Greatest Offensive Players of All Time

[pc1]

Since there has been a thread about the Greatest Defensive Players I figured it would be fun to start a thread about the Greatest Offensive Players.

I have some problems in defining some players. In today's game many of the top players are defensive players if you compare them to players throughout tennis history. For example I think Roger Federer is a super defensive player and a great counterpuncher. Now he also has a super serve and an all universe forehand which can put away virtually any relatively short ball and many balls that aren't normally able to be hit for winner. But can you call Federer an offensive player in the mode of a Pete Sampras? It's hard to define.

I would call Andre Agassi an offensive player and also Jimmy Connors even though they are both baseliners. They were generally very aggressive off the ground, always attacking. Connors would look to often approach the net for a putaway volley.

Obviously some are no brainers, Laver, Sampras, Newcombe, Edberg, Roche, John McEnroe, Jack Kramer, Rafter, Hoad, Ashe and Becker for example are offensive players. But how would you describe an Ilie Nastase?

I think Soderling is an offensive player because he attacks from the baseline but Andy Murray isn't even though Murray has all the ability to do it. Murray loves to toy with his opponents instead of initiating the attack.

I suppose you could define an attacking player as one who is almost always initiating the attack but you could also say a great attacking player has the most attacking weapons.

Agassi was the type of player who was always attacking, hitting the ball on he rise to control play. In his later years he was much more controlled but he still tried to stand by the baseline to hit the ball early and dominate the rally. Yet you could argue that Federer, while he may not be as aggressive as Agassi has more weapons in his serve, his forehand and possibly his volley.

I guess that means Harold Solomon is not a great offensive player.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

Federer is a no brainer here for being a great offensive player, I don't think it's hard to define. He attacked less frequently and less early on in exchanges on average than say Sampras, but I would define it like this, more or less: The ability to repeatedly produce winners and force errors.

Forcing errors stats is a tricky one, but in terms of winners, Federer almost **always** has more, and very, very often, considerably more winners than his opponent. Even when his opponents are top tier this tends to be the case.

Somebody like Nadal forces a lot of errors through his aggressive top-spinny strokes (of course we know he forces many through fantastic defense). I hear a lot of talk recently of Nadal being an aggressive player, but for me too often his amount of winners is too equal to his opponents and against top tier opponents more often than not he produces less winners.

***

So in short, while Federer's natural instinct isn't quite as 'cut-throat' as say, Sampras', the facts are that he produces a tremendous amount of winners and almost always proves to be a greater offensive force than his contemporaries.

So yeah, I'd add Federer to your list of certainties, he's probably clearly the most varied and most effective offensive player of the current era. =)

 

[pc1]

Nathaniel,

Your comment about Nadal summarizes my problem with him too. He has been clearly over the years, more of a defensive player than offensive but in the last US Open I thought he was far more aggressive in his play than in the past. Obviously he was rewarded with the title.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

He was absolutely awarded with his unique brand of increased aggression. His ability to hit with consistently excellent depth on both sides throughout much of the US Open, along with his much improved serve, really helped him to take the title there! depth of stroke was often his problem on hard-courts and it's impressive how he has managed to turn that around on a fairly consistent basis.

Also in the final against Djokovic, it was interesting how when Nadal decided that he wanted to go for the big winner, he was able to hit a faster, harder, more penetrating shot than Djokovic was, who by nature is a more consistent general rally shot-maker on a hard court, I'd say.

I agree very much about Agassi and Connors being aggressive baseliners. Agassi floated his shots a lot more than Connors of course, but used short angles better - I suppose - through hitting the ball slightly early and using more top-spin (even just compared to their respective contemporaries?) than Connors.

 

[Bobby Jr]

Federer without doubt. There have been few players in tennis history with such an aptitude for offensive play. It's not just in the shots you can hit but also in being aware of the smallest opportunity to take control (or retake control) of a point. Federer's pendulum between defence and offence swings back and forth faster than anyone else on the tour. Period.

Now, on players like Soderling and Berdych etc who have shown the ability to hit out in all-offence playing - that in itself doesn't make someone a great offensive player. Sure, we remember matches where they blew people off the court (Soderling in particular) but these matches are anomalies to their overall form, not the norm. I.e. they have a great day and it looks amazing, the rest of the time they're unforced error bunnies compared to Federer/Nadal/Murray etc (and the H2H results show it). On the flip-side of this Federer hits out in all of his matches and usually exactly when the opportunity arises (usually also by his making) - plus he always goes for a shot when it is on, even when he's break point down etc. He rarely plays it safe because he treats every point as a single point regardless of the score - as all great players are capable of doing: Nadal, Sampras etc. That is what makes him such a good example of an offensive player.

Nathaniel_Near makes a point also about Nadal. Nadal is often touted as an offensive player but he isn't actually a naturally offensive player - he's just an insanely intense player, making ball after ball after ball. The huge margin of error he uses on most of his forehands is testament to this. For the most part he wins by refusing to get beaten rather than through great offence.

