and taking risks, if you do not have to go to the net to finish the point why to do it?. How many time you heard the commentators or a coach saying, " you have to attack his bh" or "you have to attack his second serve", what is this? .

I think you are the one confusing "Attacking tennis" with "Attacking the Net", the first is a way of playing, an attitude if you will, the second is part of the game plan of people that like to play attacking tennis.

I would say that whenever you play working your way out to put away the ball and finish the point and putting pressure on your opponent, you are playing attacking tennis, even if it is with a dropshot. And I am done here...

NonP
07-05-2012, 04:09 AM
LOL @ people saying that he's not a clay courter

Clay Court Masters: 2 finals, 4 semi-finals
Hard court Masters: 1 final, 2 semi-finals

8 clay titles to 5 HC titles.

Seriously, people?

Saying that his best results are on HC is a myth that nobody ever bothers to check.

Maybe you missed the part about the majors, where he's made 2 SFs on HCs and 1 SF on clay.

The bulk of Ferrer's success has come on clay because that's where his style of play is usually rewarded. OTOH that's also where the serve and by extension the return of serve are most neutralized, and since the RoS is Ferrer's forte he can do more damage on his returns outside of clay. That's why he made the SFs at the USO and AO before he ever made the final 4 at RG.

Flash O'Groove
07-05-2012, 04:48 AM
Um..did you mis-read what I wrote? I said hitting a winner from the baseline is a "winner":

You're confusing "attacking tennis" with hitting "winners". A "winner" is any ball that your opponent fails to make contact with. They can be hit from anywhere in the court, including serves. "Winners" and "attacking tennis" are two completely different things. "Attacking tennis" is a style of play. A "winner" is just a name given to how a point ended, just like an "error" is. It is not a style of play. You can hit winners all day long without playing attacking tennis, and you can play attacking tennis all day long without ever hitting a winner.

How would you define the tennis style of Gilles Simon and the tennis style of Fernando Gonzales? Have they the same tennis style, or can you find some difference? Isn't one of them more aggressive (ie "attacking") than the other?

BreakPoint
07-05-2012, 10:14 AM
^^ dude what in the world are you talking about. nobody prescribes to your definition of "attacking tennis" but you.

yes s&v or chip n charge is attacking. nobody does that anymore, players hardly ever even come to net period nowadays. but what you call "bashing" everyone else knows is another form of attacking.

in both cases, you are the one dictating play while the opponent defends against your attack
You're right. Sadly, hardly any pros play attacking tennis any more. :(

However, attacking tennis is still quite common amongst recreational players. I play against serve and volleyers ALL THE TIME. Many, many players I play against in USTA leagues serve and volley and play attacking tennis. Even I play attacking tennis. I either serve and volley or I will rush the net after one or two groundies. I also return serves and then rush the net to "attack" my opponent. If I hit more than 2 or 3 groundstrokes from the baseline, I am no longer playing attacking tennis.

Again, ask Paul Annacone what "attacking tennis" means. He's a world renowned coach and tennis expert.

BreakPoint
07-05-2012, 10:17 AM
How would you define the tennis style of Gilles Simon and the tennis style of Fernando Gonzales? Have they the same tennis style, or can you find some difference? Isn't one of them more aggressive (ie "attacking") than the other?
Fernando Gonzalez is a baseline basher. Giles Simon is more of a counter-puncher (or "pusher", if you will) but can also baseline bash at times. Neither play "attacking tennis".

joeri888
07-05-2012, 10:19 AM
I think the OP is somewhat right. Even though Ferrer was far from pushing, the average rally was probably around 8 strokes, all aces included. Rallies of 25 strokes were no exception, with neither player coming to the net. This should be THE surface for S& V and it's not. It's virtually impossible to do on a consistent basis in the second week. If the second week played like the first it'd be possible.

darrinbaker00
07-05-2012, 12:38 PM
Maybe I'm just an incredibly fast reader and typist? :)

Besides, if you click on my profile, you'll see that I only average 11 posts per day. So unless you can't walk and chew gum at the same time, anyone should be able to write 11 posts in a day with one hand tied behind their back and spend no more than a total of 10 minutes doing so. :)

If that's what you need to tell yourself, go right ahead. ;)

Nadalfan89
07-05-2012, 07:28 PM
Name one person in the top 100 who actually plays your version of "attacking tennis".

nereis
07-05-2012, 07:37 PM
He must be trolling.

