basher vs. counter puncher (ahem "pusher") (study of connors v gilbert)

[nyta2]

this popped in my feed

was fascinating to watch this contrast in styles.
main observations:
* (bg) slow, high and deep is very effective, even at the pro level (opponent has to generate pace, depth gives me time to recover, and height attacks contact point)
* (bg) deep changes of direction can be enough to induce errors from the basher (who needs their feet/balance under them to hit big)
* (bg) getting many balls back IS a weapon
* (jc) key to beating counter puncher... come to net on the right ball
* (both), hitting big is not enough, needs to be coupled with placement

what do you see?

 

[heninfan99]

Who has the better 2nd serve?

 

[Dartagnan64]

getting many balls back IS a weapon

Pretty much THE weapon in tennis. I'd combine that with depth and that's tennis in a nutshell. Watch Djokovic, he's attained GOAT status with a game that centers around getting everything back and getting it deeper. Over and over again.

 

[RiverRat]

I don't know how this fits into the counter the counter-puncher dialog but I also think that Gilbert's variety of shot made it difficult for Connors. He used underspin, loop topspin, depth, and short angles forcing Connors to be more initiating than he wanted to be. Thanks for the video.

 

[toth]

As i know, Connors won much more matches in this h2h(?)

 

[nyta2]

I don't know how this fits into the counter the counter-puncher dialog but I also think that Gilbert's variety of shot made it difficult for Connors. He used underspin, loop topspin, depth, and short angles forcing Connors to be more initiating that he wanted to be. Thanks for the video.

agreed
to alot of folks (and to me at some point)... hitting "big" was the only way to play tennis... so folks who play variety never get the respect they deserve (in rec, often these variety experts are bucketed under no pace "pushers")
anywho, while gilbert lost this match, i really appreciated the variety of strategies gilbert was using, while in contrast connors seemed like he was bashing every ball.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

this popped in my feed

was fascinating to watch this contrast in styles.
main observations:
* (bg) slow, high and deep is very effective, even at the pro level (opponent has to generate pace, depth gives me time to recover, and height attacks contact point)
* (bg) deep changes of direction can be enough to induce errors from the basher (who needs their feet/balance under them to hit big)
* (bg) getting many balls back IS a weapon
* (jc) key to beating counter puncher... come to net on the right ball
* (both), hitting big is not enough, needs to be coupled with placement

what do you see?

- Connors did a better job of controlling the middle
- Gilbert looks so calm, like he's just warming up [Tomic gave that impression also]
- It appears to me Gilbert was deliberately hitting short at times to make Connors come in
- Both used a slice FH
- I thought I'd see more S&V with the courts being faster back then; not a lot of S&V, just "more"

 

[Keendog]

That was a horrible match to watch, why did you make me watch that??

 

[encylopedia]

this popped in my feed

was fascinating to watch this contrast in styles.
main observations:
* (bg) slow, high and deep is very effective, even at the pro level (opponent has to generate pace, depth gives me time to recover, and height attacks contact point)
* (bg) deep changes of direction can be enough to induce errors from the basher (who needs their feet/balance under them to hit big)
* (bg) getting many balls back IS a weapon
* (jc) key to beating counter puncher... come to net on the right ball
* (both), hitting big is not enough, needs to be coupled with placement

what do you see?

Your points are almost exactly what Vic Braden preached - that just being consistent, deep and down the middle beats almost all amateurs and even can work in the pros.....and that the best way to beat the pusher and counter puncher was patient aggression, and come to net to end it on the right shots.

Jimmy had these things in spades, and was mentally tough, and undoubtedly that's one of the reasons he was 5-2 against Gilbert (not counting a late career default). Much better than - for example - Becker 6-4 or Agassi 4-4.

Of course if you really want to see how dissect to Gilbert, Mcenroe 13-1 (though the one loss drove Mac into a sabbatical - his infamous: i'm leaving if I'm going to lose to a schmuck like that.... moment), or Lendl (who feasted on the Gilbert serve, and was just too powerful AND consistent for Gilbert to get to).