 

[Mr_Shiver]

Though he doesn't belong with the all offensive players, James Blake was certainly an attacker. He made his errors but never held back.

 

[urban]

I got some flame in another thread a long time ago about his question, but i see Federer a better defensive than offensive player. His return is certainly not aggressive. Mainly, he plays it back, and waits for a rally and the opportunity to bring his forehand in. I think he changed his style to a more waiting game around 2005. Prior in 2003, he was more offensive, even against big hitters like Flipper. In the AO 2005, Safin played a more aggressive game than Federer, coming in more on shot balls. Since then Federer reminded me on Borg, by staying at the baseline, building a stone-walled defense and making quite few errors, due to great footwork. He stayed closer to the baseline than Borg, however. I think, his problem with Nadal is generated by a certain lack of aggressive, offensive play with net rushes. But also against offensive baseliners like Agassi and Roddick, he looked the more patient, defending player.

 

[Mr_Shiver]

I agree with the subtle shift in Federers game. He used to hit more baseline winners but then starte0d to wait for short balls. 05-06 seems to be the time he started to become a little patient. Maybe it had something to do with his quest for the French? With that said I still think he is an aggressive and offensive player.

 

[Bobby Jr]

I agree with his being a great defensive player also. In fact his defensive gets - the slice backhand is probably the best there is. It's amazing how often he can hit it cross-court on the stretch and get it within 1m of the baseline and sideline.

 

[SusanDK]

For me a great offensive player is one who controls the match completely - the pace, style, speed of play, etc. even when they lose. It's the player who forces the others to play his game and takes the opponent out of any rhythm they may be able to achieve if allowed to play their game.

I think Federer does this very well, as did Connors, and as did Ivan Lendl. McEnroe did it, but in a completely different way than the others.

Federer and Lendl seem to completely control the tempo of play most of the time, and they are/were rarely rattled. In fact, the way players usually try to beat them, and have to try to beat them, is to get them out of their rhythm which isn't easy to do.

So for me it's not necessarily whether a player has an offensive style (eg. S&V), but the ability to dictate the whole tempo of what's happening on the court.

For example, while Edberg has a beautifully executed offensive style of game, he was not always the player on the court in control of the tempo of the match. I prefer Edberg's all-around execution of S&V to Becker's, yet Becker probably dictated play more aggressively than Edberg, just by his presence and body language.

 

[Datacipher]

I agree with the subtle shift in Federers game. He used to hit more baseline winners but then starte0d to wait for short balls. 05-06 seems to be the time he started to become a little patient. Maybe it had something to do with his quest for the French? With that said I still think he is an aggressive and offensive player.

I've suggested Federer is defensive before, only to get the inevitable flaming. I think overall he is fairly neutral/balanced (some offense, some defense). He's capable of taking offense very well, but he actually likes to play quite far back behind the baseline and rally.....I actually think this is where Federer really shines, and in that sense, I would call him a naturally defensive player: He's a COUNTERPUNCHER, an excellent one. While he can pounce on a weak ball, he likes to strike back against other players big shots....this is when he really shines. His speed and balance allow him to create in what might be very defensive situations for others.

I don't see Fed as the kind of player who NATURALLY likes to take total control of the center of the court over and over eg. Agassi, Lendl, Courier etc. Those guys love to set up over and over and run the other guy corner to corner to corner with their big forehands and 2 handed drives. (Lendl of course had to use a 1 hander, but actually his set-up spot was often favouring the BH side, so he could easily run around BH and pound away with inside out and down the line FH.....Courier as well)

It's one of the basic themes in his problems against Nadal. Why doesn't he just take charge and drive Nadal around with "flat" blasts....well....that isn't his natural game, and it's even harder for him with the heaviness of Nadal's shots. Fed has to force himself to try to go in with that kind of aggression, and he tends to make more errors trying to force that (unless he's totally zoned).

In this way Fed reminds me somewhat of Pete Sampras who did something similar. Pete wasn't really there to suddenly try to take control and rip forhands from corner to corner. Pete was pretty patient, and felt like "hey...all I need to do is neutralize you...I'm superior on serve, I'm superior on volley....you need to be afraid I'll sneak in....you need to be afraid I'll make a huge counterpunch (eg. running forehand)...you need to be afraid of giving me the short ball....what have you got left? That's right....for everything else, I can just play back neutralizing shots....and wait...when I get that right ball I'll suddenly strike".

Fed thinks "I like to just rally...find my rhythm....look beautiful and easy....I can handle your big shots...and you never know when I'll respond with an angle or huge pace shot of my own....I can just wait till I get one I like!"

Fed's a counterpuncher. He is not as his best trying to force his will, or dictate all the points....he's at his best when he is just neutralizing the other guy, and waiting for his moment to strike with his shotmaking.

