Is anyone else sick of hearing that the match is always 'on the attacker's racket'!!

Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by tank_job, Apr 5, 2012.

  1. mattennis

    mattennis Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2011
    Messages:
    2,115
    Exactly. Let us look at the Year End Top-5 in the 90s:

    1991: Edberg, Courier, Becker, Stich, Lendl (and 6º and 7º were Sampras and Forget)

    1992: Courier, Edberg, Sampras, Ivanisevic, Becker.

    1993: Sampras, Stich, Courier, Bruguera, Edberg.

    1994: Sampras, Agassi, Becker, Bruguera, Ivanisevic.

    1995: Sampras, Agassi, Muster, Becker, Chang

    1996: Sampras, Chang, Kafelnikov, Ivanisevic, Muster.

    1997: Sampras, Rafter, Chang, Bjorkman, Kafelnikov.

    1998: Sampras, Rios, Corretja, Rafter, Moya.

    1999: Agassi, Kafelnikov, Sampras, Enqvist, Kuerten.

    2000: Kuerten, Safin, Sampras, Norman, Kafelnikov.

    2001: Hewitt, Kuerten, Agassi, Kafelnikov, Ferrero.

    ...

    You can clearly see that serve-and-volley, all-court players and very aggresive baseliners were rewarded in the 90s (specially in the first half), but the second half of the 90s there were more baseliners (aggresive ones and top-spinners counter-punchers as well) than serve-and-volley/all-courters, and in the 00s you basically only see baseliners, and in the very last years you have the best defenders baseliners coping the top-4.

    This has A LOT to do with the slowing down of conditions of the game (that started as early as 1995 (with the change of balls in Wimbledon'95 and the change of several carpet tournaments like Stuttgart'95 and Paris-Bercy'95 to slower carpets and several top-players like Becker and Ivanisevic complaining about it) and continued on and on to an extreme in the last decade, and it has to do as well (to a lesser degree) with copoly-string technology that some players started using in the late 90s ( Costa in 1996, Kuerten in 1997 ) and almost everybody joined them at the beginning of the 00s.
     
  2. Cup8489

    Cup8489 Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2007
    Messages:
    9,195
    Location:
    Silvis, IL

    Dude, you're completely missing the entire point of the post you quoted. NADAL HIMSELF that Federer is unplayable if he's hitting his spots consistently, as have many other players. If an offensive player is feeling his game and redlining, he takes the other guy out of the equation.

    I dont know what level of tennis you play at, but it's simply not possible to run 90+ mph shots down as you say. There's no way, it's physically impossible, and if the attacker doesn't miss those shots very often (lets say he's connecting with a 90% success rate, IE he misses one for every 9 he hits in) there's nothing the defender can do about it. I don't play at such a high level, but it can be seen throughout matches on the tour. One good example would be the 2009 USO semi between RAfa and Del Potro. Del potro was on his game, and while Rafa was not at the height of his powers in that match, Del Potro also didn't even give him the chance to play into form.

    But I get the impression, once again, that you're more a wounded-pride individual who didn't actually make this thread for a discussion, and seem completely unable to grasp the basics of a concept that almost everyone else in the thread agrees with.


    You still never answered this, either. But my point was already made; but you've had no refute for it, just a stubborn, rigid opinion that you refuse to consider might be wrong.
     
    Last edited: Apr 6, 2012
  3. absurdo

    absurdo Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2012
    Messages:
    105
    i think it is fair to say the result of a match depends of the agressor (if they have similar levels of play)

    i would like to go to some examples:

    sampras/agassi: sampras 's biggest strenght was his serve. agassi biggest strenght was his return of serve. i think this is an prime exemple of what we are talking about. OBVIOUSLY sampras had the upper hand. if they were both playing exceptionaly well, sampras would win 8 out of 10, because there are limits to what a reactive player can do. on a serve, a returner cannot control both wings perfectly. and if the serve is not perfect but simply VERY GOOD then most of the times it is an ace/unreturnable serve. the service box is small compared to the entire court but it is still very large compared with the widith of one's arms + racket.