 

[Gary Duane]

This was Connors at about age 35, 33 years ago. Back then people did not have long careers like they do today, and in this match he gave away 9 years to a much younger Gilbert. I don't see pushing.

 

[mad dog1]

what do you see?

Man, that was ALOT of work for Connors just to win the first point!

 

[socallefty]

You can’t ever get me to watch a replay of a Gilbert match - never liked watching him play live either in those days.

 

[nyta2]

You can’t ever get me to watch a replay of a Gilbert match - never liked watching him play live either in those days.

i used to think the same thing... but revisiting it today, the matchup looked intriguing,... especially with so much chatter about the MEP's (get alot of balls back) of the rec tennis community...

 

[dominikk1985]

You can’t ever get me to watch a replay of a Gilbert match - never liked watching him play live either in those days.

He even wrote a very famous book called winning ugly.

 

[nyta2]

This was Connors at about age 35, 33 years ago. Back then people did not have long careers like they do today, and in this match he gave away 9 years to a much younger Gilbert. I don't see pushing.

obviously (i hope) i don't think gilbert was pushing... but when you compare styles... connors is bashing the crap out of the ball, and gilbert seems to be stroking it back "nice and easy" deep and decent placement

 

[tonylg]

You can’t ever get me to watch a replay of a Gilbert match - never liked watching him play live either in those days.

If playing today, Gilbert would be considered an attacking net rusher.

 

[nyta2]

- Connors did a better job of controlling the middle
- Gilbert looks so calm, like he's just warming up [Tomic gave that impression also]
- It appears to me Gilbert was deliberately hitting short at times to make Connors come in
- Both used a slice FH
- I thought I'd see more S&V with the courts being faster back then; not a lot of S&V, just "more"

yeah, i was surprised too about that... i thought there would be alot more s&v'ing especially from connors... seemed like connors was more a serve+<some groundstrokes>+approach+volley

 

[socallefty]

i used to think the same thing... but revisiting it today, the matchup looked intriguing,... especially with so much chatter about the MEP's (get alot of balls back) of the rec tennis community...

I have not watched more than 2-3 minutes of MEP playing either - just watched the first video posted of him for a couple of minutes to get a feel of what people are talking about. I can see that he is a tough 4.5, but he does not entertain me in the slightest and so, all his videos are a pass for me.

 

[socallefty]

He even wrote a very famous book called winning ugly.

Read it and liked the book soon after it came out. Like his commentary too. Still find his style to be an eyesore - don’t watch Gilles Simon either. I like to watch baseliners who hit hard with a lot of topspin these days after being a fan of McEnroe and Sampras when I was younger.

 

[Gary Duane]

obviously (i hope) i don't think gilbert was pushing...

Well, in the thread title:

(ahem "pusher")

Since I don't know you, I thought you were making that point.

Some observations: First, Connors had a forehand that was often very like Rosewall's backhand. Rosewall was famous for a backhand that technically was a slice, but it only had a bit of underspin so it was very close to the net, very well placed and had a lot of pace on it.

To my eye Connors groundstrokes were amazingly flat, and I've never seen another player hit quite like he did. The other thing is that his strokes were/are very simple. Evert was the same way. He has incredible control and was known for hitting thoes flat shots very hard. I would think almost everyone else would create a lot of errors hitting that way because with so little net clearance you double the chances of mistakes. High arc means you'll hit some balls out, but very seldom into the net. That's pretty much Nadal's style. Connors had freakish control hitting the ball so close over the net.

The other thing is that you are looking at a 35 year old player back when careers were mostly over at that age. You're also seeing tennis that would today be half way to serve and volley, the only difference being that with his comparitively weak serve he had to work his way in. His net skills look awesome compared to what we mostly see today.

Gilbert was very smooth, but he just did not have weapons. You can tell he won a lot of matches just by being smart and tactical. To my eyes he lacked one or two signature shots to intimidate the top guys. I would think that on a top level he was a very frustrating guy to play.
[/QUOTE]

 

[Gary Duane]

Read it and liked the book soon after it came out. Like his commentary too. Still find his style to be an eyesore - don’t watch Gilles Simon either. I like to watch baseliners who hit hard with a lot of topspin these days after being a fan of McEnroe and Sampras when I was younger.

