I fear defensive tennis is inherently more powerful.

[HunterST]

Attacking tennis is beautiful and exciting to see. There’s nothing more impressive that a baseline winner, a put away volley, or an overhead smash. Such shots are even part of it considered the textbook way of playing tennis. Push forward, take time away from the opponent, finish at the net, etc.

but.

I suspect and fear that, given the players are of equal skill, defensive styles are more winning. A defensive style demands less of the player and takes the degree of difficulty down for them. Simultaneously, it asks the more offensive player to do more: hit down the line, come to net, execute overheads, etc. Other than for the absolute best players, that is a very tough ask.

Now, naturally you can find tons of examples of offensive players beating defensive players. First, I'm not saying a defensive style will win every match. Just that it would probably win a statistical majority. Second, I think it's important to clarify that the players should be of equal skill. If one player is significantly more skilled, they could win with pretty much any style. It seems, though, that for any great offensive player, you can come up with a defense-oriented player who would give them fits.

I almost hate to bring it up, but the Nadal/Federer rivalry kind of stands out to me as an example at the very pinnacle of the game. Federer has one of the greatest offensive games ever. Still, when you give him an equal but opposite defensive player, he loses more than he wins.

What do you think? Is defensive play just inherently an easier way to win?

 

[FlamingCheeto]

this is incorrect. At 4.0 or lower level defense or actually just getting the ball back and not making an error will win you every match.

But from 5.0 to Pro, you can NOT WIN a match by just playing defense, you have to be able to hit winners or at least create forced unforced errors from your opponent to have a chance.

 

[Rosstour]

Attacking tennis is beautiful and exciting to see. There’s nothing more impressive that a baseline winner, a put away volley, or an overhead smash. Such shots are even part of it considered the textbook way of playing tennis. Push forward, take time away from the opponent, finish at the net, etc.

but.

I suspect and fear that, given the players are of equal skill, defensive styles are more winning. A defensive style demands less of the player and takes the degree of difficulty down for them. Simultaneously, it asks the more offensive player to do more: hit down the line, come to net, execute overheads, etc. Other than for the absolute best players, that is a very tough ask.

Now, naturally you can find tons of examples of offensive players beating defensive players. First, I'm not saying a defensive style will win every match. Just that it would probably win a statistical majority. Second, I think it's important to clarify that the players should be of equal skill. If one player is significantly more skilled, they could win with pretty much any style. It seems, though, that for any great offensive player, you can come up with a defense-oriented player who would give them fits.

I almost hate to bring it up, but the Nadal/Federer rivalry kind of stands out to me as an example at the very pinnacle of the game. Federer has one of the greatest offensive games ever. Still, when you give him an equal but opposite defensive player, he loses more than he wins.

What do you think? Is defensive play just inherently an easier way to win?

Fed not being able to stop Nadal and Djokovic has much more to do with age. Give them all equal age and things get more interesting.

Maybe you could remind us when the last time Fed's offensive game lost to Rafa's defensive game outside of clay?

 

[mcs1970]

this is incorrect. At 4.0 or lower level defense or actually just getting the ball back and not making an error will win you every match.

But from 5.0 to Pro, you can NOT WIN a match by just playing defense, you have to be able to hit winners or at least create forced unforced errors from your opponent to have a chance.

Which means OPs point will apply to about 95% of folks on this forum if not 95% of the overall rec tennis playing population.

 

[Rosstour]

What is undoubtedly true is that elite (or "powerful") tennis includes, by necessity, elite defense.

@Gary Duane has all kinds of neat stats to illustrate that what really separates the dominant player from the field is defense, which is expressed stat-wise in service-return games won.

 

[sureshs]

Attacking tennis is beautiful and exciting to see. There’s nothing more impressive that a baseline winner, a put away volley, or an overhead smash. Such shots are even part of it considered the textbook way of playing tennis. Push forward, take time away from the opponent, finish at the net, etc.

but.

I suspect and fear that, given the players are of equal skill, defensive styles are more winning. A defensive style demands less of the player and takes the degree of difficulty down for them. Simultaneously, it asks the more offensive player to do more: hit down the line, come to net, execute overheads, etc. Other than for the absolute best players, that is a very tough ask.