    that is why federer, when playing against guys like isner or karlovic or even raonic (he said so a few weeks ago), the match is in their hand. not because they are the better players, but because they have weapons federer cannot win against, IF they are playing really good.

    it is a matter of physics. a player cannot reach all the court at the same time.


    and it is also a matter of logic:

    let's say the first stricker hits a perfect shot. THERE IS SIMPLY NO ROOM FOR A PERFECT ANSWER. the fact that the first blow was perfect means there is no answer.
    of course one cannot hit perfect shots all the time. sure.

    but look at what we are talking about here: player A strikes trying to hit a winner, player B tries to retrieve the ball and put it back into play without risking too much.
    >>>>> the player A is trying to finish to point, the player B is trying not to win it with his response, but simply keep the point going. this is the main difference. of course the match is in player's A racket. this means player B is passive, even more than defensive minded. there is a big difference. for example, i think nadal is defensive and murray is passive. there is a big big difference.

    IF the counter puncher, let's say nadal, is defending, but his reactive shots are very difficult to do something with, then he is no passive player. he is hurting his opponent, but he does it after the first striker tries something (because generally when someone attacks he also becomes vulnerable).

    plus, control is very different from having the match in your racket. CONTROL means you are winning most points and/or key points, and that you understand what the other guy is doing and you ll probably win even if it appears he is playing guns blazing.

    it think at the very top level there is no one in control, all the time. things go back and forth (also depending on styles ).

    HAVING THE MATCH IN YOUR RACKET means a different thing. it means you have weapons the other guy has no answer for. it refers to the maximum potencial of play.

    we can look at federer/nadal as an example: when federer is playing really well, nadal can do very little. federer doesnt win waiting for nadal to make mistakes, nadal does. so, when they are both on, federer is deciding the outcome of the match by his winners/unforced errors count. when nadal is playing very good and federer very bad, it still appears it is on federer's racket, he simply just destroys himself. this doenst mean that nadal has no CONTROL of the match. he may well have. but ONLY because he knows federer is going to fail. or he expects to, and when federer does not fail it's an absolute beatdown and some people around here say nadal was not playing good enough, lol. federer, when is on, can very well bagel anyone. anyone.

    BUT it makes no sense saying nadal only defends against federer. his defensive shots to federer backhand are, most of the times, ofensive shots (because that particular shot makes federer struggle, since he has a one handed, small head racket, with no consistency against top spin abuse; hence the expression bad matchup, since it is no weakness, but a result of different circunstances, like technology, different generations, styles of play, etc). still, it is federer who decides the outcome with his forehand and serve, the dominant shots of the matchup.


    having said this, i think it's obvious that on a professional level every player changes between attack and defense, even on the same shot. the best players 'defend attacking' (i think nadal and murray are way more passive than federer and novak, still).

    sometimes federer, on eraly matches, defends more than attacks, because he doesn't want to tire himself (his idea of defending is different than nadal and novak and murray ones' of course... he just waits for an opportunity, the others grind everutging). ont he other hand, i think nadal is more offensive against weak opponents, because he knows that even if he misfires a lot, he will win anyway.

    on the OP idea that is smarter to play defensive: nonsense. novak, murray and nadal don't want to play defensive. it just happens that their skill is more oriented towards consistency and athleticism. nadal has said himself that he chooses to serve slower because he doesnt want to be caught off guard by a fast response. the same with novak. he was less consistent when trying to atack, and federer would win almost everytime. now, he waits and in the end it pays off. it's basicly what results for them. if they could have federer's brilliant ofensive game they would pay MILLIONS for it.
     
  4. helloworld

    helloworld Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2006
    Messages:
    4,672
    Pros don't just defend. They need to have good offensive game as well. So it depends on both of their rackets when pros play. At your level, you can probably get away with defending only, but not at pro level. You can't compare your level and pro level. They are too much different.
     
  5. above bored

    above bored Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2010
    Messages:
    484
    Yes, but the idea is that you have 2 players of similar ability playing what can be described as well for their style and level. In that case the defender is at a disadvantage. Naturally, if the attacker is not playing well and the defender is, the attacker is going to lose and vice versa, but if both are playing well the attacker is in a better position to win.