That's weird. I was thinking of Simon too, another really irritating guy to play because on a good day he just didn't miss much, and that's enough to beat most people most of the time. But I found this match very interesting, watching how Connors solved the problem. People forget what a small man he was, I think at most 5'10 and not a powerful body. To win as much as he did in his prime took an exceptional return game and a very aggressive mindset. I would also like to think that even today someone can win without an excessive amount of topspin, but now I'd have to see it to believe it. I never liked Connors, but I certainly like his game. If you had the patience to watch a lot of this match, you would see Connors come in more and more. It was interesting to watch him approach up the line, and then watch when he approached cross court for variation. Obviously on an elite level if you approach up the line all the time, the opponent starts to lean in that direction and is waiting. It was fun to watch how Connors built the points, and sad to realize that by 1987 he could not do that several days in a row in a slam because of his age.

 

[dominikk1985]

Gilbert was kinda like the santoro of his time. Not winning all the time but could upset the big Guys.

4-5 against pete h2h
4-4 against agassi
4-6 against becker

 

[socallefty]

Gilbert was kinda like the santoro of his time. Not winning all the time but could upset the big Guys.

4-5 against pete h2h
4-4 against agassi
4-6 against becker

He never figured out how to beat Lendl though as Lendl was a smart player with bigger weapons and better fitness - 0-16 head-to-head.

 

[dominikk1985]

He never figured out how to beat Lendl though as Lendl was a smart player with bigger weapons and better fitness - 0-16 head-to-head.

Also 1-13 against McEnroe

 

[socallefty]

Also 1-13 against McEnroe

He was more a contemporary of McEnroe and Lendl who are within a year or two of his age. And he did very poorly against them.

He is a different generation from Becker, Sampras and Agassi as he is 8-10 years older than them. I’m guessing that they struggled against him when they were younger and then figured him out.

 

[dominikk1985]

He was more a contemporary of McEnroe and Lendl who are within a year or two of his age. And he did very poorly against them.

He is a different generation from Becker, Sampras and Agassi as he is 8-10 years older than them. I’m guessing that they struggled against him when they were younger and then figured him out.

Not really, pete and andre won the first two, then lost some and in the end again won some.

Head To Head | Pete Sampras vs Brad Gilbert H2H

Head To Head. Pete Sampras vs Brad Gilbert all matches, with stats on their H2H rivalry. ATP & WTA Pete Sampras head to head tennis search.

www.stevegtennis.com

https://www.atptour.com/en/players/atp-head-2-head/brad-gilbert-vs-andre-agassi/g016/a092

 

[toth]

I like Connors netgame very much,
His racket face angle is always correct,
He uses his legs and his body.

I would be interessed, how could he volley in this poli- era, how could he handle these passing bombs at the net.

 

[California]

Gilbert was a tough and smart competitor who just didn't have many offensive weapons. He figured out if you make balls and play steady you can frustrate and beat more offensively inclined players and it got him to a career high of number 4.

He was tough to play if you weren't on your game or feeling confident. If you were playing well and feeling good, he was toast. He was 4 and 15 against Edberg who was a very aggressive offensive player. He also was terrible against Mac. If you took the game to him and were on, he was done. He had no answers.

He was the type of player that would drive you crazy on off days! Not fun to play against or watch. Amazing his style worked in the pros....

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

He even wrote a very famous book called winning ugly.

Very little about the book is "ugly". I think a more accurate title would have been *Winning Intelligently* but that's not as catchy.

 

[ByeByePoly]

Kind of makes the point that most baseline tennis is killing time until wide open winner opens up ... OR ... at the net. In the meantime... knock yourself out bashing or rope a dope. Hit your best FH to a safe target ... or hit a minimum effort 1hbh slice to safe target ... same diff. (Don’t tell @Curious it’s not about the heat unless you are Wawrinka )

Connors obviously won singles matches with that ugly 2hbh volley. Did that sucker hold up in doubles? I guess so ... he won 1973 Wimbledon and 1975 US Open with Natase.