Now, naturally you can find tons of examples of offensive players beating defensive players. First, I'm not saying a defensive style will win every match. Just that it would probably win a statistical majority. Second, I think it's important to clarify that the players should be of equal skill. If one player is significantly more skilled, they could win with pretty much any style. It seems, though, that for any great offensive player, you can come up with a defense-oriented player who would give them fits.

I almost hate to bring it up, but the Nadal/Federer rivalry kind of stands out to me as an example at the very pinnacle of the game. Federer has one of the greatest offensive games ever. Still, when you give him an equal but opposite defensive player, he loses more than he wins.

What do you think? Is defensive play just inherently an easier way to win?

Only if you have great stamina and speed (at the higher levels). I am not sure that is "easier."

Nadal vs Federer issue is more about high to-the-backhand top spin against a 1 hander. In fact, Federer's defensive strategy of slicing had to be replaced with topspin on the backhand side, after which he defeated Nadal like 5 times in a row. Nadal was eating up those slices.

 

[Morch Us]

Ability to extract errors from opponent wins the matches at ANY level.

Defense and Offense are relative terms. A lob an offense or defense ? A moonball an offensive shot or defensive shot?

The point is it depends on the skill level. A NTRP 2.5 guy trying to do "Federer" down the line winners from deep court over and over, is not offense... it is called self-destruction. But a moonball could be considered an offensive shot, if that can easily extract errors from the NTRP 2.5 opponent.

At ATP level doing a moonball is not enough to extract errors from opponent, and so you have to act accordingly, and moonball will be a shot at extreme defense.

Now back to your original thought process, I agree that generally players should give more importance for consistency at lower levels of play, and that is important for winning as well as development (this is not really defense, but possibly neutral rally). But that does not mean you cannot be on offense, you can work your way into offense, and most of the time the point will end before you reach there.

What do you think? Is defensive play just inherently an easier way to win?

 

[eah123]

The MEP saga pretty much proves your point!

 

[Shroud]

The MEP saga pretty much proves your point!

I think so but has he faced an offensive player? I have just seen him playing more defensive baseliners mostly. He lost to Topher because Topher brought the offense.

 

[zipplock]

Defense wins championships, but .....

Murray has how slams?

 

[Dragy]

To add to the discussion, I’d ask what exactly you consider winning in tennis? The game is rather dialectic in terms that we should play and win one point at a time, and meanwhile there are matches, tournaments and even seasons to last through. If you speak about pro players, it’s extremely important for them to perform well week after week, month after month - not just for ranking and money, but also for high level experience and development.

And here we get to a question: how many matches you want to play? How many hours on-court you can afford physically? Retrieving to defensive play, can you, personally, last through a tournament? Grinder style suits some players - not so much the others, if we speak about rec crowd. Well, same for pros - we see some empty by the second week.

One can rely on defensive basis, but what if he faces dreaded pusher - is he up for 3h attrition war? Better have good offensive skills for those high percentage opportunities, better have options to force shorter points whenever you are behind in all-defensive play.

Whole another chapter is serving. Blasting for max power aside, if you can develop precise serves with variety and rely on weaker returns to win service games, why on earth would you not use it?! Same with returns - if opponent is tapping his 2nd serve in weakly, why wouldn’t you put him on stretch right away?

Defensive skills are extremely valuable and win matches, but tennis shouldn’t be limited to those, imho.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

There is no single style that is better than the other: just combinations of factors that play part in exacerbating advantages and deficiencies.

Federer vs Nadal rivalry is influenced by age differences, surface skews, racquet technology and match up issues: all part of the reason why it is not indicative of anything concerning which is "better".

 

[ubercat]

I think variety is another form of attack.

 

[cha cha]

I used to push. Until I stopped and decided to hit harder and attack one day. That was about 3-4 years ago. Nothing has changed about my winning or losing. I still win and loose to the same opponents I had before the change. The balls I used to win and miss from the baseline are now won and missed at the net. The only thing that really changed is the fact that my game is more watchable and less taxing nowadays, because I have no intention of allowing the rallies to drag out to 20 shots and more.
I accidentally served and volleyed yesterday. I just hit the serve and followed it in by mistake. That is how you know you have changed your attitude.

 

[mxmx]

Traditionally, attack will always trump defence.

 

[ZanderGoga]

Nadal stopped being competitive against Federer years ago.