    The attacker does not have to be hitting 50 cent pieces on the court or even 100 mph forehands, for that matter, to make it impossible for a player to get certain balls back. And while the defender can anticipate, so too can the attacking player by trying to wrong foot, surprise and play behind him. This is what both players are trying to do all the time, the advantage that the attacking player has is that he is initiating the plays. The defender is reacting to them and has to hope that the attacker does no play so well. Defenders are putting their opponent under less pressure in the hope that the consistency from their safer play will trump the higher risk/higher reward approach of the attacking player. It’s not something they control categorically; it’s a mental calculation and something they hope for. Subsequently, the defender relies more on the poor play of the attacker than vice versa.

    You are factually wrong when you say, ‘it is not humanly possible to consistently hit with the degree of accuracy that a great defender will cause you to need to hit with’. As one example, let us take Nadal’s defeat to Tsonga at the 2008 Australian Open. This is an example of a match where perhaps the greatest defender of all time was playing well (also by his own admission), but could do little to prevent the onslaught of great attacking play. Nadal had every advantage in that match with regard to experience, h2h and past efforts on that surface, but waited for and needed Tsonga to play less well in order to win. He could not take the game away from him in the way that an attacking player would be able to.

    Sure, defenders can attack and attackers can defend but between players of a similar level in their respective styles, they will not be as good in the opposing style as their counterpart. Counter-punchers do not leave it to the attacker to make the first move; they are incapable of executing an aggressive game plan as well as an aggressive player of similar ability. They are as locked into their style as everyone else, but by the very nature of their style they relinquish more control over how well their opponent plays than an attacking player does, in the hope probability will favour them.
     
  6. fgzhu88

    fgzhu88 Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2006
    Messages:
    545
    reactive force greater than proactive force?? Then the so-called reactor just exerted some of his own force and in doing so, is he still purely "reacting"?

    For me, the fun in tennis is not necessarily hitting the ball into the open court. I can do that without a partner. It's finding that sweetspot and doing things with the ball that make a wizard scratch his beard.

    I think that's a facet of the "pusher" mindset that's misunderstood. Attackers think we're just trying to upset them as our primary goal. In reality, we're just trying to impress you with our ballcraft.

    On the other hand, we often exaggerate the attacking player as a mindless tree-er with poor fitness and no backup strategy.

    Let's just all try to get along and appreciate the existence of the other. Without pushers, attackers would have nothing to attack. Just unreturnable balls flying everywhere
    Without attackers.. it's be too peaceful, like a practice session

    But with regard to the OP topic, I find myself agreeing with Jacksonville's post:
     
  7. above bored

    above bored Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2010
    Messages:
    484
    I think you meant to quote tank_job not me.
     
  8. Spin Doctor

    Spin Doctor Professional

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2007
    Messages:
    1,040
    I agree with the OP that an offensive game is overstated. I see this in other sports as well. The analysts looove exciting, dynamic offense. But the truth is that most often the balanced player/team is the one that succeeds (on average at least). I would rather have a team with a balanced skillset, say with "just" a good offense and good defence, rather than a amazing offensive team with weaker defence.
     
  9. JimF

    JimF Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2010
    Messages:
    190
    Defense Wins Today.

    Here are the top 5 ATP players in aces:
    1. Milos Raonic 324 20
    2. John Isner 305 21
    3. Jo-Wilfried Tsonga 216 23
    4. Nicolas Almagro 216 29
    5. Juan Martin Del Potro

    Here are the top five ranked ATP players:
    1 Djokovic, Novak (SRB) 12,670 0 19
    2 Nadal, Rafael (ESP) 9,935 0 20
    3 Federer, Roger (SUI) 9,035 0 20
    4 Murray, Andy (GBR) 8,040 0 19
    5 Ferrer, David (ESP) 4,700 0 23

    Anybody see the correlation (or lack there of)?