PS. Note...it seems like some of the youngsters have caught on to this a bit, but like to point at his slice BH....I actually think this is misleading and a bad move by Fed. I remember when commentators started making a big deal of that slice....oooohhh the opponents can't handle that short slice....well....yeah...sometimes....and I am glad it's PART of his arsenal...but often it gets him in trouble....and I felt that he started using it more due to lesser confidence! I preferred earlier Fed of say 04, who, in my memory, seemed to be using nice topspin backhands and less slice. One thing that helps him though is that 2 handers have a bit more trouble responding to this shot if it's hit well.....

It's so beautifully ironic though that many of the young fanboys tote the short slice as a great new weapon.....when say 10 years ago, those same fanboys would have said it was a completely ineffective, outdated, suicide shot!

 

[pc1]

I've suggested Federer is defensive before, only to get the inevitable flaming. I think overall he is fairly neutral/balanced (some offense, some defense). He's capable of taking offense very well, but he actually likes to play quite far back behind the baseline and rally.....I actually think this is where Federer really shines, and in that sense, I would call him a naturally defensive player: He's a COUNTERPUNCHER, an excellent one. While he can pounce on a weak ball, he likes to strike back against other players big shots....this is when he really shines. His speed and balance allow him to create in what might be very defensive situations for others.

I don't see Fed as the kind of player who NATURALLY likes to take total control of the center of the court over and over eg. Agassi, Lendl, Courier etc. Those guys love to set up over and over and run the other guy corner to corner to corner with their big forehands and 2 handed drives. (Lendl of course had to use a 1 hander, but actually his set-up spot was often favouring the BH side, so he could easily run around BH and pound away with inside out and down the line FH.....Courier as well)

It's one of the basic themes in his problems against Nadal. Why doesn't he just take charge and drive Nadal around with "flat" blasts....well....that isn't his natural game, and it's even harder for him with the heaviness of Nadal's shots. Fed has to force himself to try to go in with that kind of aggression, and he tends to make more errors trying to force that (unless he's totally zoned).

In this way Fed reminds me somewhat of Pete Sampras who did something similar. Pete wasn't really there to suddenly try to take control and rip forhands from corner to corner. Pete was pretty patient, and felt like "hey...all I need to do is neutralize you...I'm superior on serve, I'm superior on volley....you need to be afraid I'll sneak in....you need to be afraid I'll make a huge counterpunch (eg. running forehand)...you need to be afraid of giving me the short ball....what have you got left? That's right....for everything else, I can just play back neutralizing shots....and wait...when I get that right ball I'll suddenly strike".

Fed thinks "I like to just rally...find my rhythm....look beautiful and easy....I can handle your big shots...and you never know when I'll respond with an angle or huge pace shot of my own....I can just wait till I get one I like!"

Fed's a counterpuncher. He is not as his best trying to force his will, or dictate all the points....he's at his best when he is just neutralizing the other guy, and waiting for his moment to strike with his shotmaking.

PS. Note...it seems like some of the youngsters have caught on to this a bit, but like to point at his slice BH....I actually think this is misleading and a bad move by Fed. I remember when commentators started making a big deal of that slice....oooohhh the opponents can't handle that short slice....well....yeah...sometimes....and I am glad it's PART of his arsenal...but often it gets him in trouble....and I felt that he started using it more due to lesser confidence! I preferred earlier Fed of say 04, who, in my memory, seemed to be using nice topspin backhands and less slice. One thing that helps him though is that 2 handers have a bit more trouble responding to this shot if it's hit well.....

It's so beautifully ironic though that many of the young fanboys tote the short slice as a great new weapon.....when say 10 years ago, those same fanboys would have said it was a completely ineffective, outdated, suicide shot!

Good post and explanations.

I would tend to agree with you with most points you make here. The one problem that I have is that everyone today is a counterpuncher. So is Federer the best offensive player of all the defensive counterpunchers or is he simply a counterpuncher and the best one over the last few years. I say best over the last few years because clearly Nadal is the best counterpuncher this year.

 

[Bobby Jr]

...but he actually likes to play quite far back behind the baseline and rally.....

I don't see how someone who pays so much attention and usually posts so astutely can say that. Federer plays, on average, closer to the baseline than any of his peers. Watch almost any match where he's playing OK and he'll be closer to the baseline than his opponent most of the time. He also spends more time in the court than them too.

I don't see Fed as the kind of player who NATURALLY likes to take total control of the center of the court over and over eg. Agassi, Lendl, Courier etc.

Naturally or not that is what he does though.

I concede thought that he could have a natural counter-puncher mentality - just with a significantly better forehand than most others in history for hitting clean winners from the baseline. Since he ends so many rallys from there it might seem like he's a counter-puncher who doesn't want to dictate the centre of the court. Maybe he just doesn't need to given his shotmaking. I still say he's overwhelmingly an offensive-minded player.

