The Six Playing Styles Described

[TennisTech]

Originally Posted by Kaptain Karl

3 - Counter Punching players are always looking for the opportunity to *instantly* switch from safe defensive tennis ... to ripping winners. They can “change gears” with a single shot. Their passing shots are “thread the needle” accurate against those playing Attack the Net. Their drop-shots and lobs are deadly. Counter Punchers can detect and exploit the baseliners’ inadvertent openings ... and end the point with one “high risk” down-the-line winner ... or fool you with a short-angle inside-out forehand winner.

Opponents playing both Attack the Net and Baseline tennis are fooled into thinking “He can’t keep that up the whole match.” When do these opponents realize their error? Unfortunately, when -- befuddled -- they are shaking hands at the net and congratulating the Counter Puncher on a 6-3, 6-3 victory.


<See next post>

- KK

Hi I've been a long time tennis player since I was 7 years old, and I've gone through the juniors as a top #3 national player in age groups until the 18's. I also played on tour for 6 years and now I am a private coach of 2 kids.
Going through tennis life and playing with only the best of the best and the best coach's, even though I'm not old enough to get respect from the parents I know a little bit more than an average tennis parent.

The point to is I'm having trouble explaining the counter-punching style of tennis. I completely agree with your post and I said the same thing to the parent of my student and they disagreed with me.

They came to me and showed me the book Maximum Tennis by Nick Saviano(Which I've met and been coached by him once before). I can't remember exactly what it says but basically it said that a counter-puncher is considered a defensive player and they are called "pushers". And in professional tennis there are no counter-punchers since the balls are hit hard and with fast pace.

When I saw this in the book I was dumbstruck... I've never in my tennis life heard one coach saying that a counter puncher is a pusher. There are some counter punching baseliners in pros that I am thinking. One player I can think on top of my head would be Davydenko. Also in the book it said that Arantxa Sánchez Vicario is a counter puncher... I've always heard and thought that she was a retriever...

I know you've written it in your first post but in my word and knowledge, "pushers" do not generate spin on their ball and it just floats rather than generating their own pace and cutting through the air like a "grinders" ball which has a lot of topspin, which is the same thing you said...

Are counter punchers, pushers in your opinions? Am I wrong about this?

I am getting a lot of stress going through everything with me on what is right and wrong...

Thanks for reading the post and thanks again for all the future replies.

[mightyrick]

Originally Posted by TennisTech

Are counter punchers, pushers in your opinions? Am I wrong about this?

I am getting a lot of stress going through everything with me on what is right and wrong...

People are probably going to disagree with me... but I speak as a former pusher.

I think counter-puncher is the highest step in the pusher evolutionary ladder. The evolutionary path is: Pusher => Junk-Baller => Counter-Puncher.

2.5 to 3.5) A pusher just gets the ball back. Zero weapons.
3.5 to 4.0) A junk-baller gets the ball back with varying spin and placement.
4.0+) A counter-puncher can get the ball back by hitting a strong forehand stroke.

To me, it is all pushing. It is a mindset. All three archetypes focus on trying to make the opponent take bad shots. All three feed on the frustration of their opponents. All three like their opponents to bring the game to them... as opposed to vice versa.

Right now, I'd classify myself as a junk-baller/spin doctor/chopper. I have a decent serve. I have great placement, varying depth, lots of crazy spins, mad defense. Once I get a big forehand topspin shot, I'll be a counter puncher.

[taffymoon]

Thank you so much for clarifying all these types - really helpful for me.

[Kaptain Karl]

Sorry folks. I haven't been on TT for over four months. Thanks for your comments. I'm glad you like this breakdown.

Originally Posted by MixieP

If one wants to spare one’s old body with its creaking joints and tender muscles, which of these playing styles would you recommend that one aspires to adopt?

Since I have NO idea how you play, I cannot answer this question. Too much of the answer depends on your strengths and weaknesses.

Originally Posted by TennisTech

... I'm having trouble explaining the counter-punching style of tennis. I completely agree with your post and I said the same thing to the parent of my student and they disagreed with me.

Don't sweat it. You cannot win everyone over to your way of thinking. Stick to sound principles and let those doubters believe what they want.

They came to me and showed me the book Maximum Tennis by Nick Saviano(Which I've met and been coached by him once before). I can't remember exactly what it says but basically it said that a counter-puncher is considered a defensive player and they are called "pushers". And in professional tennis there are no counter-punchers since the balls are hit hard and with fast pace.

When I saw this in the book I was dumbstruck... I've never in my tennis life heard one coach saying that a counter puncher is a pusher. There are some counter punching baseliners in pros that I am thinking. One player I can think on top of my head would be Davydenko. Also in the book it said that Arantxa Sánchez Vicario is a counter puncher... I've always heard and thought that she was a retriever...