 

[Morch Us]

Since many other posters commented about this....

Do you think Nadal was scrambling out all the time, and Federer was just making an unforced error in the end? Or was Nadal forcing the issue during those years, giving Federer uncomfortable balls? Flatter penetrating shot is not the only offensive shot.

Nadal/Federer rivalry kind of stands out to me as an example

 

[AnyPUG]

"Defensive" is more "powerful"? "Offensive" is more "weak"? Loosing is winning and Winning is loosing ? Friday is really Thankgodday !

 

[Fxanimator1]

There is no single style that is better than the other: just combinations of factors that play part in exacerbating advantages and deficiencies.

Federer vs Nadal rivalry is influenced by age differences, surface skews, racquet technology and match up issues: all part of the reason why it is not indicative of anything concerning which is "better".

To your point, the ATP and tennis tournaments have done everything in their power to slow courts down. Wimbledon plays no where near as fast as when Sampras played.
Roger is the generation between Sampras and Nadal really, so tennis tournaments have sort of been working against Federer's game style that he learned, based on the conditions that prevailed when he learned, and age of course.
It sort of proves how great Federer is as a tennis player.

 

[Dartagnan64]

Counterpunching is the predominant tennis style especially for winning slams. That's a defensive oriented play style. The OP is not wrong that first strike tennis is on the decline. Not saying the Gille Simon's are going to win slams by pushing but certainly winning from behind the baseline is more and more common.

Bottom line: Technology made the serve too big a weapon so the tennis bodies slowed the courts to clay levels and the rest is history.

 

[5263]

Attacking tennis is beautiful and exciting to see. There’s nothing more impressive that a baseline winner, a put away volley, or an overhead smash. Such shots are even part of it considered the textbook way of playing tennis. Push forward, take time away from the opponent, finish at the net, etc.

but.

I suspect and fear that, given the players are of equal skill, defensive styles are more winning. A defensive style demands less of the player and takes the degree of difficulty down for them. Simultaneously, it asks the more offensive player to do more: hit down the line, come to net, execute overheads, etc. Other than for the absolute best players, that is a very tough ask.

Now, naturally you can find tons of examples of offensive players beating defensive players. First, I'm not saying a defensive style will win every match. Just that it would probably win a statistical majority. Second, I think it's important to clarify that the players should be of equal skill. If one player is significantly more skilled, they could win with pretty much any style. It seems, though, that for any great offensive player, you can come up with a defense-oriented player who would give them fits.

I almost hate to bring it up, but the Nadal/Federer rivalry kind of stands out to me as an example at the very pinnacle of the game. Federer has one of the greatest offensive games ever. Still, when you give him an equal but opposite defensive player, he loses more than he wins.

What do you think? Is defensive play just inherently an easier way to win?

I'd say that on the surface for rec level this tends to be true, but as always, the level of the defense vs the level of offense is key. Just because a player is solid on offense doesn't always translate to excellent defense.

Then as you rise in the levels, the harder shots put far more stress on the human physical limitations. There is a ball speed where not only is it very hard to get to the first ball, but it can get worse with each successive shot. An Ace is the extreme example, since roughly, 121mph to the right spot is beyond the human level to cover. Pros can routinely hit in the 80-90 range which when hit to the right hitting lanes, humans can't cover for long if at all. Top players will do this if even another pro goes too defensive.

My suggestion is not that novel, but the idea is a Dual Objectives balance. In this balance you should be defensive at the right times and in the right ways, but have the ability to bring offense in ways that you can execute at a high level.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

Bottom line: Technology made the serve too big a weapon so the tennis bodies slowed the courts to clay levels and the rest is history.

No one has ever explained why there was a need to neutralise a big weapon on some surfaces. If technology made the serve too big of a weapon, why is that a problem? There certainly are plenty of conditions where it is still not as big of a weapon, so why can't the big servers have their place under the sun, just like the baseliner grinders have theirs?

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

I think variety is another form of attack.

It is but I think many overdo variety for variety's sake and thus become a "jack of all trades but a master of none". I'd advise someone to use less variety and to get better at the core shots before worrying too much about adding more weapons.