It's one of the basic themes in his problems against Nadal. Why doesn't he just take charge and drive Nadal around with "flat" blasts....

An issue with Federer playing Nadal - and indeed most people playing him - is his speed and leftiness lead people to overplay shots or go for ones they don't hit as often against others. Shots that would win them the rally against most players, or start a chain of shots to, don't against Nadal - they are often right in his zone - deep and to his forehand. That's always going to be a hard ask.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

For me a great offensive player is one who controls the match completely - the pace, style, speed of play, etc. even when they lose. It's the player who forces the others to play his game and takes the opponent out of any rhythm they may be able to achieve if allowed to play their game.

I think Federer does this very well, as did Connors, and as did Ivan Lendl. McEnroe did it, but in a completely different way than the others.

Federer and Lendl seem to completely control the tempo of play most of the time, and they are/were rarely rattled. In fact, the way players usually try to beat them, and have to try to beat them, is to get them out of their rhythm which isn't easy to do.

So for me it's not necessarily whether a player has an offensive style (eg. S&V), but the ability to dictate the whole tempo of what's happening on the court.

For example, while Edberg has a beautifully executed offensive style of game, he was not always the player on the court in control of the tempo of the match. I prefer Edberg's all-around execution of S&V to Becker's, yet Becker probably dictated play more aggressively than Edberg, just by his presence and body language.

Outstanding post, in my opinion.


***


I agree with all of you who talk of Federer as someone who also plays very well defensively, and implying or outright stating that thus his nature is to be a balanced player. But, I think of it less as tendency and more as pure results. Federer, in his way, produces more winners even against top tier opponents in the vast majority of matches he plays, and controls the tempi of matches extremely well.

So, it's sort of a tendency/inclination/ethos VS pure results regardless of base *instinct* approach.

Anyway, I certainly don't believe you guys deserved to be flamed for your opinions, they are very valid and very reasonably arguable, there can be no doubt.

***

Federer seems to be going through another transition to me, in which he is looking to impose his game more immediately on his opponents, upping the aggression and changing his general ethos for the game of tennis; thoughts on this?

 

[Pioneer]

Sampras, Federer and Nadal.

Sampras lives off attacking and even when he's being attacked he can transition brilliantly with that on-the-run forehand.

Federer because his power and precision were unmatched when he was unstoppable 2004-2007.

Nadal because he is always pushing you around left to right, always looking to hit a winner.

 

[borg number one]

Lew Hoad, Rod Laver, Pancho Gonzalez, John McEnroe, and Pete Sampras are five great offensive players. As for Hoad, he was before my time, but so many players have spoken about his talent and brand of tennis, which was very high risk. As PC1 and other posters have noted, when he was "on" he was very tough to deal with for anyone, but he was inconsistent. All these players relied so heavily on offense. Equipment evolution as well as court surface changes have contributed to the fact that the dominant style of play has changed over time. See some of Hoad's play in this video for example (along with PG).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6XTR8z5kjWc

 

[pc1]

Borg number one,

I only wish I could see full matches of Hoad at his best. I've read that he could just hit streaks where he would hit winners off of everything.

Jack Kramer wanted Hoad to temporize at times but Hoad tried to hit winners off of everything. He could move inside the baseline and put Pancho Gonzalez's serve away for a winner when he was on his game.

Gonzalez couldn't believe how Hoad could just flick winners from ten feet behind the baseline.

For pure offensive weapons I don't know if anyone was superior to Hoad. The guy had a massive serve, powerful volley, hit the ball on the rise and had super fast topspin groundies.

I'm not saying he was the best offensive player because the best offensive player also has to avoid errors and with Hoad's high risk style he made a lot of errors.

Some other players to consider would be Ellsworth Vines, Don Budge, Jack Kramer, Arthur Ashe, John Newcombe and well as the ones Borg number one mentioned above.

 

[mental midget]

Outstanding post, in my opinion.


***


I agree with all of you who talk of Federer as someone who also plays very well defensively, and implying or outright stating that thus his nature is to be a balanced player. But, I think of it less as tendency and more as pure results. Federer, in his way, produces more winners even against top tier opponents in the vast majority of matches he plays, and controls the tempi of matches extremely well.

So, it's sort of a tendency/inclination/ethos VS pure results regardless of base *instinct* approach.

Anyway, I certainly don't believe you guys deserved to be flamed for your opinions, they are very valid and very reasonably arguable, there can be no doubt.

***

Federer seems to be going through another transition to me, in which he is looking to impose his game more immediately on his opponents, upping the aggression and changing his general ethos for the game of tennis; thoughts on this?

i'd have a hard time labeling federer a counterpuncher. hewitt, mecir, chang, those are counterpunchers. they counter their opponents punches, waiting for errors, redirecting pace, etc. what they don't do is pull the trigger out of nowhere and blast winners from all over the court, which is what federer does. yes, he is also plays incredible defense, but he didn't captivate the tennis world 'counterpunching' his way up the rankings. he did it by being a human highlight reel.

