The Six Playing Styles Described

[AngeloDS]

I remember a pro from the early 1950's or was it earlier than that, that was a spin doctor. He was short, like 5'5", and climbed to the top.

[FiveO]

Originally Posted by fastdunn

I beg to differ a bit here. Federer might be as good as one can get
for a *all-courter* in terms of tennis of last 5 year or so(baseline
oriented game). But in terms of whole tennis history, Sampras
is still the guy who successfully implemented the most optimal
and complete balance of S&V and baseline style.

Federer's more balanced in terms of defense and offense game but
then again he has to be (his service game can get vulnerable).
He has other varieties but he has not been tested in the S&V game
yet. It's hardly played these days but I think it's major style in terms
of whole tennis history. So it's too early to say Federer is such
a all court player.

I disagree Sampras never willing to play defense and retrieve like
Federer or Rafter. He does less often but the very few points he
played as retriever or defense have huge weights. Like 7th game
of a set. See how Sampras run in break points. Sampras' foot speed
is very underrated. I think Sampras is actually faster than Federer
(who has astute movements largely based on superb anticipation)

About the "drawing" opponents using drop shots from baseline,
it's done by all top players these days simply because every body
is playing basleine these days. It's become popular last 5 years.
Federer indeed has very interesting varieties but in terms of
*solid* repitoire of basic elements in tennis, Sampras had that
ideally optimal implementation of classic textbook tennis, IMHO.

I almost agree with you. In fact I used to. My point was I agree that Sampras had a tremendous blend, better than anyone of his time and the vast majority of his predecessors. He was the most complete player I saw until Federer.

All-court tennis as defined by Serious Tennis incorporates "all" styles not most. Sampras rarely retrieved prefered going for outrights during his return games. Miss, winner, short ball, miss, short ball. Then winner, winner and up 0-30 in a game then he'd play however he had to get the break. Fed's return games are much more relentless and consistent and he relies on his speed and ability to play D to stay in until able to turn the tide in the point and does it with regularity to the point you ask "how does he get away with consistently hitting relatively soft returns so often?" Yet Fed can still hit the outright winners off the return that Sampras hit.

I agree with you that Sampras was an extremely underated mover, but he didn't, couldn't grind as much as Fed does regularly, perhaps due to questions about his stamina. Pete would pick his spots to spend that nrg where Roger will do it point after point.

Pete's bh was never near the weapon Roger's is in terms of consistency and variety in spin, pace and placement.

Pete rarely employed angle or took off pace to change the rally and preferred to hit through the court once and then twice. One of Roger's favorite ploys is that soft, low, short angled bh he hits to a 2hbh's side drawing him forward and outside the sideline regularly giving the opponent a choice between a rock and a hard place. Roger displays more than just drop-shots.

Roger is a much more consistent passer. Pete may have been more spectacular but Roger is more consistent.

Pete would display touch on volleys. Roger does that and touch off both wings off the ground.

I am not saying one is better than the other. Pete's serve could tip the match his way and if real on could end points from anywhere in the court.

Roger, while not possessing the serve of a Sampras, it's damn good, and the rest of his game has that much more variety in pace, spin and placement, will defense/retrieve and does in almost every game, displays more touch off the ground, is consistently a more patient baseliner while having the same ability to break the point open off either side that Pete had. As a result of all that Roger is much more willing to prolong points, point after point, than Pete ever was. Roger has also already displayed his prowess on all surfaces where Pete, while not a slouch on clay, was at a disadvantage against many more players on that surface.

Pete was extremely complete with two huge weapons and an achilles heal of stamina and clay.

Roger is all that, minus that one-of-a-kind serve and without the achilles heal. JMHO.

[fastdunn]

FiveO and KK, I generally agree with you and I know you guys are
very knowledable and probably better player than me.
But I have to check if you're including
entire career of Sampras. You sounded like you're describing Pete of
his 2nd half of his career. Because my 1st impression of him was a baseliner
I still view Sampras as a baseliner outside of Wimbledon.

I have this taped match of Sampras against Korda in early
90's at Indian Wells. Great baseline match. In that match, commentatiors
mention they think Sampras true color is a baseliner. Their key argument
was what Sampras does at those *pressure* points.

Up until late 90's Sampras would park himself at the baseline at pressure
points and grind it away. There were many S&Ver's in 90's and it was
very effective strategy because he could out-grind away many power
players(except on clay).

Yeah, Federer is such a fabulaous player and truely inspring tennis.
He opened my and lots of people's eyes and let us see some of the hidden
part of tennis game.

But I'm not convinced yet that Federer has the net game.
When Federer career is finalized, maybe we can make clearer arguments.
I know many people are lining up at Federer side but I'm not leaving
Sampras' side yet. O.K. I'll go ahead say it: I still think Federer
is 1 notch below Sampras. History will give us answer. Let's see
how Federer did after 5 years later and tak about it here at TW....