 

[Dartagnan64]

No one has ever explained why there was a need to neutralise a big weapon on some surfaces. If technology made the serve too big of a weapon, why is that a problem? There certainly are plenty of conditions where it is still not as big of a weapon, so why can't the big servers have their place under the sun, just like the baseliner grinders have theirs?

Because just like women shrieking in tennis rallies, it was putting off fans. No breaks of serve, no rallies. It's like watching a long driving competition vs. a PGA event.

The serve is still a weapon but it's been neutered. I wish they could have found a way to keep serve and volley as a legitimate style in tennis though.

But can you imagine a world where the guys winning slams are named Raonic, Anderson, Isner and karlovic rather than Federer, Djokovic, Nadal and Murray?

 

[ChaelAZ]

All things equal, and attacking player will hit winners where a defensive player will only just get the ball back, so the opportunity to take points sides with the attacking player. But things are usually never equal, so that is where the mix of both plays in. There are appropriate times for both styles really.

 

[StringSnapper]

Everyone speaks in absolutes. Finding the balance between offence and defence on a given day on a given court against a given opponent is key I'd say!

 

[vex]

For amateur tennis? Kinda, to a point. But as you get to 5.0+ up to pro level, you’re “defense” is still really good shots. OP mentioned Nadal, one of the most unique offensive forces in tennis. He can play great defense at times but he’s very much an offensive player. There’s only one Federer and even he block slices his returns back. Tennis is about being as aggressive as your skills allow while playing high percentage tennis. Some guys can be more aggressive than others but you can’t “just play defense” and beat anyone after 5.0. Even TTW Darling MEP doesn’t “just play defense”

 

[pencilcheck]

Defensive tennis is what tennis is about. The rule is simple, if you hit out once you lose the point, but if you keep it in play, you don't lose the point. There is no point in hitting fast, hitting spinny, hitting slicy, etc. The reason slice, topspin, and fast pace exist is to hope the others will miss and make mistake.

Therefore when people talk about first strike tennis while ignoring the rule, I know right away that either they are already high level players who can confidently get any stroke back in play without thinking, or beginners who think that's how to win and lack control so this is their way to not getting exposed.

 

[StringSnapper]

Everyone speaks in absolutes. Finding the balance between offence and defence on a given day on a given court against a given opponent is key I'd say!

To add to this, I like to try and play my game so its fast enough / big enough that the opponent is rushed and on their toes, like they cant settle into their rhythm. Big enough to hit passing shots and keep an opponent off the net, or at least make them question coming in.

But small enough that I'm not hitting winners (or errors!) heaps, because this will often lead to too many inconsistent errors.

So the aim is not to hit winners (but you will sometimes), but instead to force errors

Even pro tennis is won by forcing errors

Hit a big enough serve or return to put you on the offensive, and stay there. Dont try to win with blazing shots, just try to maintain offense. Make the game difficult for your opponent and keep them in that difficulty. As MEP would say "take them to places they dont want to go, and see how long they can hang out there". But all the while you need to be comfortable and maintain a consistent focus hanging out at that place too. But that's what makes the winner - practiced being at that place. You've identified and refined a game plan that has no massive flaws or weak matchups

The problem with this thread ( and MEP gamestyle) was exposed - it lacks when an opponent crashes the net with good volleys and overheads.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

The problem with this thread ( and MEP gamestyle) was exposed - it lacks when an opponent crashes the net with good volleys and overheads.

But it's not as if crashing the net with a good net game is guaranteed to win: it depends on the ability to execute consistently [which Ian did, in spades] and an opponent that doesn't crank up the passing shots [some people love a target and do better when the opponent is at net].

I think it was the perfect storm of variables all in Ian's favor:
- Indoor court
- Out of the elements
- Net-centric game plan vs MEP's style
- Possible fatigue of MEP

 

[vex]

To add to this, I like to try and play my game so its fast enough / big enough that the opponent is rushed and on their toes, like they cant settle into their rhythm. Big enough to hit passing shots and keep an opponent off the net, or at least make them question coming in.

But small enough that I'm not hitting winners (or errors!) heaps, because this will often lead to too many inconsistent errors.