 

[DeShaun]

Pancho and Tilden should be included. Pancho needs no explanation--he picked up where Kramer left off, improving on his fellow Californian's already dominant attacking game. While Big Bill was the seminal proponent of an all-court game, his stroke production and tactical awareness were extremely advanced for his day, such that the vast majority of matches he played must have rested solely on his racket, which it to suggest that, in matches, it must have been only a matter of "when," he decided to attack, with the outcome being virtually assured...it sounds like he did a lot of toying with his opponents, and one cannot usually do this unless he is able to attack at will.

 

[Bobby Jr]

Sampras, Federer and Nadal....

Nadal because he is always pushing you around left to right, always looking to hit a winner.

Except that Nadal generally doesn't hit many winners relative to his opponents and the unforced error rate in the match - he just usually makes far fewer errors.

US Open final vs Djokovic.
Winners: Nadal 49 - Dojokovic 46 (3 more)
u/f errors: Nadal 31 - Djokovic 47 (16 fewer)

Semis vs Youzhny (Nadal destroyed him in 3 sets)
Winners: Nadal 23 - Youzhny 22 (1 more)
u/f errors: Nadal 19 - Youzhny 33 (14 less)

Quarters vs Verdasko (again, a 3 set smashing)
Winners: Nadal 18 - Verdasko 25 (7 less)
u/f errors: Nadal 16 - Verdasko 41 (25 less)

4th round vs Lopez (again, a 3 set smashing)
Winners: Nadal 29 - Lopez 27 (2 more)
u/f errors: Nadal 14 - Lopez 41 (27 less)

Whereas Djokovic's run to the final looked like this:
Semis vs Federer (this match is the anomaly as it's against the best attacker of this era imo)
Winners: Djokovic 38 - Federer 48 (10 less)
u/f errors: Djokovic 38 - Federer 66 (28 less)

Quarters vs Monfils
Winners: Djokovic 38 - Monfils 17 (21 more)
u/f errors: Djokovic 50 - Monfils 37 (13 more)

4th round vs Fish
Winners: Djokovic 30 - Fish 13 (17 more)
u/f errors: Djokovic 28 - Monfils 30 (2 fewer)

Nadal's tournaments almost always look like the above - huge gaps in the unforced error rates and small gaps in the winner rates. Federer on the other hand usually has miles more winners than his opponents - even when he loses as above against Djokovic.

 

[PrinceMoron]

I find Murray pretty offensive.

 

[WCT]

I don't see how someone who pays so much attention and usually posts so astutely can say that. Federer plays, on average, closer to the baseline than any of his peers. Watch almost any match where he's playing OK and he'll be closer to the baseline than his opponent most of the time. He also spends more time in the court than them too.

That's how I see Federer as well. ESPN uses the dots of each shot where you can see the court positioning. Federer usually has a lot at or inside the baseline.

Is he an alltime offensive player? No. Even today, I don't think as offensive off the ground as Solderling. But comparatively speaking, I'd call him offensive. Federer takes a lot of balls on the rise. Again, not all time in the sense of an Agassi, but a whole lot more than someone like Nadal does.

I concede thought that he could have a natural counter-puncher mentality - just with a significantly better forehand than most others in history for hitting clean winners from the baseline. Since he ends so many rallys from there it might seem like he's a counter-puncher who doesn't want to dictate the centre of the court. Maybe he just doesn't need to given his shotmaking. I still say he's overwhelmingly an offensive-minded player.

He hits so many tremendous shots from defensive positions, but I don't think that necessarily makes him a defensive minded, or reactive, player. More often than not I think he dictates the rallies and play, not react to the aggressiveness or shotmaking of his opponent.

Drucker used the term counterpuncher so many times in his book on Connors and I didn't view prime Connors that way.

First off, to me, the ultimate counterpunch is the return of serve.
The serve is the most dominant single shot in the game. The return is a counter to that, but every player returns half the time. Laver plays Roche in the 69 US Open, half the games he was returning, in a sense counterpunching. But would anyone categorize him as a defensive player, a counterpuncher?

Once the rally started, Connors was not my idea of a counterpuncher. How could you watch the 76 US Open final and call Connors a counterpuncher? The flow of the match is dictated by his aggression, his winners, forceful approaches or errors. Borg is the counterpouncher, reacting to what Connors is doing.

An issue with Federer playing Nadal - and indeed most people playing him - is his speed and leftiness lead people to overplay shots or go for ones they don't hit as often against others. Shots that would win them the rally against most players, or start a chain of shots to, don't against Nadal - they are often right in his zone - deep and to his forehand. That's always going to be a hard ask.