[dmastous]

I'm sure everyone knows Sampras was a baseliner with a 2 handed backhand until he was 15 or 16 when he came to the conclusion he wanted to win Wimbledon. He switched to a 1 hander dropped from #1 to #48 in the SoCal junior rankings then was #1 again the following year.

[EliteNinja]

Wow, gentlemen.

All threads lead to Rome.
where Rome = comparison of Sampras/Federer

[fastdunn]

Originally Posted by Kaptain Karl

fastdunn - I must not have expressed myself very well. Sorry.

I'm not doing the Sampras / Federer "thing". And that's not what this thread is about.

My point ^^^ was, that I never considered Pete an "all courter." (Yes. He was a baseliner, first. Then he changed to more S&V. But those are only two styles. An "all courter" can play *many* styles well. (Say...) S&V, Baseliner, Counter Puncher, Junk Baller.)

Federer has shown that he is an all court player. Sampras was -- GREAT!, but -- not an all court player. He should not be used as a "model" of what an all courter is.

Was that clearer?

- KK

Sorry I digressed a little bit.

I see what you're points are. But I still differ a little bit.
"All courter", to me, should utilize all part of the court.
Due to current status of pro tennis, Federer dwells much more
at the baseline while Sampras did successfully implemented
net game too.

There are 6 styles as you mention. But you know the baseliner
and S&V(or net player) are the two major styles. I think all
tennis players know how tough to truely implement both.
It would be nice to be able to play other styles *if* you're
done with implementing these 2 important styles.

Federer is a complete player indeed. In fact, Sampras and Federer
are two of the most complete players I've seen.
I understand Federer excites many people. That includes me.
But it's an over-excitements if you say Federer also has a
net game. In fact, I'm not sure if Federer plays as much net game
as Borg did.

Federer is indeed the most complete player among current
generation of players. But it's too early to tell in terms of
whole history of tennis. I personally doubt Federer
will play net game as good as Sampras did.

[PM_]

Great thread!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Hat's off to both KK and Five0.

Now I know the term to describe my friend who I haven't been able to crack yet: a junkballer.

Question, might be a little off topic.

Doesn't any good player need to be able to change their style if they are losing? They can't continue with a losing strategy can they? So is it possible for a player to really be any of these styles because more than likely they are going to change it anyways depending on their opponent?

Or is this just me and that's my own style to change up my game?

[kevhen]

Not everyone changes their style. All-court players tend to adjust in order to beat their opponent but many people will stick with one game plan and hope things eventually turn around when slumping. The best players will make some adjustments throughout a match though.

[Kathy]

Very interesting thread! Thanks KK and FiveO. This breakdown makes sense and is very understandable.

I always viewed Sampras as an all-court player, but he certainly had preferred styles and seldom found a need to depart from them. Whereas Federer is the model all-court player.

I think you can make a case for a sub-category of the heavy-topspin baseliner (like Bjorn Borg was). Simply because of the way it wins. It is agressive and breaks down the other guy's game because he can't get his shots to roll over for him. Result -- Out, long...a lot. Also, when that starts happening, the heavy topspin artist can attack the net very easily. So this style of aggressive basline play is different than other aggressive baseline play. Frankly, I wonder why we don't see it used anymore. Any thoughts on that?

Kathy K
www.operationdoubles.com

[JaisBane]

Originally Posted by SageOfDeath

Question, might be a little off topic.

Doesn't any good player need to be able to change their style if they are losing? They can't continue with a losing strategy can they? So is it possible for a player to really be any of these styles because more than likely they are going to change it anyways depending on their opponent?

Or is this just me and that's my own style to change up my game?

Most people will make tactical adjustments to minimize the damage, but usually only allcourt players can successfully change strategies mid-game. An example of this is Edberg, he came to net on every first serve and chipped every second serve no matter how badly he was using. That sort of mental tenacity combined with a high pressure game can cause an opponent to crack and lose their winning edge and it saved Edberg as many times as it doomed him.

[NoBadMojo]

I know we didnt want this to morph into a Fed/Samps comparison, but tennis has so rapidly changed that it is even hard to compare the natural playing styles of the two. it's almost as though Fed and Samps were from diff eras even though ther careers kind of overlapped. If Fed saw more percentage in it, I think he would be at net more and play serve and volley more <he's certainly good enough to>, but net styles were easier played even when Samps was playing..even fed is at net less than when he was earlier in his career <thats how rapidly things have changed> . if Samps were playing today, I believe he would also be at net less (unless he was at the point in his career when he had to find ways to end the points quickly). to me, they are both all courters.
Many pro players on tour lack the ablity to change playing styles...Roddick is one of them..all he can do is try and hit it even harder..ditto for the Williamses
Five0 if you are still in here, i just turned on the signature feature and see you play the Laserfibre XL..that one to me, is the sweetest string in the Lasefibre lineup.far better than the Supreme altho not so durable, but perhaps more so in your denser stringbed. It's a really nice string which rarely gets talked about i think.

[Bungalo Bill]

Originally Posted by NoBadMojo

...to me, they are both all courters.

lol, agree with most of your comments but I think you are reaching here.

