PDA

View Full Version : counter punchers, shot makers, and S& V? which one is the most entertaining?


bdawg
07-24-2006, 12:36 AM
I would say watching a shot maker vs a s&V is the best combination to watch on TV and live.... but what your opinions on which ones you prefer to watch..

Koaske
07-24-2006, 12:58 AM
Both Shot Makers and Serve and volleyers are nice to watch. However, sometimes those shotmakers just try to go for too much and start making lots of mistakes( I'm not talking about Federer here :D). Then it just might be better to watch someone who can keep ball consistently in play.

naturalgut
07-24-2006, 02:30 AM
Both Shot Makers and Serve and volleyers are nice to watch. However, sometimes those shotmakers just try to go for too much and start making lots of mistakes( I'm not talking about Federer here :D). Then it just might be better to watch someone who can keep ball consistently in play.

I agree. A S & Ver against a shotmaker makes for some entertaining tennis! However, there is nothing more boring than a counterpuncher vs counterpuncher or a S & Ver against a fellow S & Ver.

Ivanišević
07-24-2006, 02:34 AM
serve&volley.
maybe because that's my style of play

The Grand Slam
07-24-2006, 03:17 AM
Shot maker!

laurie
07-24-2006, 03:59 AM
You should put Sampras in the shot maker section. He wasn't the traditional serve and volleyer. That's why he won twice as much as traditional serve and volleyers.

The Pusher Terminator
07-24-2006, 04:17 AM
Sampras was an all courter. He had the arguably the best running forehand the game has ever seen.

Nadal is NOT a counterpuncher...he can play the net quite well. In fact Nadal is in a category of his own. The sport has never seen a player with his style or his very strange strokes which are quite often all out winners. The fact hat Nadal is lighting fast does not make him a counterpuncher.

Becker changed to an all courter in the latter part of his career.

Safin is an agressive baseliner...in fact what the hell is a shot maker? The categories are as follows:

1. serve and volley
2. all courter
3. baseliner/ counterpuncher
4. agressive baseliner
5. spin artist or junk baller...santoro (I made this one up)

helloworld
07-24-2006, 04:50 AM
This poll is not very clear. Many players today are both counterpuncher and shotmaker at the same time. Nadal is not only a counterpuncher. He can make unbelievable shots from all angles. He is one of the best shotmaker in the world. You should make this poll more clear by having only 2 choices; baseliner or server & volleyer.

FiveO
07-24-2006, 05:11 AM
The battle and contrast when differing styles meet.

The Pusher Terminator
07-24-2006, 05:18 AM
what exactly is a shot maker?? All players "make shots" when they have to. I think that a better description would be an agressive baseliner:

Agassi, Safin etc etc.

Federer is not a "shot maker" & Sampras is not a serve and volleyer. Both Fed and Pete are all courters. The difference is that Pete is an all courter who has a stronger serve and volley game while Federer is an all courter with a stronger baseline game. But both players can serve and volley and both players can play from the baseline VERY WELL...hence they are all courters.

Please make a new poll:

1. serve & volley
2. baseliner/counter puncher
3. agressive baseliner
4. all courter
5. junkballer/spinmaster...Santoro
6. NADAL.. :)

theace21
07-24-2006, 08:19 AM
The battle and contrast when differing styles meet.
That is why the Borg vs McEnroe matches were so awesome. The chip and charge/serve and volley vs the greatest baseline ever.

Incredible shots - each trying to find holes in the others person style.

TacoBellBorderBowl1946
07-24-2006, 09:16 AM
counterpuncher, fun watching Hewitt run all over the place and finally win the point. CMON!!!!!

bdawg
07-24-2006, 12:14 PM
I should clarify that I am referring to their dominant style of play. Nadal is a defensive style player even though he can volley, and play offensively. The same can go for Federer who can play most tennis styles but he prefers to go for winners and set up winners with his serve. Sampras could play from the basline but he mostly played serve and volley tennis for most of his game.

The Pusher Terminator
07-24-2006, 12:30 PM
I should clarify that I am referring to their dominant style of play. Nadal is a defensive style player even though he can volley, and play offensively. The same can go for Federer who can play most tennis styles but he prefers to go for winners and set up winners with his serve. Sampras could play from the basline but he mostly played serve and volley tennis for most of his game.

You are just wrong. There is no such thing as a "shot maker" all players make shots when they have too!!

Federer is an all courter end of story! he can play serve and volley great and he can play baseline great.