There cannot be anyone in the world who thinks that Ivan Lendl was anything but aggressive.

BreakPoint
07-05-2012, 08:30 PM
Name one person in the top 100 who actually plays your version of "attacking tennis".
Feliciano Lopez
Radek Stepanek
Michael Llodra
Nicholas Mahut
Lukasz Kubot
Ivo Karlovic
Gilles Muller
Phillipp Petzschner
Sergiy Stakhovsky
Ivan Dodig
etc.

Guys like Federer, Tsonga, Fish, Kohlschreiber, Haas, Melzer, Gasquet, Roddick, Haase, Anderson, Benneteau, Chardy, Blake, etc. also mix in quite a bit of attacking tennis.

BTW, "Attacking tennis" is a style of play. "Attacking the backhand" is, well, just hitting to your opponent's backhand.

BreakPoint
07-05-2012, 08:34 PM
He must be trolling.

There cannot be anyone in the world who thinks that Ivan Lendl was anything but aggressive.
Being aggressive doesn't necessarily mean you play "attacking tennis".

Ask Lendl who played attacking tennis. Himself or John McEnroe. I can tell you what his answer is.

adamX012
07-05-2012, 09:01 PM
Being aggressive doesn't necessarily mean you play "attacking tennis".

ha ha... good call..

nereis
07-05-2012, 10:22 PM
Being aggressive doesn't necessarily mean you play "attacking tennis".

Ask Lendl who played attacking tennis. Himself or John McEnroe. I can tell you what his answer is.

There is the false illusion of a dichotomy.

The result of attacking tennis is to force the error through sheer pace and weight, force the winning shot or force the court open.

Players today have far more weapons at their disposal to do so from the superior position at the baseline, which allows them to attack with a margin of safety rather than expose themselves at net prematurely.

Hence, what only the net rusher could do (hit the winner into the open court) decades ago everyone can now do from the baseline.

If a player uses his shot selection to move his opponent around to allow him to hit a winner, then that is attacking tennis.

Roddick rushing into net with a puffball slice backhand to get passed, does not attacking tennis make, for example.

obsessedtennisfandisorder
07-06-2012, 01:57 AM
There is the false illusion of a dichotomy.

The result of attacking tennis is to force the error through sheer pace and weight, force the winning shot or force the court open.

Players today have far more weapons at their disposal to do so from the superior position at the baseline, which allows them to attack with a margin of safety rather than expose themselves at net prematurely.

Hence, what only the net rusher could do (hit the winner into the open court) decades ago everyone can now do from the baseline.

If a player uses his shot selection to move his opponent around to allow him to hit a winner, then that is attacking tennis.

Roddick rushing into net with a puffball slice backhand to get passed, does not attacking tennis make, for example.

lol this is so much fail it's hilarious, did you read this bp,

first of all..the mumbling at the beginning is aggresive tennis, not attacking.

attacking tennis basically means attacking the net because you want the point to end quickly.

roddick rushing the net is attacking tennis...it's irrelevan twho wins the point..we are talking playing styles here.

none today truly plays much attacking tennis entirely apart from llodra types...which is precisely the point bp is making..none plays attacking anymore.

obsessedtennisfandisorder
07-06-2012, 01:59 AM
Being aggressive doesn't necessarily mean you play "attacking tennis".

Ask Lendl who played attacking tennis. Himself or John McEnroe. I can tell you what his answer is.


i would put lendls style on a par with fed bp, he plays attacking tennis sometimes when the situation is right..for example...when lendl was trying to win wimbledon in the 80's the surface was designed to give advantage to players who could get to the net first and have some skill there.