So the aim is not to hit winners (but you will sometimes), but instead to force errors

Even pro tennis is won by forcing errors

Hit a big enough serve or return to put you on the offensive, and stay there. Dont try to win with blazing shots, just try to maintain offense. Make the game difficult for your opponent and keep them in that difficulty. As MEP would say "take them to places they dont want to go, and see how long they can hang out there". But all the while you need to be comfortable and maintain a consistent focus hanging out at that place too. But that's what makes the winner - practiced being at that place. You've identified and refined a game plan that has no massive flaws or weak matchups

The problem with this thread ( and MEP gamestyle) was exposed - it lacks when an opponent crashes the net with good volleys and overheads.

^ Best post in this thread

 

[vex]

But it's not as if crashing the net with a good net game is guaranteed to win: it depends on the ability to execute consistently [which Ian did, in spades] and an opponent that doesn't crank up the passing shots [some people love a target and do better when the opponent is at net].

I think it was the perfect storm of variables all in Ian's favor:
- Indoor court
- Out of the elements
- Net-centric game plan vs MEP's style
- Possible fatigue of MEP

I mean the match played out exactly how I said it would. There’s no getting around it the MEP style of play has a very defined ceiling. He chews up people with flaws and people unable to take advantage of the opportunities he consistently gives them and people who can’t stay focused. He’s like tennis’s version of a wood chipper. If you keep feeding it wood (ie. camp on the baseline or try to over hit or lose your focus/endurance)...

But against a complete player he’s not going to win unless they self-destruct. Ian did a brilliant job not even ATTEMPTING to overpower MEP. There’s no need. Average pace, accurate groundstrokes keep MEP moving and keep him permanently in defense mode. After that beating him comes down to a couple questions: 1) Are you fast enough to close and get a good volley/overhead off his defense and 2) can you put away volleys and overheads? MEP is not beating Ian unless Ian beats himself. To his credit MEP wins a lot because not many people can check all those boxes (accurate groundstrokes, good athleticism, ability to finish at the net / mid court) AND ALSO maintain thier focus when inevitably they make some mistakes while executing the game plan. Ian could absolutely blow a match by not staying mentally tough (watch the 5th game in the second set for example) but as long as that doesn’t happen, he’s the quintessential ceiling for the MEP style of play.

It’s not a coincidence that the second and third sets were closer. MEP explains the first set bagel as “not being on his game at the start” which may be true to an extent. But the primary reason is that Ian was completely fresh in the first set. The taxing nature of this type of match made the later sets more competitive. You have to be sharp to execute the game plan and fatigue is a huge factor.

 

[socallefty]

At higher levels, it is hard to decide what is defensive tennis and what is offensive tennis. Someone like Rafa or Thiem can return from 15 feet back, stay well behind the baseline and hit bigger than their opponent while making less errors - they rip winners as soon as they get a chance. Novak hits the ball on rise from close to the baseline, serves big, but often doesn’t have more winners than his beaten opponent, but he will have fewer unforced errors. Opponents who play him stay they feel constantly under pressure because of his deep returns and groundstrokes hit on the rise. Are they playing power baseline offensive tennis or counterpunching defensive tennis?

I also see that in Open UTR tournaments and college tennis where players adjust their risk level and hitting pace in matches depending on the matchup. I feel like players at 5.0+ can easily adjust the style they play as they all can play both at the net and the baseline with a lot of power and consistency.

When I play 4.5 singles, I will play as offensively as I need to play as keeping points short helps my 52-year old legs, but I don’t want to take undue risk as the priority is to win efficiently. If I see that a player doesn't have big weapons to hit through me and doesn’t have the shot tolerance to outlast me in long points, I am going to play patient baseline tennis trying to open up gaps slowly and then go for a winner or approach the net. If someone has better shot tolerance than me during longer points, I am going take more risks with bigger serves closer to the lines on my service games hoping to get an easy serve+1 short ball or service winner. On return games, I might also swing bigger and closer to the lines and try to keep points short with a big return+1 shot. If someone has a big weapon like a big FH, I will try to completely avoid it or hit only deep topspin shots to that wing, but I might be more offensive hitting to their weaker BH. If the opponent plays the net poorly, I will draw them to the net with short angles/drop shots and then try to pass/lob them. If the opponent has no ability to finish points, but is as consistent as me from the baseline, I will approach the net a lot if their passes are not great. So, the style I play depends on the opponent.

