Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by wy2sl0, Sep 18, 2012.
flat ground strokes :cry:
So option A?
Prefer a match to have 70% of A and 30% of B.
Not mindless bashing but taking the ball early and moving the opponent in an aggresive manner.
Not finshing the opponent in 2 shots....but like 4-5 shots. Not those long 22 stoke rallies either..(Murdal or Murdovic)
A middle option would be better.
F the pushers. Low percentage winners is the way to play.
I like the 5-7 shot rally range, with the occasional serve and volley play and the less occasional 20 shot rallies.
I love both equally. They are both amazing in different ways.
I like both actually its good to have variety in the sport!! Serve fests after a while get boring and baseline grinding gets even more boring you shouldve have a best of both to have A GREAT match
4-5 shots is the ideal rally. Baselining is boring.
Love both...just wish there was more of A today.
But guys that go for broke on every shot is even more annoying. There's so little margin in that type of game, that it almost always ends up being errors.
Who's the little kid in the Rafa video? lol
This! I miss aggressive tennis.
The Novak Djokovic way until we entered 2012.
Fast and offensive is the way to go but with variation in order to make it interesting. This is why Federer is so popular. He generally keeps games on his racquet. Grinding can at times be gripping but as a default game it is also grinding to watch.
I like quick strike tennis with good shotmaking. Nothing like seeing a big serve followed by a beautifully angled winner.
Any type but Ferrer or Murray's game... SNOOZEFEST!!!
I enjoyed the offensive tennis more but both require equal skill
Love a mix of offensive and defensive. I really do not like watching Murray...he is only defensive at times.
Fast tennis. Not necessarily the old-school serve & volley (which is great too) but i love the fast baseline rallies. You often see them between Federer and Djokovic.
For me this has been one of the best matches to watch. It just looks so awesome to see them slamming those tennis balls all over the court. The only bad thing was the outcome.. but hey, Djokovic did really turn this into something memorable by coming back from MP.
Whichever but serve and volley is my favorite style just because its a dying breed of tennis and a clash of different playing styles make for the most interesting matches.
Option A for obvious reasons.
An offensive point is great to watch, but it gets very tiresome if a match is full of them. Not to mention the unforced error count tends to skyrocket. Overall, I like rallies better. I forgot how good the Madrid tiebreak was.
I just want positive aggressive tennis. I don't like how the new strings allow people to be aggressive without taking any risk. I also hate how the absurd topspin that is on every shot allows people to play offense and defense at the same time.
Both of them! 50-50!
Yeah that tiebreak was nerve wrecking. I kept rooting for the young Djokovic (he really looks much younger there) but I felt like if Djokovic had beaten Nadal in that Madrid final, I would have known somehow. And since I never heard of such a feat, Nadal must have routinely won that clay court tournament as well.
I like both. As long as the offensive kind isn't just aces and winners in the second shot all the time. Now that I find boring.
I guess I do like rallies a little better. Though that can get boring as well sometimes.
You're waaaaaay off!! Nadal got straight settled by fed 6-4 6-4 Madrid 2009 just before fed won his first French
one cannot live without the other ... it is the yin and yang of tennis ...
Medium-slow point-construction but also with aggressive tennis involved. More thinking required that way. (See Roland Garros 2012 final, Nadal d. Djokovic 6-4 6-3 2-6 7-5.)
As much as I personally hate playing against pushers, its a style I usually admire well after the match. I usually admire all other playing styles mostly because I will never be able to pull that off. And the fact that, if I was up against an aggressive player that was much better than me, I would resort to doing this myself. Staying aggressive against much better players would be a pretty bad idea. It is better to bide your time, at least try and get into rallies so you are not giving up totally. This at least gives you a chance to stay in the match. And when pushers that are not as good as me try and do that to me, I can never fault it. I like both styles equally, the defensive style a lot more because I am in terrible shape myself and that makes me admire the athleticism of the defensive players.
Agree with you. I vote A. I like players who attack and go for the winners.
offensive is the way to go. you cant legitimately feel like you won unless you hit at least a couple of good winners.
Players playing "Medium-Slow, Point Construction" hit winners too...
I like them both a lot, but I guess I'd have to go for the first video since they got on with it quickly. It's the time taken between points that I despair, not the style of play.
A contrast between an aggressor and a defender is the best IMO
I like all tennis styles indeed. I enjoyed Laver-Newcombe on grass and at the same time Borg-Vilas on clay. Because I know what it takes to beat all those great champions. Whatever you use to beat them, you must be very good with your weapons.
That is why I miss variety today. I like what I see today, I love to watch Roger play and other players as well, but I would love to see them playing on more polarized conditions (and with former balls and strings).
I will always miss McEnroe, the truly artist of the game, how he could win doing the things he did.
I miss Edberg, the way he put you under pressure all the time. No matter how good your groundstrokes may be, you were forced to hit passing-shots or lobs just all the time, in ackward positions and you better be excellent at those, because he was an AMAZING volleyer.
In a sense I like Nadal in a certain way as well. He came here and said: OK, this is what I'm going to do, I'm going to hit this super-extra-top-spin (aided by string and Babolat), I'm extremely fast retrieving impossible shots as well, and I can hit passing-shots that were impossible with former racquet and string technology, let's see what you all can do against these "new" weapons that I bring.
I love tennis in all its incarnations, but I miss some more variety in conditions and styles. That was always a very special and good thing about tennis that today is missing.
I miss the time when a totally flat hitter (they were like artists) could still win matches (even looking almost half-trying) on a good day because of the low bounce and fast balls of yesteryears.
Today is way too easy to hit hard, deep and with a ton of top-spin, so we won't see again those "artists" that touched the ball with caress but still could dominate (on an inspired day) because of the skidding courts that aided their totally flat shots.
I would like to see fast play on faster courts (hard courts, grass), and point construction on clay only. And no one who plays the opposite style on each court should have a prayer winning without switching styles. The courts have become too homogenized. Make the courts fast enough on grass and HC so that you have to play S&V in order to win. Make the courts slow enough on clay so that you have to construct points to win. One style of play should NEVER win on the other type of court. A true all court player will win on both if he can play both styles of game depending on what type of court he is playing on. Even Borg had to play S&V at Wimbledon to win. Rafa should never have a chance to win Wimbledon unless he plays S&V and Fed should never have a chance to win FO unless he constructs points.
old school serve and volley, or a mix of offensive v defensive retriever...
I prefer this type of tennis:
It's a shame what modern racquet and string technology have done to the game.
You see these guys are true artists. Unlike the mugs of today, these rallies are are not boring and predictable. Why, I had no idea what was going to come off of either of their racquets. Breathtaking.
Mugs like Nadal are only getting a place in tennis history because of the NASA-engineered racquets and boulder-sized tennis balls.
My two favourites to watch. Touch of genius coupled with defensive grit and determination where required.
I prefer A, really.
The things I would do to be able to watch a match like this these days.
I thought the Roland Garros 2012 final was a great example of how tennis should be played.
I much prefer to watch A. I like seeing the ball cross the sideline before the baseline on a winner. These days it seems like they just pound the corners back and forth and maybe sometimes hit a drop shot.
Separate names with a comma.