    Actually, there is a far greater correlation with second serve points won:

    1. Roger Federer 424 680 62 26
    2. Novak Djokovic 395 666 59 22
    3. Nicolas Almagro 534 917 58 29
    4. Janko Tipsarevic 335 579 58 21
    5. Milos Raonic 296 513 58 20
    6. Denis Istomin 320 566 57 21
    7. Rafael Nadal 263 474 55 20
     
  10. JimF

    JimF Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2010
    Messages:
    190
    Best Defenders Top Rankings

    Here is my non-official un-provable list of the best defensive players on the ATP.

    1) Djokovic
    2) Nadal
    3) Federer
    4) Ferrer
    5) Murray.

    I can't think of anybody that would bump those five. Simon? Monfils? Don't think so.

    Again, how does that correlate with the rankings?Here are the top five ranked ATP players:
    1 Djokovic, Novak (SRB) 12,670 0 19
    2 Nadal, Rafael (ESP) 9,935 0 20
    3 Federer, Roger (SUI) 9,035 0 20
    4 Murray, Andy (GBR) 8,040 0 19
    5 Ferrer, David (ESP) 4,700 0 23

    How many of the great, attacking players have winning records against these five? Berdych? del Potro? Tsonga? Raonic? Roddick? Soderling? Isner? Who? Nobody.

    Yeah, they can get upsets, but in the long run the best defender wins.

    Case closed.
     
  11. wings56

    wings56 Professional

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2005
    Messages:
    812
    i think we can agree on this. but thats not what were debating here. whats better or not in the long run. what the debate is... is that these matches are decided by the attacking player. if the attacker is able to play to his full potential against the defender, he will win. if not, he will lose. the number of wins and losses is immaterial to the fact that the match lies in the ability of the attacker.
     
  12. Tcbtennis

    Tcbtennis Professional

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2011
    Messages:
    1,319
    You are so far off from the topic of this thread. The OP states that a pure defensive counterpuncher style has an equal say in determining who will win a tennis match if playing an attacking style player. It's not debating who is the better defender. In order to be at the top of the ATP you have to be the best offensively AND defensively. The pure defensive counterpunchers will never reach the top (i.e. win a slam title) because you need to be able to be able to end points, dictate play, go for your shots. Winning a slam is not going to happen for someone waiting for his opponent to make an error. As someone mentioned earlier, this is a key reason why Andy Murray is trying to become more aggressive.

    The best of the best are both great defenders but are attackers as well. The pure attacker (playing at his best) should beat a pure counterpuncher (playing at his best). But an offensive player with great defensive skills (Djokovic, Federer, Murray, Nadal) should beat them all 99.99% of the time. Nadal, in my opinion, is a special case. He is a counterpuncher with aggressive tendencies. Djokovic gets the better of Nadal because while they may be equal defensively, Djokovic is the far more attacking of the two and Nadal's usual tactic of high and heavy to the backhand doesn't work.
     
  13. Say Chi Sin Lo

    Say Chi Sin Lo Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2005
    Messages:
    9,091
    Tennis ball coming off of a racquet can travel faster than any human can run. That is all.
     
  14. VOLLEY KING

    VOLLEY KING Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2012
    Messages:
    1,013
    Federer fans are sick of hearing it for obvious reasons which I am not permitted to discuss in this venue . :)

    This entire thread is "indirect"....,let's face it ....this thread is about Federer and Nadal.
     
  15. PrinceMoron

    PrinceMoron Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 1, 2009
    Messages:
    3,145
    I don't count unforced errors, forced errors as I go, but I have a pretty good idea if I am doing enough to win, and I try to maintain that level. Often you feel that you are just waiting for the other guy to lose,but that is not an entirely defensive thing, it is just knowing if you are doing enough.
     
  16. jackson vile

    jackson vile Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2005
    Messages:
    9,828
    We all know that attackers are always in charge and the match is always in their hands, they just have to decide if they want to win or not.
     
  17. Cup8489

    Cup8489 Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2007
    Messages:
    9,195
    Location:
    Silvis, IL
    Yes sir, I'm not sure what happened there, lol.
     
  18. Cup8489

    Cup8489 Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2007
    Messages:
    9,195
    Location:
    Silvis, IL
    No sarcasm please, lets keep this as relaxed as possible.
     