My FH is much more powerful and offensive than my BH. If my opponent controls the point patterns with his serves/returns and hits a lot of balls to my BH, I will look like a defensive player just trying to stay in long points. If my serve/return allow me to control point patterns and hit a lot of FHs, I will look like a much more offensive player pinning them in corners and hitting more winners. If my opponent has big weapons AND better shot tolerance than me, I will lose badly. Otherwise, I will keep tweaking my style to give myself the best chance to win.

 

[StringSnapper]

But it's not as if crashing the net with a good net game is guaranteed to win: it depends on the ability to execute consistently [which Ian did, in spades] and an opponent that doesn't crank up the passing shots [some people love a target and do better when the opponent is at net].

I think it was the perfect storm of variables all in Ian's favor:
- Indoor court
- Out of the elements
- Net-centric game plan vs MEP's style
- Possible fatigue of MEP

Yeah, but if you can crash the net and execute it's all over for the defensive guy. That's why I'm an advocate of slightly more offensive style to progress, enough to hit solid passing shots. I.e. MEPs offensive isnt good enough to win over solid 4.5 net players

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

Yeah, but if you can crash the net and execute it's all over for the defensive guy. That's why I'm an advocate of slightly more offensive style to progress, enough to hit solid passing shots. I.e. MEPs offensive isnt good enough to win over solid 4.5 net players

What works in MEP's favor is that I counted the # of Tennis Troll opponents who played a net-centric game: 0. Meaning if they were to beat him, they'd have to do it from the BL, which is a tough ask against a very good defensive player.

 

[ubercat]

As a baseliner and junk baller I ve got to say even rushing the net occasionally in dubs unsettles your opponents. My volleys are rubbish but it's amazing how many times they hit my feeble volley back into the net. You do have to constantly drift back and fwd in NML to pull this hybrid style.

 

[socallefty]

It seems like most posters on this thread equate offensive tennis with coming to the net. Have they not played power baseline players with big serves who are one or two levels above them? When you play that type of player who hits a steady stream of baseline/serve winners and is more consistent that you, you will add power baseliners to your definition of offensive tennis. Of course, these players don’t exist below 4.5 as power players make many unforced errors on their own at levels below that even if they play a weak player.

 

[Power Player]

It seems like most posters on this thread equate offensive tennis with coming to the net. Have they not played power baseline players with big serves who are one or two levels above them? When you play that type of player who hits a steady stream of baseline/serve winners and is more consistent that you, you will add power baseliners to your definition of offensive tennis. Of course, these players don’t exist below 4.5 as power players make many unforced errors on their own at levels below that even if they play a weak player.

yes exactly. The biggest challenge for me if i haven’t played sanctioned matches in a while is getting the consistency back to beat defensive 4.0s.Once i do that, i usually get bumped back up.

Its difficult to play power baseline tennis without a LOT of matchplay and practice. Just a more technical style that breaks down faster if fitness isnt there or there is rust to shake off.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

Because just like women shrieking in tennis rallies, it was putting off fans. No breaks of serve, no rallies. It's like watching a long driving competition vs. a PGA event.

The serve is still a weapon but it's been neutered. I wish they could have found a way to keep serve and volley as a legitimate style in tennis though.

But can you imagine a world where the guys winning slams are named Raonic, Anderson, Isner and karlovic rather than Federer, Djokovic, Nadal and Murray?

It was putting off "some" fans, but guess what: endless rallies also put some fans off, so why are they preferable and even pushed to the spectators?

BTW, the "technology" also allowed for better returning too, so the returners wouldn't have been so helpless even then. In fact, I don't remember the biggest servers having much success even on the fastest surfaces on the tour, so apparently it isn't only about the serve domination that tipped the scales: it was the specific understanding about what constitutes "entertainment". In that version, two athletes trying to outlast the other until one of them drops dead. I think the AO was the perfect example. Guess what: I have never watched that match in full again, after it happened.

Also, I can imagine a world where also players with different styles and strong shots win Majors. I cannot imagine why would anyone have anything against that.

 

[zaph]

The age old whine from players beaten by pushers who fail to understand why they are constantly loosing. Yes winners, smashes and other aggressive shots are impressive but the problem is players don't want to earn the right to play these shots.

They want to spend their whole time practicing their bug forehand and first serve, without practicing the 80% rally balls that allow them to play those shots.