Even the "experts" can be wrong. Listen to all the idiotic comments Gilbert blathers about during matches. (Assume a long rant about the dopey remarks from Gilbert, Fowler, Enberg and both MJ Fernandez and Shriver when they are commenting on the play of the girls....)

"Oh well...!"

Are counter punchers, pushers in your opinions? Am I wrong about this?

No and no.

Those who call counter punchers "pushers" are really just frustrated with their own inadequacies. We humans find a reason to belittle what we cannot understand. "They" don't understand counter punching. IMO, you are not mistaken.

___________

Tennis is not as complicated as many people try to make it seem. (I tell my players "Singles is checkers; doubles is chess." Most Singles players don't like hearing this, but IMO it's easy to demonstrate.)

Keep teaching and coaching with good principles. Over time you'll gain the respect of the more ... experienced ... folks. Your results will come.

- KK

[jester911]

In boxing a counter puncher is dangerous even to top fighters.
This is also true in tennis.

This definition of the term in boxing could easily fit a tennis player and it would not fit as a definition of a pusher.

Counter punchers are tactical, defensive fighters who rely on opponent mistakes in order to gain an attacking advantage to get score cards or the chance of a knockout. They use their well-rounded defensive skills to avoid or block shots in order to immediately place well-timed punches on opponents who have lost their guard.

[big bang]

Originally Posted by jester911

In boxing a counter puncher is dangerous even to top fighters.
This is also true in tennis.

This definition of the term in boxing could easily fit a tennis player and it would not fit as a definition of a pusher.

Counter punchers are tactical, defensive fighters who rely on opponent mistakes in order to gain an attacking advantage to get score cards or the chance of a knockout. They use their well-rounded defensive skills to avoid or block shots in order to immediately place well-timed punches on opponents who have lost their guard.

Exactly! As a former boxer and boxing coach I can tell you that most ppl dont get this because most ppl really dont understand boxing. A counter puncher doesnt take the fight to you, but hes a smart guy waiting to destroy you as soon as you make a mistake. Not the most fancy style but VERY effective if you are good at it. Same applies for tennis, wait for the opponent to attack and turn his aggresion against him, it takes more skill than ppl think!

[Tyrus]

I aspire to be an all courter.

Here's a theory i guess i could have.

In the recreational level, I'd see it as a jack of all trades style, with perhaps one or 2 serious weapons.

Ideally the All Courter has to be a mental beast, with a strategy and variety and the ability to know when to adjust, know when to S&V, when to come into the net and when to stay back and play defense.

I could be completely wrong though.

[TennisTech]

Thank you everyone for the replies.

So I was right. Counter punching is not pushing.

I love the analogy between boxing and tennis. I think they are very similar too in mentality and strategy.

Even though you said it's not a fancy style, the last shot to go on the offensive and win the point can be very fancy in my opinion. Just like knocking someone out by when they make a mistake and leave an opening in boxing.

[TennisTech]

Originally Posted by Tyrus

Ideally the All Courter has to be a mental beast, with a strategy and variety and the ability to know when to adjust, know when to S&V, when to come into the net and when to stay back and play defense.

I could be completely wrong though.

When I hear mental beast. I tend to think of a grinder who can stay out on the court all day and make your life miserable while you're playing them.

All court players are very smart and cunning. They can hit every shot in the book and can return any kind of shot back. They also know when to attack, be neutral, and be defensive. I've never really met a recreational players who can be an all court player.

[catcher]

how do you describe a big guy with a big first serve and a shockingly weak second serve, big and well placed forehand, slices 90% of all backhand except for passing shots (which he does pretty well) and the odd return (and in doubles)? anyone played such a person, i saw one playing, was surprisingly effective

[Enter The CHICKEN!!!!]

You can't, not in one word anyway. Just seems like a hybrid player. Big serve + likes to counterpunch by junkballing and seems like he lures people to the net.

[SeriousSummer]

Styles make fights is the old boxing axiom, and I had an interesting experience with how changing styles can completely change the course of a tennis match.

I play more than 90% of the time against one partner. We're both over 50, learned to play decades ago and use only limited topspin. Other than that (and that we're old), our games are pretty sound, in an old-fashioned way.

My style has always been Attack the Net, but I don't serve and volley anymore, since I'm too slow and it's too physically exhausting. He's got a trememdously big serve and after that is strickly a counterpuncher. So I'm a 1b and he's a 3 under the classification system.

We play about even, although I've had a slight edge the last couple of months. But yesterday he was getting the better of me. He was keeping the ball deep, I was forcing my approach shots and when I came to the net, I was either watching an offense lob just clear my reach to land on the baseline, a sharply angled (but soft) passing shot clip the sideline (and if I got to one, then the next one beat me on the opposite side of the court) or was forced to volley from below the net. If we hadn't played hundreds of sets then I would have sworn it was luck--nobody could be that accurate--but we've played so much that I know that if I don't make him hit a backhand on the run, then the best shot I'm likely to get is an overhead from the service line or deeper. In short "Opponents playing both Attack the Net and Baseline tennis are fooled into thinking “He can’t keep that up the whole match.” When do these opponents realize their error? Unfortunately, when -- befuddled -- they are shaking hands at the net and congratulating the Counter Puncher on a 6-3, 6-3 victory."