  19. Cup8489

    Cup8489 Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2007
    Messages:
    9,195
    Location:
    Silvis, IL
    It can relate to them, sure. But Nadal is not a counterpuncher anymore than Djokovic.. He has one of the best offenses out there. The OP is talking more about a guy like Lleyton Hewitt I surmise.. and if he's actually talking about Nadal, then he should recognize Nadal is not a simple retriever... and you're basically belittling him by implying that he is.
     
  20. Semi-Pro

    Semi-Pro Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2010
    Messages:
    3,199
    Location:
    Toronto
    nadal is a pusher and he usually wins, thus the answer is no. the match is not always on the attackers racket
     
  21. Crisstti

    Crisstti Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2011
    Messages:
    7,261
    Location:
    Chile
    But we could as well say that the more attacking players were more successful in the 90's because of the courts being faster...
     
  22. wings56

    wings56 Professional

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2005
    Messages:
    812
    OMG! yellow elephant! its there!
     
  23. Mick

    Mick Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2006
    Messages:
    8,351
    Jack Kramer said that :)
    I heard it on tv some time ago on CBS sports. He said when the ultimate offensive player encounters the ultimate defensive player he would win most of the time.
     
  24. Cup8489

    Cup8489 Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2007
    Messages:
    9,195
    Location:
    Silvis, IL
    tank_job, i think Jack Kramer knows more about pro tennis than you, no?
     
  25. wangs78

    wangs78 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2007
    Messages:
    1,888
    Location:
    New York
    The attacker will try to win the point on his or her own terms. Whereas the defender will rely on an error from his opponent to win points. Now, one may make the argument that a defender may force the attacker to make errors so in that case the point is on the defender's racket. My counterpoint is that when a defender does that, he is in fact attacking. Some attackers go for outright winners. Federer is one of these. It makes for a visually more impressive performance because he is hitting down the line or performing other "thread the needle" shots that wow the audience. Someone like Nadal will attack Fed's bh, so while not exactly putting the ball out of reach of Fed, he's forcing a weak return where he can then finish the point with an effective putaway shot. It won't look as impressive or offensive as Fed's shots but it actually is a more subtle version of attacking and should receive credit.
     
  26. JimF

    JimF Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2010
    Messages:
    190
    Yellow elephants!

    Thanks, enjoyed that.

    Apparently, some want to steer this thread back to a Tautology.

    Wouldn't want any real-world facts to interfere <g>.
     
  27. TTMR

    TTMR Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2009
    Messages:
    1,941
    The match is on the racquet of the player I want to win.
     
  28. okdude1992

    okdude1992 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2005
    Messages:
    3,214
    It is a total myth with low level players that attacking tennis is superior and everything else aka "pushing" isn't valid. Yet in reality if you look at pro matches, more often than not the player with less errors will win. Especially in the modern game with the slow courts, balls and new racket/string tech.

    Of course, if an agressive player plays his best against a defensive player he/she will most likely win assuming they are the same level. But how often will it happen that the agressive player can play well enough to completely blow the other player off the court? rarely. On the other hand if the defensive player is good enough (think prime nadal on clay) they can effectively force a bunch of errors and smother the offensive player. Most of the times, the result is somewhere in the middle, depending on who executes their game plan better.
     
  29. okdude1992

    okdude1992 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2005
    Messages:
    3,214
    So what you're saying is that if an attacker has a perfect day where all his big shots go in and he doesn't cough up errors, he will dominate? DUH. But on the flipside if a defensive player has a perfect day where they return all the attackers best shots, and hit everything deep, they will dominate.

    I agree with parts of your post, I think the mistake most people make is in assuming that "having the match on your racket" is the same thing as being in "control" However "having the match on your racket" really means nothing to the actual result of a match according to your definition. Sure X player might have more weapons/potential to win, but if they can't/don't use it then its worthless. Tennis is about skill, but also how you use it strategically, and how consistently you can do it under pressure. Taking your example, sure huge servers, or huge ground strokers could take the racket out of fed's hands, yet they don't. Throughout his prime, and even now Federer beats these guys beacause his skills are more varied and he uses them better.
     