Now the OP can complain about ugly defensive tennis as much as they like but it I see a player like them at the other side of the net, with no shot tolerance. I am going to endless get the ball back till they self destruct.

Want to stop me doing that? Build a foundation to your game and walk before you can run.

 

[HunterST]

The age old whine from players beaten by pushers who fail to understand why they are constantly loosing. Yes winners, smashes and other aggressive shots are impressive but the problem is players don't want to earn the right to play these shots.

They want to spend their whole time practicing their bug forehand and first serve, without practicing the 80% rally balls that allow them to play those shots.

Now the OP can complain about ugly defensive tennis as much as they like but it I see a player like them at the other side of the net, with no shot tolerance. I am going to endless get the ball back till they self destruct.

Want to stop me doing that? Build a foundation to your game and walk before you can run.

Wow, I have to wonder if you read the original post at all.

Where did I say anything about defensive tennis being ugly? The post is a compliment to defensive styles and is essentially saying we should all probably adopt them if we want to win as much as possible.

I understand ragging on pushers and defensive players is common, so it's easy to assume that's what is happening, but, in doing so, your comment is really ignoring the central ideas of the thread.

 

[Shroud]

Attacking tennis is beautiful and exciting to see. There’s nothing more impressive that a baseline winner, a put away volley, or an overhead smash. Such shots are even part of it considered the textbook way of playing tennis. Push forward, take time away from the opponent, finish at the net, etc.

but.

I suspect and fear that, given the players are of equal skill, defensive styles are more winning. A defensive style demands less of the player and takes the degree of difficulty down for them. Simultaneously, it asks the more offensive player to do more: hit down the line, come to net, execute overheads, etc. Other than for the absolute best players, that is a very tough ask.

Now, naturally you can find tons of examples of offensive players beating defensive players. First, I'm not saying a defensive style will win every match. Just that it would probably win a statistical majority. Second, I think it's important to clarify that the players should be of equal skill. If one player is significantly more skilled, they could win with pretty much any style. It seems, though, that for any great offensive player, you can come up with a defense-oriented player who would give them fits.

I almost hate to bring it up, but the Nadal/Federer rivalry kind of stands out to me as an example at the very pinnacle of the game. Federer has one of the greatest offensive games ever. Still, when you give him an equal but opposite defensive player, he loses more than he wins.

What do you think? Is defensive play just inherently an easier way to win?

For fed/nadal you need to look at the surfaces. Faster favors the more offensive and slower the more defensive. Look at their HTH on carpet. Fed is undefeated. Defensive tennis seems to win more at the pro level mostly because that is what the courts favor these days.

I can find all kind of ways to lose regardless of the style. Playing defensive though for me is more of s guarantee of losing

 

[Enga]

I feel its true in a roundabout way. The reason why defense is so much more important? Because it's more difficult. Anyone and their grandma can grip and rip. That's the whole point of stiff100 sq inch rackets, polyester strings. The tech is there to make it as easy as possible. The area where most people lack is defense and footwork.

 

[zaph]

Wow, I have to wonder if you read the original post at all.

Where did I say anything about defensive tennis being ugly? The post is a compliment to defensive styles and is essentially saying we should all probably adopt them if we want to win as much as possible.

I understand ragging on pushers and defensive players is common, so it's easy to assume that's what is happening, but, in doing so, your comment is really ignoring the central ideas of the thread.

You posted a rant complaining about defensive players on the tennis tips/instruction forum, a forum aimed mainly at helping amateur and up coming players improve.

It doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to figure out you struggle with pushers. If you don't and you can beat pushers, pointless thread.

Still it is amazing how many threads are created ******** about defensive tennis by people who claim they can beat defensive players.

 

[Dragy]

The area where most people lack is defense and footwork.

You say it as if offense is separate from footwork
And thinking of offense as grippin’ & rippin’ is, well, very limited?

 

[mxmx]

It was putting off "some" fans, but guess what: endless rallies also put some fans off, so why are they preferable and even pushed to the spectators?

BTW, the "technology" also allowed for better returning too, so the returners wouldn't have been so helpless even then. In fact, I don't remember the biggest servers having much success even on the fastest surfaces on the tour, so apparently it isn't only about the serve domination that tipped the scales: it was the specific understanding about what constitutes "entertainment". In that version, two athletes trying to outlast the other until one of them drops dead. I think the AO was the perfect example. Guess what: I have never watched that match in full again, after it happened.

