PDA

View Full Version : How is Ljubicic so good?


Double G
06-01-2006, 11:24 AM
Just good power penetrating baseline strokes and a good serve. No mental toughness or speed,footwork,and stamina.

Ripper
06-01-2006, 11:29 AM
Just good power penetrating baseline strokes and a good serve. No mental toughness or speed,footwork,and stamina.

You said it yourself. Plus, the guy has excellent control. Don't agree with your last part, though.

Mr.Groundstroke
06-01-2006, 12:42 PM
He hits with a lot of topspin so it's penetrating topspin and mentally he's strong too so it isn't really strange that he's the nr. 4 in the world!!!

VolklVenom
06-01-2006, 01:57 PM
he may not be as fluid as a Federer, but he is mentally tough, and powerful

eLterrible
06-01-2006, 02:06 PM
he plays similarly to federer with a better serve, worse forehand, and better backhand, that's why he's so good.

156MPHserve
06-01-2006, 02:53 PM
He's the master.












He mastered the art of choking.

gts072
06-01-2006, 03:37 PM
He may be good but he lose soon enough to a Spainard or Argentine at Roland Garros.

LowProfile
06-01-2006, 04:32 PM
He doesn't play with much confidence on clay because that's his worst surface. On indoor courts however, look out.

!Tym
06-01-2006, 04:48 PM
He's one of those players who the quality of their shots is consistently excellent and thus they win a lot, but they're not pretty, he's not "pretty." Meanwhile, a guy like Arazi is "pretty," and his strokes look pretty too. Yet, even though he hits a few jaw dropping shots every match, people overestimate these shots in my opinion just because he looks "pretty" doing it. The key word is FEW and far in between, it's just that whenever he pulls one out of the hat so to speak everyone dwells on it like it's somehow representative of the second coming or something. Meanwhile, guys like Ljubicic and Magnus Norman in his prime before the hip hit produce/produced a consistently high quality of great shot, not just a good point here or there, but a flurry of good points enough to win and crack the top five in the world. Meanwhile, Arazi never even came close to the top ten and maybe only barely top twenty at some point. Meanwhile, Rios had way more injury battles, was similarly undersized, wasn't as "cut" as Arazi, yet he still managed #1 in the world despite being equally un-mentally tough if not more so, so there's NO excuses for Arazi if he really was as talented as people wanted to believe, to not have at one point been at least a top ten player.

Long story short, there's a double standard in my opinion, and we are blinded by "beauty" without necessarily looking at actual results enough. There IS proof in truth after awhile at this level. You can't just fake your way into the top five in the world in my opinion with one or two "cute" shots a match.

Guys like Norman and Ljubicic aren't pretty players per say, because they look rather boring first of all in their own skin, second, their techniques whilst brutally effective don't offer any stylized elements to "hook" the viewer and "inspire" anyone to want and copy their "form."

The beauty of one's form has A LOT to do with in my opinion how people perceive a player's alleged talent, which really there is no directly logical way to "calculate." The only thing we have to go on is results. I'll give a player the benefit of the doubt when they can crack the top five in the world.

There are A LOT of guys who play with heavy, hard strokes like Ljubicic and Norman, and not all of them are mentally untough, yet these two separated themselves from the pack at some point which should tell you something. Think about it, there's only five players in the ENTIRE world that can comprise the top five players in the world at any given time. It's not by accident, they must have something extra even if it doesn't always show up in the aesthetics of their strokes or game. Tennis isn't a dance competition or ballet, it's actual skills translated into actual results.

Ljubicic is so good, because unlike other big hitters out there, he's actually consistent and has excellent hand-eye coordination and timing. He'll make more than he misses, and this is the most important distinction...UNDER PRESSURE, his strokes don't break down as often as other big guys with imposing games.

Any one can look good in practice, but to make the top five you have to win A LOT of matches against the very best the world has, which means that you will be under pressure quite often. Those who can handle this pressure and not have their strokes break down the least under this pressure, are more likely to comprise the top five in the world at any given time. Simple as that in my opinion.

ACE of Hearts
06-01-2006, 04:59 PM
I always wonder why he struggles on grass.He has the the one-handed backhand and he has a booming serve.