  30. tank_job

    tank_job Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2012
    Messages:
    991
    Well Pat Cash is saying that Djokovic is better than Federer at his best. So don't you dare try to argue that Federer was GOAT in 2006, because you don't know **** about tennis compared to Pat Cash, no?

    Former British no.1 Chris Wilkinson is currently saying that he believes Murray is operating at 65% of his potential. Don't try and argue that you think Murray is actually arguing at 67% of his potential - because you flat out don't know as much as Chris Wilkinson.

    Oh and J'Mac said that Nadal volleys better than Federer. Can you volley as well as J'Mac? No, so shut up and eat his opinion.

    And by the way, Bill Tilden agrees with me;

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serve_and_volley

    "Tilden propounds the theory that by definition a great baseline player [defender] will always beat a great serve-and-volleyer [attacker]; his returns of service will, by definition, be impossible to hit for winning volleys."

    I think Bill Tilden knows more about tennis than you, no?

    All these style snobs going on about if they have a godly day and hit flashy winners off every shot, they are unbeatable and there is nothing anyone can do to stop them winning.

    But if I, the counterpuncher, have a godly day and know your weaknesses, know your attack plans, am always there to return your best shots with interest, play pressurizing shots to your weaknesses, smother your offense, run you out of breath and twist the knife, I am unplayable and there is nothing you can do to stop me winning.
     
  31. Crisstti

    Crisstti Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2011
    Messages:
    7,261
    Location:
    Chile
    Good points. No player is really ever completely offensive or completely defensive...

    Yeah. If a player cannot play perfect attacking tennis for more than a few games a match, then how is the match on his racket... based on something he can't really do?.
     
  32. Lsmkenpo

    Lsmkenpo Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2006
    Messages:
    3,915
    Which matches did you watch in the 90's?
     
  33. Clay lover

    Clay lover Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2007
    Messages:
    1,911
    I'm sick of it being a Fed fan's excuse rather. By that logic, Karlovic should have been the GOAT.
     
  34. JimF

    JimF Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2010
    Messages:
    190
    Gamblers Ultimately Lose

    Saying that attacking tennis players always control the outcome is like saying gamblers always control the outcome when they go to Vegas because the dice are in their hands. The house has no control over what they roll.

    In reality, people that lose the majority of the time aren't in control of anything.

    Attacking players controlled matches in the era of Krajicek vs. Ivanisevic, but we left that era long ago.
    .
     
  35. absurdo

    absurdo Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2012
    Messages:
    105
    sure man, that's my point. but, of course, those players are not at the same level as federer, nadal, novak, etc. so they CAN win IF they use their strenghts very well, it just happens that they dont, because they are not good enough. for example, karlovic COULD hit aces on 95% of his serves. he would be virtually impossible to beat. but he's not good enough.

    federer and nadal and novak and some others are, basicly, in control in all of their matches against the field. not that the match is on their racket, they are simply better: operate on a superior level.

    but look,

    things are more complex, i think. no one goes all the time for winners. no one defends all the time. nadal likes to wait a bit for the oportunity and then blast ultra agressive shots. nadal being a counterpuncher he likes to run for the ball and go for passing shots. as long as it works, fine. federer is ultra offensive until he becames doubtful. novak is there in the middle. murray is passive but trying not to be.

    so every player as his attacking and his defensive moments.

    the KEY POINT IS: i reckon nadal, novak and murray rely a bit more on the opponent. they play accordingly with what the opponent is doing. they react a lot, they change. so, sometimes, they WILL BE completely dominated. it happened sometimes with nadal, like against tsonga, like against del potro. guys that have the match on their rackets but are inferior to nadal. ( i am not talking close matches, i am talking beatdowns). murray looses a lot more than he should because he is too passive.

    but then, i think we all really talking about are 'feelings', more than reality, han. somple players 'feel' they can do anything, others rely on the breaches on the opponent game. everyguy has breaches ( proven by so many victorys accomplished by defensive players and counterpunchers). but when the attacker is feeling good, he can blast away anyone.

    that said, well, in fact, its all bulshit. whoever wins wins. the rest doesnt really matter.
     
