Is it time to rethink what constitutes a "dangerous player"?

[The Guru]

It seems everyone is always in consensus about the person who can hit a big ball and moves forward more often is the person that top players should be most afraid of when it comes to upsets. The guys with the big "weapons" are always seen as capable of providing the most challenge. The prototypical example of this would be looking at how Ferrer performed vs the Big 3 versus someone like Tsonga. Ferrer may have had less holes in his game but Tsonga was more capable of attacking and thus was more of a threat. And it is absolutely true that Tsonga was more of a threat but does that mean we had the principle right?

After watching Fritz and Shelton be completely hopeless against top competition while comparatively "weaponless" players like Tien and Musetti have fared far better are we sure that we had that right?

I believe we've always had that wrong while Nishikori got memed for 2-5000 Raonic and Cilic and many other big hitters were quietly even worse. Tsitsipas was the most offensive of the Next Gen trio and he got owned the hardest. Even going farther back Hewitt caught more flack than comparatively big hitting Roddick despite performing far better against top competition.

This myth needs to die. Big hitting does not equate to upset potential or ability to beat top end competition. In a world where the guy who can generate more pace than anyone in the world is the least dangerous player in the top 10 it's time to rethink what we call a "threat."

 

[RS]

Good examples with Ferrer vs Tsonga and Hewitt vs Roddick actually.

But in the context of today not sure it matters as much because it's seen as a bad era other than Sinner and Raz and maybe old Djokovic when he is on. But in the context of the previous era I can see it.

 

[Rosstour]

It seems everyone is always in consensus about the person who can hit a big ball and moves forward more often is the person that top players should be most afraid of when it comes to upsets. The guys with the big "weapons" are always seen as capable of providing the most challenge. The prototypical example of this would be looking at how Ferrer performed vs the Big 3 versus someone like Tsonga. Ferrer may have had less holes in his game but Tsonga was more capable of attacking and thus was more of a threat. And it is absolutely true that Tsonga was more of a threat but does that mean we had the principle right?

After watching Fritz and Shelton be completely hopeless against top competition while comparatively "weaponless" players like Tien and Musetti have fared far better are we sure that we had that right?

I believe we've always had that wrong while Nishikori got memed for 2-5000 Raonic and Cilic and many other big hitters were quietly even worse. Tsitsipas was the most offensive of the Next Gen trio and he got owned the hardest. Even going farther back Hewitt caught more flack than comparatively big hitting Roddick despite performing far better against top competition.

This myth needs to die. Big hitting does not equate to upset potential or ability to beat top end competition. In a world where the guy who can generate more pace than anyone in the world is the least dangerous player in the top 10 it's time to rethink what we call a "threat."

I wouldn’t put Musetti and Tien in the same category

Ppl who say Musetti is “weaponless” don’t watch his matches, he is a far cry from DeMinaur

 

[Shaolin]

It seems everyone is always in consensus about the person who can hit a big ball and moves forward more often is the person that top players should be most afraid of when it comes to upsets. The guys with the big "weapons" are always seen as capable of providing the most challenge. The prototypical example of this would be looking at how Ferrer performed vs the Big 3 versus someone like Tsonga. Ferrer may have had less holes in his game but Tsonga was more capable of attacking and thus was more of a threat. And it is absolutely true that Tsonga was more of a threat but does that mean we had the principle right?

After watching Fritz and Shelton be completely hopeless against top competition while comparatively "weaponless" players like Tien and Musetti have fared far better are we sure that we had that right?

I believe we've always had that wrong while Nishikori got memed for 2-5000 Raonic and Cilic and many other big hitters were quietly even worse. Tsitsipas was the most offensive of the Next Gen trio and he got owned the hardest. Even going farther back Hewitt caught more flack than comparatively big hitting Roddick despite performing far better against top competition.

This myth needs to die. Big hitting does not equate to upset potential or ability to beat top end competition. In a world where the guy who can generate more pace than anyone in the world is the least dangerous player in the top 10 it's time to rethink what we call a "threat."

No one is saying that Musetti and Tien are weaponless players.

 

[junior74]

Mentality is a bigger weapon than booming strokes.

 

[MeatTornado]

Tsitsipas was the most offensive of the Next Gen trio and he got owned the hardest.

At his best he was more dangerous than Zverev at the majors. Zed had a far superior Bo3 career though.

 

[ChrisJR3264]

Truly depends.
Shelton hits big but the depth consistency and shape of his ball doesn’t push more superior opponents.