Sampras is also an all courter. Although as he got older he became more of a serve and volleyr.....Pete had AWESOME ground strokes. He had the greatest running forehand that I have ever seen. Pete was an allcourter with an epmpasis on serve and volley. Fed on the other hand is an all courter with an emphasis on the baseline game. They are both all courters.

Nadal is not a "defensive style player". Have you seen this mans strokes? They are huge and he hits tons of winners!! He can play the net ...he can do it all. He is by no means a "counterpuncher". In fact it is hard to classify Nadal because his strokes are so wild.....have you ever seen a stroke that looks like Nadals? No one could even teach that.

guernica1
07-24-2006, 03:43 PM
The most entertaining types of players are the ones that actually don't construct the points all that well actually in my book. Well, construct points compared to the Hewitt's and Agassi's of the tour.

These are guys that don't hit the shots you expect them to or low percentage shots in the wrong times and when they come out firing they look like a genius.

Everybody knows what this type of player is: Escude, Verdasco, Gonzo from about 3-4 years ago, etc.

Mr.Federer
07-24-2006, 05:23 PM
S&V is boring to watch but fun to play imo, what's so exciting about seeing a guy hit a good hard serve, go up to net and finish the point? Boom, boom, boom and the point is over. All-courters and shot makers are the most exciting imo...Nadal is a mix of counter-punching&shot making which is very exciting imo.

tennisprofl
07-24-2006, 05:24 PM
shot makers are the best...unless counter punchers like nadal run down and return shot makers shots...lol

Max G.
07-24-2006, 05:55 PM
A contrast of styles. Where the two players have radically different conceptions of what they need to do to win.

Currently, that means serve-volleyers, but I'd be rooting for the baseliners if they were a minority.

NamRanger
07-24-2006, 07:07 PM
I love watching Tursinov hit that running forehand out of nowhere, so if I could put him into a category I'd put him in the "I did not believe I just saw that" category.

laurie
07-25-2006, 03:56 AM
S&V is boring to watch but fun to play imo, what's so exciting about seeing a guy hit a good hard serve, go up to net and finish the point? Boom, boom, boom and the point is over. All-courters and shot makers are the most exciting imo...Nadal is a mix of counter-punching&shot making which is very exciting imo.

Ah, but what about when the volleyer has to dive for the volley and then hits a stop volley on the stretch, the way Sampras, Rafter or Krajicek used to. Or hit half volley winners. That's when it's exciting, when the returner is good and the server has to come up with more shots to win.

brucie
07-25-2006, 03:56 AM
Shot maker no doubt.

Duzza
07-25-2006, 03:56 AM
Counters : Yawn
S n V : Ok for a while..
Shot Makers : thats what i'm talking about

The Pusher Terminator
07-25-2006, 09:46 AM
You guys are nuts...there is no such thing as a "shot maker". All pros make shots??? The term "shotmaker" means nothing. It means different things to different people. Can someone at least give a definition as to what is meant as a shot maker?

If you say that Fed is a "shotmaker" then does that mean he is no longer an all coirter?

Why isnt Nadal a "shotmaker"? He hits winner after winner...I would call those strokes a heck of a "shot"!!!

Any pro can fit into this silly "shotmaker" invented category. Is Santoro a shot maker?? He makes some awesome shots doesnt he? What about Agassi is he a "shot maker" as well? Come on this is ridiculous!

laurie
07-25-2006, 10:13 AM
You guys are nuts...there is no such thing as a "shot maker". All pros make shots??? The term "shotmaker" means nothing. It means different things to different people. Can someone at least give a definition as to what is meant as a shot maker?

If you say that Fed is a "shotmaker" then does that mean he is no longer an all coirter?

Why isnt Nadal a "shotmaker"? He hits winner after winner...I would call those strokes a heck of a "shot"!!!

Any pro can fit into this silly "shotmaker" invented category. Is Santoro a shot maker?? He makes some awesome shots doesnt he? What about Agassi is he a "shot maker" as well? Come on this is ridiculous!

I must admit I have to agree with Pusher Terminator. In music there is a similar scenario. The men in suits try to categorise music to sell it and then people are forced into pigeon holes to declare what kind of music you like. I personally like many varied styles of music because in many ways they are all linked (jazz, blues, rock, metal, etc etc etc).

I like Nadal's style of play. I like Sampras's style of play. I like Kuznetsova's style of play, I like Mauresmo's style of play. I like Blake's style of play, I like Venus's style of play, I like Seles' style of play, I like Clijsters' style of play.

All different styles, all good to watch. Really, what's the issue?