  36. TTMR

    TTMR Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2009
    Messages:
    1,941
    If the chicken played against the egg, on whose racquet would the match be?
     
  37. Shaolin

    Shaolin Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2004
    Messages:
    4,040
    Location:
    Kansas
    It's very simple...not sure why some are having problems grasping this.

    If an aggressive player like Soderling played a more defensive player like Devvarman for example, Soderling would either be in the zone, hitting lots of winners and win the match, or he would be in error mode and lose the match. Either way its "on his racquet" ..he lives or dies by winners. Devvarman is just out there being a retriever, hoping Sod isn't playing great that day.
     
  38. okdude1992

    okdude1992 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2005
    Messages:
    3,214
    nice post. we're on the same page. the bolded part is the truth. a win is a win, and the best players usually get the job done regardless of how or who they are against.
     
  39. okdude1992

    okdude1992 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2005
    Messages:
    3,214
    hmmmm quite a profound conundrum, fellow poster! :)
     
  40. Laurie

    Laurie Professional

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2011
    Messages:
    1,383
    Location:
    London
    A perfect example here. Last year's Wimby semfinal between Kvitova and Azarenka, when Kvitova was on top form, Azarenka was just a passenger hoping and waiting for Kvitova to come out of the zone.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQTteFKykrY
     
  41. tank_job

    tank_job Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2012
    Messages:
    991
    Yeh, cuz Devvarman is really in the same league as Soderling...

    We're comparing players of similar abilities, and I'm talking about counterpunchers, not pushers (though everyone knows, or should know that 'pushers' don't really exist on the pro tour).

    If Soderling plays Nadal, the match is on his racket always?
     
  42. Shaolin

    Shaolin Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2004
    Messages:
    4,040
    Location:
    Kansas

    You don't think Dev is in the same league as Soderling so you pick a guy who has multiple majors (who is also not just a counterpuncher) to compare with Sod?

    Anyway, the answer is still yes. If Sod is playing way more aggressive than Nadal on the day, the match is on his racquet. He will win or lose going for winners. It doesn't mean he's the better player, he's simply the one dictating the match. Sod has beaten Nadal this way and has lost to him this way.
     
  43. wings56

    wings56 Professional

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2005
    Messages:
    812
    crazy... some people are still refusing to acknowledge the elephants...
     
  44. Sim

    Sim Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2011
    Messages:
    431
    Do you think Nadal can fetch every ball Soderling hits? Obviously not. In this sense, the match is on Soderling's racket (as he is the aggressive player). However, Soderling will set the "tone" of the match with how he plays that day. Then it's Nadal's job to play up to that level, but as stated earlier, he can only retrieve so much. If Soderling is not missing and making all his shots, what can Nadal do as a defender/retriever? Nothing. (see Nadal/Tsonga AO-08 and Nadal/Del Potro USO-09) Then the only solution is for Nadal to dictate the match with more aggressive play to either switch the roles around making Soderling have to play the defender instead or outhit Soderling outright.

    In this sense, the match is on the attacker's racquet. However, how well the counterpuncher plays that day definitely plays a role in the outcome of the match as well.
     
  45. Cup8489

    Cup8489 Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2007
    Messages:
    9,195
    Location:
    Silvis, IL
    Dude..

    You have no idea what you're talking about. Where did all this nonsense about Federer vs. Djokovic and Nadals volleys vs. Federer's come from?

    They all have valid points, and they form their opinions based on what they've seen. They all have more valid points than either of us, so why bring them up?

    It's becoming pretty obvious that your entire motive is to downplay Federer's skills, and I'm assuming it's because at heart you're a bitter *******.

    I brought up Kramer because his opinion is more valid than yours, considering he was a top player in his day, something you can't claim, and thus you have no idea about the top players in the game and the possbility you could be wrong hasn't even occurred to you.

    People have said it over and over that if both players are at their best, IE god mode, the attacker will hit every spot, will display no weakness in his shots, and hit winners. The defender will have to track those down, and while he may have good success retreiving, he's still reacting to the hypothetical perfect shot after perfect shot.