It's just not that easy. This guy is an all time retriever. IMO, Solderling hit Federer right off the court in the quarterfinals of the French last year.
He tried to do the same to Nadal. Tried to do it at Wimbledon. This guys runs down everything and hits great shots after he does.

I think last years French is an excellent example of a defensive minded player winning. I'm a bit surprised at the US Open stats you posted, though. I thought at both Wimbledon and the US that Nadal was playing more aggressively. Not so aggressive that I thought he was dominating with winners, but he barely led, at best, in matches that he won in straight sets.

 

[mtr1]

A very interesting topic, great thread!
Just to add to the mini-Federer debate, I would say Peak Federer is primarily an offensive player. He is willing to rally and move the ball around from the baseline, but almost always strikes first in the rally, rather than reacting to his opponents offensive play. Of course it helps that when his opponent is on the offense, Federer is an exceptional counterpuncher, and very often can turn defence into attack. If we use the 2010 AO Final as an example (there are numerous examples, this is just a recent one), Federer outhits a quality baseliner in Andy Murray by being offensive from the baseline, getting the first strike, and moving forward.
So my "list" would be (in no order), Federer, Rafter, McEnroe, Edberg, Sampras, Becker, Laver, Lendl, P.Gonzalez, Safin.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

Except that Nadal generally doesn't hit many winners relative to his opponents and the unforced error rate in the match - he just usually makes far fewer errors.

US Open final vs Djokovic.
Winners: Nadal 49 - Dojokovic 46 (3 more)
u/f errors: Nadal 31 - Djokovic 47 (16 fewer)

Semis vs Youzhny (Nadal destroyed him in 3 sets)
Winners: Nadal 23 - Youzhny 22 (1 more)
u/f errors: Nadal 19 - Youzhny 33 (14 less)

Quarters vs Verdasko (again, a 3 set smashing)
Winners: Nadal 18 - Verdasko 25 (7 less)
u/f errors: Nadal 16 - Verdasko 41 (25 less)

4th round vs Lopez (again, a 3 set smashing)
Winners: Nadal 29 - Lopez 27 (2 more)
u/f errors: Nadal 14 - Lopez 41 (27 less)

Whereas Djokovic's run to the final looked like this:
Semis vs Federer (this match is the anomaly as it's against the best attacker of this era imo)
Winners: Djokovic 38 - Federer 48 (10 less)
u/f errors: Djokovic 38 - Federer 66 (28 less)

Quarters vs Monfils
Winners: Djokovic 38 - Monfils 17 (21 more)
u/f errors: Djokovic 50 - Monfils 37 (13 more)

4th round vs Fish
Winners: Djokovic 30 - Fish 13 (17 more)
u/f errors: Djokovic 28 - Monfils 30 (2 fewer)

Nadal's tournaments almost always look like the above - huge gaps in the unforced error rates and small gaps in the winner rates. Federer on the other hand usually has miles more winners than his opponents - even when he loses as above against Djokovic.

Yep.

Federer's aggression these days is a lot more patient than it used to be and with the slowing of the surfaces I suppose it was necessary. Also, in his prime, he played with such confidence and freedom, showing supreme aggression with his forehand during rallies and easily rifling winners past all of his opponents left and right. His aggression would have been far clearer in an earlier era where the conditions were quicker.

Federer is clearly the player who shows the most consistent and successful offense of his era. Generally, being at the top of the pile in your era should put you into the discussion. However, he is certainly not no.1 in terms of the most aggressive player in the history of tennis but should certainly be respected as an offensive genius, from the baseline especially.

 

[You Can't Be Serious]

David Nainkin, a member of the USTA High Performance Staff and former ATP player from South Africa, felt the opposite.

At a conference two years ago he thought Federer was trained more for defense and that many of his angled shots hit off the court are defensive given his high percentage of shot making.

Perhaps a few people on this forum also heard Nainkin speak.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

I find Murray pretty offensive.

LOL!

I only just got the joke here...

 

[abmk]

I find Murray pretty offensive.

LOL

This post FTW !

 

[Bobby Jr]

That's how I see Federer as well. ESPN uses the dots of each shot where you can see the court positioning. Federer usually has a lot at or inside the baseline.

Yep. I've seen a similar thing (maybe the same) which shoes his court movement path over a set. His positioning was miles closer on average to the baseline - and also to the centre line - than his opponent (vs Djokovic I think).

...The flow of the match is dictated by his aggression, his winners, forceful approaches or errors. Borg is the counterpouncher, reacting to what Connors is doing.

I know you're talking about Connors here but this point is exactly why Federer must be considered an offensive player at the grassroots level - unlike Murray and Nadal. He forces his tone on the match as much as possible. The AO final was a perfect example - he simply wouldn't allow Murray to dictate the terms whatsoever, and Murray's earlier winning strategy quickly looked quite beatable when the right approach was used.

I'm a bit surprised at the US Open stats you posted, though. I thought at both Wimbledon and the US that Nadal was playing more aggressively.

