Who would that be?
Andre Agassi..cuz he's gettin' hit with a bunch of punches from peeps that live their lives out of their Mom's computer!!
Jimmy Connors was a great counterpuncher also. His lobs against Paul Haarhius in winning that great point in the 1991 US Open is legendary and is just one example of many of how great a counterpuncher he was.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7t5W6SDuEs
For course in recent times Nadal, Federer and Murray.
For me, Hewitt and Chang fall under defensive baseliners. Dont sue me, it's just an opinion, and doesnt take away anything from how great they are.
For me, greatest counterpuncher right now is Nadal.
As far as I'm concerned, the best counterpuncher I've ever seen was Marcello Rios. I've never seen anyone do to Agassi what he did on more than one occasion. Rios had the innate ability to take any ball at any pace and change its direction. He was the best in using his opponent's pace and also in putting the ball where his opponent least expected it. He was the ultimate cat/mouse player.
Alright, I know it's an opinion and all. But Hewitt and Chang defensive baseliners yet Nadal a counterpuncher?
What?!
Mike Chang.
When Fed is in the mood, he can counter-punch as good as anyone. His defense is other-wordly when ON.
haha which is why Federer is heads and shoulders above Nadal in achievements. The truth is quite the opposite. Federer is great at offense but still has above average defense. Nadal on the other hand has exceptional defense and has limited offensive capabilities. There is a reason why Nadal gets blown of the court by big hitters who hit the ball right through him. Federer makes big hitters play extra balls while at the same time initiating an offensive game plan. This is also the reason why Nadal is always getting himself injured. He loves grinding away on the court and doesnt go for many cheap points.Fed's defense is currently mediocre. Fed is a classic attacker and a very average counterpuncher. If you look at the ATP statistics, Fed is: #1 at second serve pts won, # 2 at BPs saved, #4 at 1st serve pts won and service games won, #7 at aces.
Thank God for big serves right?
In all the returning stats Fed is way out of the top 10: pts returning 1st serve, 2nd serve, BPs converted and return games won.
Contrast that with Nadal for instance. Nadal is #1 in all the returning categories: pts won returning 2nd serve, BPs converted, return games won and he is #4 at returning first serves but Nadal also has some good stats in the serve category: #2 in 2nd serve pts won, #6 in 1st serve %, #8 in BPs saved.
Conclusion: Fed is only good at offense, Nadal is better at defense but can do well at offense too.
Fed's defense is currently mediocre. Fed is a classic attacker and a very average counterpuncher. If you look at the ATP statistics, Fed is: #1 at second serve pts won, # 2 at BPs saved, #4 at 1st serve pts won and service games won, #7 at aces.
Thank God for big serves right?
In all the returning stats Fed is way out of the top 10: pts returning 1st serve, 2nd serve, BPs converted and return games won.
Contrast that with Nadal for instance. Nadal is #1 in all the returning categories: pts won returning 2nd serve, BPs converted, return games won and he is #4 at returning first serves but Nadal also has some good stats in the serve category: #2 in 2nd serve pts won, #6 in 1st serve %, #8 in BPs saved.
Conclusion: Fed is only good at offense, Nadal is better at defense but can do well at offense too.
haha which is why Federer is heads and shoulders above Nadal in achievements. The truth is quite the opposite. Federer is great at offense but still has above average defense. Nadal on the other hand has exceptional defense and has limited offensive capabilities. There is a reason why Nadal gets blown of the court by big hitters who hit the ball right through him. Federer makes big hitters play extra balls while at the same time initiating an offensive game plan. This is also the reason why Nadal is always getting himself injured. He loves grinding away on the court and doesnt go for many cheap points.
lol, this is even funnier after you read your complaint about being fair and balanced in another thread.
Did you watch ANY of the French Open? Federer pretty much counterpunched his way to the title there, even counterpunching Soderling into countless mistakes, which is something that Nadal was unable to do.
Yes an injured Nadal can't do anything. A healthy Nadal though can win RG 4 times in a row, Monte-Carlo 5 times in a row, Barcelona 5 times in a row and Rome 4 times (not in a row). Whether injured or fit Soderling is an average player on any surface. Any kind of clown could beat him in a slam final. Fed didn't counterpunch anything, the only reason he didn't lose the match vs Haas is because he saved break points against him in the 3rd set (that's what he's good at, saving BPs thanks to his big serve) and because old Haas's fitness deserted him at the end.
Yes an injured Nadal can't do anything. A healthy Nadal though can win RG 4 times in a row, Monte-Carlo 5 times in a row, Barcelona 5 times in a row and Rome 4 times (not in a row). Whether injured or fit Soderling is an average player on any surface. Any kind of clown could beat him in a slam final. Fed didn't counterpunch anything, the only reason he didn't lose the match vs Haas is because he saved break points against him in the 3rd set (that's what he's good at, saving BPs thanks to his big serve) and because old Haas's fitness deserted him at the end.
Anyway, you cannot judge on the basis of 1 tournament, the stats cover all matches played in 2009, they don't handpick the one tournament where the greatest clay player of all time happened to be at an all time low. They take all tournaments into account, so if you don't mind, I'll stick to them.
Yes an injured Nadal can't do anything. A healthy Nadal though can win RG 4 times in a row, Monte-Carlo 5 times in a row, Barcelona 5 times in a row and Rome 4 times (not in a row). Whether injured or fit Soderling is an average player on any surface. Any kind of clown could beat him in a slam final. Fed didn't counterpunch anything, the only reason he didn't lose the match vs Haas is because he saved break points against him in the 3rd set (that's what he's good at, saving BPs thanks to his big serve) and because old Haas's fitness deserted him at the end.
Anyway, you cannot judge on the basis of 1 tournament, the stats cover all matches played in 2009, they don't handpick the one tournament where the greatest clay player of all time happened to be at an all time low. They take all tournaments into account, so if you don't mind, I'll stick to them.
Way to zone in on one match. He also defended extremely well against Del Potro and a few other good players. That's the same Del Potro that laid a beating of a lifetime on Nadal at the U.S. Open, and the same Del Potro that barely beat Federer in the U.S. Open final.
Oh, and Federer counterpunched well against Nadal when he beat him in Madrid, too. I'm sure you'll just say that Nadal was tired in that match, or something. But remember that a few years ago, Henin played a longer match against Capriati in at the US Open and still came back to win the title. So, unless Henin is fitter than Nadal, I can't see that argument holding water anymore.
Nadal is the best at transitioning from defense to offense.