    It's really strange that I, as a more defense and consistency oriented player, am having trouble convincing another one like me that the attacking style is inherently capable of higher levels of play, because they dictate.

    And who the f cares about serve and volley vs baseline? That doesn't account for what TYPE of baseliner, which could be offensive based. S and V is irrelevant in this discussion, as attacking the net isn't the only way of attacking, and of course if a basliner is on his game, he will hit every passing shot well.

    I mean, come on... get a clue already.
     
  46. Ronaldo

    Ronaldo G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2004
    Messages:
    14,152
    Serena and Isner confirm today what having the match on your racquet means.
     
  47. Lsmkenpo

    Lsmkenpo Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2006
    Messages:
    3,915
    What a waste of time, the OP has a thread in the tips section asking "How to hit with topspin" :) Yeah, he doesn't know how to hit with topspin but he can control the match from the baseline against advanced offensive players, give me a break.

    http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=419450
     
    Last edited: Apr 8, 2012
  48. wings56

    wings56 Professional

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2005
    Messages:
    812
    it all makes sense now. the reason he refuses to acknowledge the yellow elephant is because he actually doesn't know enough about animals to know what is or what is not an elephant. he should have at least acknowledged the yellow color.
     
  49. BeHappy

    BeHappy Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2007
    Messages:
    4,789
    Neither do players like Radek Stepanek or Jimmy Connors to be fair.
     
  50. Gaudio2004

    Gaudio2004 Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2008
    Messages:
    741
    Well this thread has extended its purpose far longer than need be, so let's break it down to little chunks and have a resolve at the end that includes logic, has sensible remarks and puts a bright light on tennis.

    If this is your game-style - then you are being aggressive, as you are looking to finish points off.

    Simple!

    One may say that being able to attack such as blasting winners consistently would be doing this, as you deny your opponents a chance to attack, rhythm, etc. So having great defensive skills is being able to attack. Recovery shots, as explained in this article, are essentially attacking shots - aggressive in nature, yet they come from defensive positions!

    Tennis is much more subtle than that - it is (nearly) impossible to fit 2 players into attacker and defender. Each player has a serve - that is some form of aggression and attack in its own right!

    It's more about a proactive style vs a reactive style.

    Nadal's attacking, not defending. Unfortunately you see defence as a very limited case; often the relationship between defence and offense (attack) is related. Nadal can be very aggressive and often is against Federer. This article gives some ideas on how Nadal attacks - if you identify him as the retriever in the classic retriever vs offender tennis match up then you are mistaken - Nadal is so much more, using him as an example to prove your point not only dillutes logic (proof by example), but Nadal is not a solely a defensive player - he has become much more aggressive since 2004 (when he first burst on the tour).

    Ah but you have now created a paradox.

    There is only a clear opening say if you are exerting pressure (on your service games at least), assuming your aggressive opponent can return well, then you have to be aggressive.

    But you just said you do not attack.

    So by this logic, you cannot say you defend, but you cannot say you attack. Therefore, a paradox is created.

    Then he isn't being the defender - he is being the attacker! He is creating the aggression and such.

    ---

    This is just from looking at the first page - I'll give some good advice here:

    Read the Wikipedia entries on what a "counterpuncher" is and such, learn the tennis lingo - you seem to be very confused on it and on your own style.

    Read the articles I have linked to, you are referring to more of clashes of styles as opposed to technique (retrieving and such).

    And the final point is this, the tenacity to be aggressive, go for your shots, consistently move forward, it's just 1 style of tennis. Everyone is different.

    But the person who has employed this 1 style of tennis of course is the greatest of all time - so it is fair to look at why this style is so successful.

    To do this - just go on YouTube and search "Federer defence" or "Federer aggression" and see how there is such perfect balance on how an aggressive opponent "moves" up on a point. Federer defends and offends with similar shots, similar court position, it is "similar" to him to defend and attack.

    A retriever cannot have the same balance - for defence and offence are in different categories, different attitudes occur when the retriever is forced to attack (Murray is a great example, not having an idea what to do when he is the one being asked to dominate at very high level tennis).

    This is a good point on why "offence" beats "defence".
     

Share This Page