Also, I can imagine a world where also players with different styles and strong shots win Majors. I cannot imagine why would anyone have anything against that.

Yes...it sometimes gets so long that you wish it will end, like the movie "Transformers: Age of Extinction". Too much of a good thing (special effects/long rallies) still is "too much". It's like just eating junk food...

 

[Fxanimator1]

You posted a rant complaining about defensive players on the tennis tips/instruction forum, a forum aimed mainly at helping amateur and up coming players improve.

It doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to figure out you struggle with pushers. If you don't and you can beat pushers, pointless thread.

Still it is amazing how many threads are created ******** about defensive tennis by people who claim they can beat defensive players.

What an angry post.
There are equally that same number of threads started by people with the stroke mechanics of a 7 year old, claiming the greatness of being a "pusher".
Risk is directly related to a players ability. What advanced players see as risk is not the same as what is risky to lower level players. Simply put, the more you can do with the ball, the more you want to do with the ball.

 

[Harry_Wild]

Almost all good player have both offensive and defensive skills.
Here is a Club Pro during practice in his own tennis academy! He is up against
a top player during practice. Notice their skills in offensive and defensive
in play! Cannot go wrong copying their moves IMO!

 

[GuyClinch]

What works in MEP's favor is that I counted the # of Tennis Troll opponents who played a net-centric game: 0. Meaning if they were to beat him, they'd have to do it from the BL, which is a tough ask against a very good defensive player.

50 year old man was pretty decent at net and won. The Boss of Atlanta beat him 6-1, 6-1 with a defensive oriented backcourt game and won. Tennis Troll plays a kind of all court game and won. ATL guys play normal tennis. That's all you need to defeat MEP. You don't need any special net skills - just a willingness to take advantage of any opportunities.

He lost to some baseliners - and would lose to guys like two handed forehand and the Tennis Doc guy if he actually played them. Pretty much everyone at 4.5 should be able to hit volleys and overheads that are not super tough.

 

[GuyClinch]

Attacking tennis is beautiful and exciting to see. There’s nothing more impressive that a baseline winner, a put away volley, or an overhead smash. Such shots are even part of it considered the textbook way of playing tennis. Push forward, take time away from the opponent, finish at the net, etc.

but.

I suspect and fear that, given the players are of equal skill, defensive styles are more winning. A defensive style demands less of the player and takes the degree of difficulty down for them. Simultaneously, it asks the more offensive player to do more: hit down the line, come to net, execute overheads, etc. Other than for the absolute best players, that is a very tough ask.

Now, naturally you can find tons of examples of offensive players beating defensive players. First, I'm not saying a defensive style will win every match. Just that it would probably win a statistical majority. Second, I think it's important to clarify that the players should be of equal skill. If one player is significantly more skilled, they could win with pretty much any style. It seems, though, that for any great offensive player, you can come up with a defense-oriented player who would give them fits.

I almost hate to bring it up, but the Nadal/Federer rivalry kind of stands out to me as an example at the very pinnacle of the game. Federer has one of the greatest offensive games ever. Still, when you give him an equal but opposite defensive player, he loses more than he wins.

What do you think? Is defensive play just inherently an easier way to win?

Its not easier if you are big strong guy. This is pretty obvious but if you are big strong player - attacking tennis is much easier. If you are little small guy then defensive tennis is easier as hopefully you run well. Again I can post plenty of examples of guys rely on strength to compete at 4.5 and using bigger serves and harder shots. These guys are easily as common as MEP - I'd say far more common.

When we get to pros all of them are good at everything. Even the most offensive oriented players like say Karastev have good defense compared to even 5.5s who play. But OTOH every pro - even the most defensive ones can absolutely hit screaming winners.. if give the opportunity. Novak for example - fantastic defense and fantastic offense..

This is the same trend with amateur players - as they go up level both their defense and offense improve. For every MEP there are 99 normal players who hit harder shots then 3.0/3.5s/4.0 guys.. But their defense is better too. Same with 5.0s and so on. On occasion there are some big hitters who move worse at the high levels or some defensive players without big shots (MEP) but these guys are outliers.