J-man
06-01-2006, 05:27 PM
Just good power penetrating baseline strokes and a good serve. No mental toughness or speed,footwork,and stamina.He has good mental toughness. JUst look at his 3 set match against federer at nasdaq

vinky
06-01-2006, 06:16 PM
He's one of those players who the quality of their shots is consistently excellent and thus they win a lot, but they're not pretty, he's not "pretty." Meanwhile, a guy like Arazi is "pretty," and his strokes look pretty too. Yet, even though he hits a few jaw dropping shots every match, people overestimate these shots in my opinion just because he looks "pretty" doing it. The key word is FEW and far in between, it's just that whenever he pulls one out of the hat so to speak everyone dwells on it like it's somehow representative of the second coming or something. Meanwhile, guys like Ljubicic and Magnus Norman in his prime before the hip hit produce/produced a consistently high quality of great shot, not just a good point here or there, but a flurry of good points enough to win and crack the top five in the world. Meanwhile, Arazi never even came close to the top ten and maybe only barely top twenty at some point. Meanwhile, Rios had way more injury battles, was similarly undersized, wasn't as "cut" as Arazi, yet he still managed #1 in the world despite being equally un-mentally tough if not more so, so there's NO excuses for Arazi if he really was as talented as people wanted to believe, to not have at one point been at least a top ten player.

Long story short, there's a double standard in my opinion, and we are blinded by "beauty" without necessarily looking at actual results enough. There IS proof in truth after awhile at this level. You can't just fake your way into the top five in the world in my opinion with one or two "cute" shots a match.

Guys like Norman and Ljubicic aren't pretty players per say, because they look rather boring first of all in their own skin, second, their techniques whilst brutally effective don't offer any stylized elements to "hook" the viewer and "inspire" anyone to want and copy their "form."

The beauty of one's form has A LOT to do with in my opinion how people perceive a player's alleged talent, which really there is no directly logical way to "calculate." The only thing we have to go on is results. I'll give a player the benefit of the doubt when they can crack the top five in the world.

There are A LOT of guys who play with heavy, hard strokes like Ljubicic and Norman, and not all of them are mentally untough, yet these two separated themselves from the pack at some point which should tell you something. Think about it, there's only five players in the ENTIRE world that can comprise the top five players in the world at any given time. It's not by accident, they must have something extra even if it doesn't always show up in the aesthetics of their strokes or game. Tennis isn't a dance competition or ballet, it's actual skills translated into actual results.

Ljubicic is so good, because unlike other big hitters out there, he's actually consistent and has excellent hand-eye coordination and timing. He'll make more than he misses, and this is the most important distinction...UNDER PRESSURE, his strokes don't break down as often as other big guys with imposing games.

Any one can look good in practice, but to make the top five you have to win A LOT of matches against the very best the world has, which means that you will be under pressure quite often. Those who can handle this pressure and not have their strokes break down the least under this pressure, are more likely to comprise the top five in the world at any given time. Simple as that in my opinion.

...who are you, !tym? I always look forward to your posts.

Bogie
06-01-2006, 06:58 PM
huge serve that he doesnt drop much at all. return game is strong, has very solid and powerful groundies. mentally hes fairly tough, and that combined with a huge explosive game = #4 in world

SCSI
06-01-2006, 07:07 PM
Serve and backhand. He has one of the best serves in the world. His backhand is up there as well. He seems to be pretty cool about things. He gives his best and lets the chips fall where they may and he seems to be happy with it. He seems to be more relaxed before a match than anyone.

arosen
06-01-2006, 10:10 PM
He has a mean serve, he can place it anywhere in the box, flat or with so much spin it kicks up to your face level or above. Add a cannon of a forehand to that, and you got yourself a top 20 player. Throw in a nice reliable backhand + decent volleys and dropshots = ljubicic in top 10.

35ft6
06-01-2006, 11:22 PM
What's the mystery? The guy's awesome. Maybe he makes it look too easy. I think he has a beautiful game. He's got all the shots, but unlike most other guys you say that about -- usually "he's got all the shots" is a preface for how inconsistent or dumb they are -- he knows how to use all his shots. He's one of the few players out there who makes significant changes in playing style in order to exploit the weakness of his opponent. He's the second most complete player on the tour.

vive le beau jeu !
06-02-2006, 12:45 AM
Throw in a nice reliable backhand + decent volleys and dropshots = ljubicic in top 10.
me i'll take the menu maxi ljubicic top 5 :
+ french fries & a lot of confidence ! ;)