Although Sampras could hit a forehand and backhand from the back court, his style was to get to net. That is a S&V style. The same can be said about Rafter. He also was first and foremost a S&V. It was also how Sampras won his last Grand Slam tournament, getting to net. Sampras by far is first and foremost a S&V.

Federer on the other hand is clearly an all-court player.

[fastdunn]

Originally Posted by Bungalo Bill

lol, agree with most of your comments but I think you are reaching here.

Although Sampras could hit a forehand and backhand from the back court, his style was to get to net. That is a S&V style. The same can be said about Rafter. He also was first and foremost a S&V. It was also how Sampras won his last Grand Slam tournament, getting to net. Sampras by far is first and foremost a S&V.

Federer on the other hand is clearly an all-court player.

Could we classify Federer as an all-courter if he played same style
in 90's or 80's ? I don't think so. I'm not even sure if Fed goes to
net as much as Borg did.

I disagree Sampras' style was to get to net. When Sampras was at the
net, he simply finishing the point he already won, if you know what I mean.
His volly was simply block and placement volley.
He did not really need aggressive or magic volleys of Edberg or McAnroe...

[Bungalo Bill]

Originally Posted by fastdunn

Could we classify Federer as an all-courter if he played same style
in 90's or 80's ? I don't think so. I'm not even sure if Fed goes to
net as much as Borg did.

I disagree Sampras' style was to get to net. When Sampras was at the
net, he simply finishing the point he already won, if you know what I mean.
His volly was simply block and placement volley.
He did not really need aggressive or magic volleys of Edberg or McAnroe...

But Sampras clearly had a S&V style. He didnt serve and stay back!

He may have played some back court but he was also clearly a S&V first and foremost. One could have a weak argument that he was an all-courter, but Wimbledon would beg to differ!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/wimbledon2...336485,00.html

Should I bring out more? Sampras was clear a server and a volleyer. One of the best ever.

[Klippy]

You could call me an All-courter.

[wyutani]

Originally Posted by Klippy

You could call me an All-courter.

Klippy...you are an All-courter.

[MoneyBall]

Originally Posted by Superior_Forehand

Man, you hit it right on the money with this one man. The Pusher Retriever is usually very passive agressive. They feed off your anger and negative energy, delighting in your mental anguish. After the match, they are always so friendly too! lol

I used to be a pusher retriever for the first year I started playing tennis. I rarely lose to my friends who've played all their lives. It insults them especially when I had just picked up tennis a couple of summers ago. I'd try less just to make the score less lopsided.

After winning two tournaments against guys with way better looking strokes than mine I've started taking lessons in order to compete in open tourneys.

My style now is all-court and S&V when my 1st sevres are on. Believe it or not I hate playing pushers now. They messes with my smooth strokes with their soft high balls. In order to beat them you must be patient with your attack.

[Bungalo Bill]

Originally Posted by MoneyBall

I used to be a pusher retriever for the first year I started playing tennis. I rarely lose to my friends who've played all their lives. It insults them especially when I had just picked up tennis a couple of summers ago. I'd try less just to make the score less lopsided.

After winning two tournaments against guys with way better looking strokes than mine I've started taking lessons in order to compete in open tourneys.

My style now is all-court and S&V when my 1st sevres are on. Believe it or not I hate playing pushers now. They messes with my smooth strokes with their soft high balls. In order to beat them you must be patient with your attack.

Ver good advice. Patients is key with pushers. Unfortunately, people at the 3.5 to 4.0 level think they are better than they really are. There also is a lack of patience and discipline.

[x Southpaw x]

Hm, playstyles I usually classify opponents to:
1) Allrounder - um, all-court, flexibility-based, advanced, usually has aggressive baseline/counterpunch/netrush alternatives to choose
2) Aggressive Baseliner - major time spent at baseline, seeks to gain dominance in positioning, attempting winners on opportunity, putting opponent on defense, usually has a forehand and/or backhand weapon
3) Counterpuncher - huge consistency, major time spent at baseline, seeks to get every return with minimal attackability, pace of returns seldom goes above a limit, often has good return of serve
4) Netrusher - uses serve&volley and approach&charge as weapons, has superior volleying and overhead skills, often accompanied with good height/reach and superior serve
5) Spinmeister - uses extraordinary amount of spin as weapon, often has very wristy technique, uses very loopy topspin, backspin that bounces backward, poor footwork and thus sky-high lob recoveries, uses power-based rackets, very rare
6) Senior - common old man's tennis, good placement, uses mostly flat and slice shots, uses power-based rackets, poor footwork
7) Pusher - common rookie young man's tennis, often deficient in stroke technique, uses very compact strokes that are often flat or slice, get-ball-back-in-play-based, sometimes can be subclassified as moonballer, some are grinders and extraordinarily good at getting-ball-back-in-play, personally I think those like to self-classify as counterpuncher
8 ) Bye - free win, double faults a lot, gives lots of free points, blasting returns way out, etc, personally I think certain types of byes like to self-classify as aggressive baseliner

Just my input.