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

Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by bdawg, Jul 24, 2006.

?

what is your favorite to watch....

  1. Counter Puncher (hewitt, Coria, Chang, Nadal)

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  2. Shot Maker (Gasquet, Federer, Berdych, Safin)

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  3. Serve and volley (Sampras, Edberg, Henman, Becker)

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  1. bdawg

    bdawg Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2004
    Messages:
    477
    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..
     
    #1
  2. Koaske

    Koaske Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2005
    Messages:
    359
    Location:
    Finland
    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.
     
    #2
  3. naturalgut

    naturalgut Rookie

    Joined:
    May 15, 2006
    Messages:
    159
    Location:
    Sydney
    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.
     
    #3
  4. Ivanišević

    Ivanišević Rookie

    Joined:
    May 7, 2006
    Messages:
    343
    Location:
    Zagreb, Croatia
    serve&volley.
    maybe because that's my style of play
     
    #4
  5. The Grand Slam

    The Grand Slam Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2006
    Messages:
    1,780
    Location:
    the earth..?
    Shot maker!
     
    #5
  6. laurie

    laurie Guest

    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.
     
    #6
  7. The Pusher Terminator

    The Pusher Terminator Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2004
    Messages:
    1,927
    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)
     
    #7
  8. helloworld

    helloworld Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2006
    Messages:
    4,670
    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.
     
    #8
  9. FiveO

    FiveO Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2005
    Messages:
    3,260
    counter punchers, shot makers, and S& V? which one is the most entertaining?

    The battle and contrast when differing styles meet.
     
    #9
  10. The Pusher Terminator

    The Pusher Terminator Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2004
    Messages:
    1,927
    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.. :)
     
    #10
  11. theace21

    theace21 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2004
    Messages:
    3,263
    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.
     
    #11
  12. TacoBellBorderBowl1946

    TacoBellBorderBowl1946 Professional

    Joined:
    May 4, 2006
    Messages:
    1,085
    counterpuncher, fun watching Hewitt run all over the place and finally win the point. CMON!!!!!
     
    #12
  13. bdawg

    bdawg Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2004
    Messages:
    477
    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.
     
    #13
  14. The Pusher Terminator

    The Pusher Terminator Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2004
    Messages:
    1,927
    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.
     
    #14
  15. guernica1

    guernica1 Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2004
    Messages:
    403
    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.
     
    #15
  16. Mr.Federer

    Mr.Federer Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2005
    Messages:
    1,528
    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.
     
    #16
  17. tennisprofl

    tennisprofl Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2006
    Messages:
    496
    shot makers are the best...unless counter punchers like nadal run down and return shot makers shots...lol
     
    #17
  18. Max G.

    Max G. Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2004
    Messages:
    4,356
    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.
     
    #18
  19. NamRanger

    NamRanger G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2005
    Messages:
    13,916
    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.
     
    #19
  20. laurie

    laurie Guest

    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.
     
    #20
  21. brucie

    brucie Professional

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2006
    Messages:
    1,318
    Shot maker no doubt.
     
    #21
  22. Duzza

    Duzza Legend

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2005
    Messages:
    6,315
    Location:
    Melbourne, VIC, Australia
    Counters : Yawn
    S n V : Ok for a while..
    Shot Makers : thats what i'm talking about
     
    #22
  23. The Pusher Terminator

    The Pusher Terminator Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2004
    Messages:
    1,927
    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!
     
    #23
  24. laurie

    laurie Guest

    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?
     
    #24

Share This Page