That is the interesting thing about Nadal. The US Open stats I posted aren't an oddity for Nadal - they are the norm for him. Even in extremely dominant wins his winner to error ratios rarely look anything like Federer's or Djokovic's. The offensive style - hitting out and going for more winners - comes with more risk so the error rate is generally comparably higher too (as Federer's USO match with Djokovic above shows).

 

[abmk]

I've suggested Federer is defensive before, only to get the inevitable flaming. I think overall he is fairly neutral/balanced (some offense, some defense). He's capable of taking offense very well, but he actually likes to play quite far back behind the baseline and rally.....I actually think this is where Federer really shines, and in that sense, I would call him a naturally defensive player: He's a COUNTERPUNCHER, an excellent one. While he can pounce on a weak ball, he likes to strike back against other players big shots....this is when he really shines. His speed and balance allow him to create in what might be very defensive situations for others.

I don't see Fed as the kind of player who NATURALLY likes to take total control of the center of the court over and over eg. Agassi, Lendl, Courier etc. Those guys love to set up over and over and run the other guy corner to corner to corner with their big forehands and 2 handed drives. (Lendl of course had to use a 1 hander, but actually his set-up spot was often favouring the BH side, so he could easily run around BH and pound away with inside out and down the line FH.....Courier as well)

It's one of the basic themes in his problems against Nadal. Why doesn't he just take charge and drive Nadal around with "flat" blasts....well....that isn't his natural game, and it's even harder for him with the heaviness of Nadal's shots. Fed has to force himself to try to go in with that kind of aggression, and he tends to make more errors trying to force that (unless he's totally zoned).

In this way Fed reminds me somewhat of Pete Sampras who did something similar. Pete wasn't really there to suddenly try to take control and rip forhands from corner to corner. Pete was pretty patient, and felt like "hey...all I need to do is neutralize you...I'm superior on serve, I'm superior on volley....you need to be afraid I'll sneak in....you need to be afraid I'll make a huge counterpunch (eg. running forehand)...you need to be afraid of giving me the short ball....what have you got left? That's right....for everything else, I can just play back neutralizing shots....and wait...when I get that right ball I'll suddenly strike".

Fed thinks "I like to just rally...find my rhythm....look beautiful and easy....I can handle your big shots...and you never know when I'll respond with an angle or huge pace shot of my own....I can just wait till I get one I like!"

Fed's a counterpuncher. He is not as his best trying to force his will, or dictate all the points....he's at his best when he is just neutralizing the other guy, and waiting for his moment to strike with his shotmaking.

PS. Note...it seems like some of the youngsters have caught on to this a bit, but like to point at his slice BH....I actually think this is misleading and a bad move by Fed. I remember when commentators started making a big deal of that slice....oooohhh the opponents can't handle that short slice....well....yeah...sometimes....and I am glad it's PART of his arsenal...but often it gets him in trouble....and I felt that he started using it more due to lesser confidence! I preferred earlier Fed of say 04, who, in my memory, seemed to be using nice topspin backhands and less slice. One thing that helps him though is that 2 handers have a bit more trouble responding to this shot if it's hit well.....

It's so beautifully ironic though that many of the young fanboys tote the short slice as a great new weapon.....when say 10 years ago, those same fanboys would have said it was a completely ineffective, outdated, suicide shot!

I don't see how someone who pays so much attention and usually posts so astutely can say that. Federer plays, on average, closer to the baseline than any of his peers. Watch almost any match where he's playing OK and he'll be closer to the baseline than his opponent most of the time. He also spends more time in the court than them too.

That's how I see Federer as well. ESPN uses the dots of each shot where you can see the court positioning. Federer usually has a lot at or inside the baseline.

Is he an alltime offensive player? No. Even today, I don't think as offensive off the ground as Solderling. But comparatively speaking, I'd call him offensive. Federer takes a lot of balls on the rise. Again, not all time in the sense of an Agassi, but a whole lot more than someone like Nadal does.

He hits so many tremendous shots from defensive positions, but I don't think that necessarily makes him a defensive minded, or reactive, player. More often than not I think he dictates the rallies and play, not react to the aggressiveness or shotmaking of his opponent.

Don't worry, its just datacipher with another of his absurd statements

the first bolded sentence of his is just insane to say the least ...

everyone who has watched fed play knows he takes it on the rise often , plays close to the baseline and not far behind the baseline

He is NOT an out and out aggressive player, but he is fairly aggressive ... he has counterpunching tendencies , especially more so with his BH and is very good at that but he likes to take control more often that not

as far as the the second bolded sentence is considered, putting lendl and courier there is laughable, they relied more on outgriding opponents ( in general ) when compared to fed who hits winners more frequently ...

so making the opponents run around left right is more offensive than hitting outright winners ? LOL, LOL and LOL !