Well I realized it after he'd won two sets at 5-7, 2-6 and we were getting ready to play a third set.

For the third set, I decided I had to me more patient and wait for a short ball to come in. So after we each held serve, he got up forty-love in the third game. I managed to slice his serve into the backhand corner. The ball came back deep so I sliced it into the forehand corner and he made an unforced error.

That started a trend. No matter what he hit, I just sliced it deep to one corner of the court. I was tired and low on energy anyway so standing at the baseline floating the ball back deep seemed ok. We had some very long (and soft) rallies but almost all of them ended with my opponent making an unforced error. I won the set 6-2, and I'm not sure I hit a winner.

I had accidentally transformed myself into a Junkballer Chop Shotter (4b) and without anything to counterpunch against, my opponent didn't have any idea how to win a point. I turned out to be more consistent than he was (a surprise since I usually don't like to play more than 5 or 6 shots before coming to the net).

So I learned that the style I like to play is exactly what my opponent likes to play against, while a style I don't like to play gives him fits. Same players, same skills, different result.

This doesn't mean I'm going to change styles. I enjoy putting the pressure on my opponent and love to hit big volleys and overheads. There's nothing at stake except bragging rights, so I'm going to play the style that's fun, rather than the style that was effective.

I thought, though that it was an interesting experiment.

[Fay]

Originally Posted by SeriousSummer

This doesn't mean I'm going to change styles. I enjoy putting the pressure on my opponent and love to hit big volleys and overheads. There's nothing at stake except bragging rights, so I'm going to play the style that's fun, rather than the style that was effective.

I thought, though that it was an interesting experiment.

Well, I know of what you speak. I have had different tennis coaches tell me different things over the last couple of years, and I often hear: "Don't hit the ball any harder than you have to to get it in."

My temperament is to like to spank the ball. Then I ran across an article on one of the tennis sites I subscribe to describing temperaments and styles of playing tennis.

Personally I find it more effective to go with your own style that is comfortable and build ones own game around it. People who are cautious in general will play cautious, more calculating style. Those more extroverted "red" types will play an aggressive style.

I think to be true to my temperament style, and then play using my natural assets first, and gradually bring up the liabilities in my game with practice and lessons is what I have found the MOST ENJOYABLE way for me to learn to play the game.

For myself I would rather go down in flames hitting full out than trying to craftily place the ball. My husband plays the opposite game and we make good doubles partners because we each deliver a different style.

I'm all for having fun and doing what comes more naturally as far as styles.

KK, great thread. I laughed hard. Please forward my compliments to your 74yrs old.....and simpathy for his opponents. Another proof that in tennis age is not always the most relevant factor...............

May I suggest, once you coaches are happy with a final classification, that you continue with the thread "how to become an effective baseliner, counterpuncher etc.?

[Fuji]

Originally Posted by catcher

how do you describe a big guy with a big first serve and a shockingly weak second serve, big and well placed forehand, slices 90% of all backhand except for passing shots (which he does pretty well) and the odd return (and in doubles)? anyone played such a person, i saw one playing, was surprisingly effective

Andy Roddick?

-Fuji

[Timbo's hopeless slice]

Originally Posted by Fuji

Andy Roddick?

-Fuji

LOL!!!!

You, sir, are made of win!

[Fuji]

Originally Posted by Timbo's hopeless slice

LOL!!!!

You, sir, are made of win!

LOL!!!

Thank you Timbo! I couldn't resist posting that.

-Fuji

[Qubax]

Originally Posted by Fuji

Andy Roddick?

-Fuji

The problem is Roddick doesn't have a "big and well placed FH"

he has a consistent, and reasonably well placed FH, but nothing about his FH is BIG

[thug the bunny]

Every time I watch Roddick, I can't believe how weak his FH is, especially when you see the kind of leverage he gets on his serve. If he could just take his serve and make it horizontal...voila!

[mightyrick]

Originally Posted by thug the bunny

Every time I watch Roddick, I can't believe how weak his FH is, especially when you see the kind of leverage he gets on his serve. If he could just take his serve and make it horizontal...voila!

Roddick has a fine forehand. He just has no real confidence and always plays it too safe. No where near enough aggression while baselining. Which is shocking given his amazing serve. I'd love to see more unforced errors (while on the offensive) from Roddick.

While Djokovic has always been a great returner, the real reason why he finally started winning majors is because he started going for those tough, low-margin shots.

The top people on the tour go for their shots.