 

[MurrayisBEAST]

Federer, Nadal, and Sampras are the best offensive players imo. (even though I hate Nadal)

 

[JeMar]

I would add Del Potro to the discussion (not as a greatest of all time, obviously, but one of the most offensive players of today). He hits so hard and flat with every single stroke that he's gotta earn some points for consistency, at the very least.

 

[piece]

Don't worry, its just datacipher with another of his absurd statements

the first bolded sentence of his is just insane to say the least ...

everyone who has watched fed play knows he takes it on the rise often , plays close to the baseline and not far behind the baseline

He is NOT an out and out aggressive player, but he is fairly aggressive ... he has counterpunching tendencies , especially more so with his BH and is very good at that but he likes to take control more often that not

as far as the the second bolded sentence is considered, putting lendl and courier there is laughable, they relied more on outgriding opponents ( in general ) when compared to fed who hits winners more frequently ...

so making the opponents run around left right is more offensive than hitting outright winners ? LOL, LOL and LOL !

I was gonna say something about Data's contention that Fed hangs well behind the baseline but then I thought to myself "Nah, abmk's probably on to it", and surely enough....

 

[Mustard]

Federer and Lendl seem to completely control the tempo of play most of the time, and they are/were rarely rattled. In fact, the way players usually try to beat them, and have to try to beat them, is to get them out of their rhythm which isn't easy to do.

True, but it could be done. Mecir's 7-5, 6-2, 7-5 win over Lendl in the 1987 Miami final is the most rattled I've ever seen Lendl on a tennis court. Lendl was rattled with everything that day from the high level of Mecir's play to the umpire, line judges and the teething troubles on the speaker systems. Mecir even mocked Lendl's call for the ballkids to cover towels around the court area by sarcastically asking the ballboys to cover the towels by their changeover seats. Like Queen Victoria, Lendl was not amused.

 

[WCT]

That is the interesting thing about Nadal. The US Open stats I posted aren't an oddity for Nadal - they are the norm for him. Even in extremely dominant wins his winner to error ratios rarely look anything like Federer's or Djokovic's. The offensive style - hitting out and going for more winners - comes with more risk so the error rate is generally comparably higher too (as Federer's USO match with Djokovic above shows).

Before last year I wouldn't have been surprised. And it's not that I thought he would have had an big edge even last year. But he doesn't really have an edge in any match. Even the ones he won easily.

At Wimbledon and the Open, my naked eye told me he was much more aggressive than at the French where those numbers wouldn't have surprised me at all.

In my mind, the 2010 US Open Nadal was clearly more aggressive, and took the ball earlier than the 2008 Nadal who lost to Murray in the semis. Seemed like he was doing 3/4 of the running in that match. The 2 sets I saw, anyway. I only saw the Sunday part. That year they were playing the 2 mens semis at the same time and CBS was showing the Federer match.

But I guess the difference wasn't as much as I thought. Your stats say so, anyway.

 

[Bobby Jr]

You're right WTC. It's an oddity that people say Nadal has played a more aggressive style in recent time - the stats show he hasn't really changed much in how he wins.

FYI, Wimbledon 2010 from the quarters.

NADAL
Final vs Berdych (3 set very dominant win)
Winners: Nadal 29 - Berdych 27 (2 more)
u/f errors: Nadal 21 - Berdych 17 (4 more)

Semi final vs Murray (3 set dominant win)
Winners: Nadal 31 - Murray 37 (6 less)
u/f errors: Nadal 13 - Murray 19 (6 less)

Quarter final vs Soderling (4 set relatively comfortable win)
Winners: Nadal 31 - Soderling 42 (11 less)
u/f errors: Nadal 12 - Soderling 35 (23 less)

BERDYCH
Semi final vs Djokovic (3 set dominant win)
Winners: Berdych 34 - Djokovic 24 (10 more)
u/f errors: Berdych 17 - Djokovic 22 (5 less)

Quarter final vs Federer (4 set win*)
Winners: Berdych 51 - Federer 44 (7 more)
u/f errors: Berdych 23 - Federer 18 (5 more)

(note: Federer played pretty poorly yet still hit over 40% more winners than any of Nadal's matches above)

In each match above Nadal hit, on average, 5 less winners than his opponents, but made 8.3 less errors.

Berdych on the other hand hit, on average, 5.6 more winners than his opponents, and also 1.33 less errors.

Federer in his last 3 matches including the loss to Berdych was hitting almost 4 more winners and 5.6 less errors (I.e. this creates a relative difference of 9 winners over Nadal and 1.5 less than Berdych, but also 2.7 more errors than Nadal but 4.3 less than Berdych)

FYI: I posted some graphs last year with the tournament path of a number of players showing of the ratio of winners to unforced errors and how Federer/Nadal are more consistent in their ratios and generally improve upwards as the tournament goes on - usually unlike any of their peers who 'bounce around' in the ratios more. The ratios seem to be a highly indicative of true form and one's ability to peak at the right time.