Learner Tien doesn’t hit a heavy ball but it’s flat and low similar to med. what he does great is creating space taking opponents off the court.

Alcaraz can generate such a big ball, flat or higher RPMs and just push you off the court and close.

I think Shelton might be the prime example of a power hitter that doesn’t consistently hit his spots well enough to create space on court.

 

[FlyingSaucer]

Maybe, but what's the evidence beyond Tien and Musetti (and there is already some contestation over how to categorise those players) if you believe "we've always had that wrong"? I think the notion of danger with regard to upsets is that the guy with upset potential is going to take the racquet out of your hands. Can't say off the top of my head if that's certain for most upsets over the last 15-20 years, but it's true for many of them, I'd think. Whether fair or not, though, the danger presented by someone pulling a Rosol-like performance is going to be viewed differently compared to some grinderbot who produces the same result.

 

[The Guru]

Maybe, but what's the evidence beyond Tien and Musetti (and there is already some contestation over how to categorise those players) if you believe "we've always had that wrong"? I think the notion of danger with regard to upsets is that the guy with upset potential is going to take the racquet out of your hands. Can't say off the top of my head if that's certain for most upsets over the last 15-20 years, but it's true for many of them, I'd think. Whether fair or not, though, the danger presented by someone pulling a Rosol-like performance is going to be viewed differently compared to some grinderbot who produces the same result.

This is exactly the bias I'm saying needs to die. I wasn't really talking about super low rank guys anyway but a Rosol/Brown type upset should not be viewed as particularly different than a Seppi/BVDZ upset. A lot of people have a bias towards "taking the racquet out of their hand" like that's the only way to beat someone better than you when it clearly isn't. And we tend to think of big hitters as more dangerous because they "could do that" but they often aren't more dangerous and never do that.

Of course there is also different weaknesses for different players. Nadal is legitimately vulnerable to big flat hitters on grass but that's a particular weakness of a particular player.

 

[Gastino]

It seems everyone is always in consensus about the person who can hit a big ball and moves forward more often is the person that top players should be most afraid of when it comes to upsets. The guys with the big "weapons" are always seen as capable of providing the most challenge. The prototypical example of this would be looking at how Ferrer performed vs the Big 3 versus someone like Tsonga. Ferrer may have had less holes in his game but Tsonga was more capable of attacking and thus was more of a threat. And it is absolutely true that Tsonga was more of a threat but does that mean we had the principle right?

After watching Fritz and Shelton be completely hopeless against top competition while comparatively "weaponless" players like Tien and Musetti have fared far better are we sure that we had that right?

I believe we've always had that wrong while Nishikori got memed for 2-5000 Raonic and Cilic and many other big hitters were quietly even worse. Tsitsipas was the most offensive of the Next Gen trio and he got owned the hardest. Even going farther back Hewitt caught more flack than comparatively big hitting Roddick despite performing far better against top competition.

This myth needs to die. Big hitting does not equate to upset potential or ability to beat top end competition. In a world where the guy who can generate more pace than anyone in the world is the least dangerous player in the top 10 it's time to rethink what we call a "threat."

I look at it on case to case basis not based on style...but ferrer is a terrible example for your case because he was terrible in big matches and overall h2h vs big3.

 

[The Guru]

I look at it on case to case basis not based on style...but ferrer is a terrible example for your case because he was terrible in big matches and overall h2h vs big3.

I agree he was completely dominated and I think he's a huge reason why this bias exists but Cilic for example has an even lower win rate vs the Big 3 despite facing worse versions of them and he's received not even one millionth of the flack Ferrer has. He's viewed as dangerous just because he hits a bigger ball when in reality he got destroyed by them even worse.

Main point I'm making is there's a huge bias towards players who hit bigger balls and it often does not translate to what people think it does.

 

[Pheasant]

Big hitters at least have a chance to win vs an elite player. Musetti and Tien have weapons. I’d exclude those guys. Guys like Nishikori, de Minaur, and Ferrer are your guys that don’t have big weapons.

That said, I’d be much more worried about somebody like Cilic taking out Federer than Ferrer. Likewise, I’d be much more worried about Mensik taking out Sinner than de Minaur.

Big hitters can zone and take out a great player. That’s what people are worried about. Safin was extremely inconsistent. But he hit big(wicked backhand, could serve up to 140, etc). Soderling had a wicked FH when he was on and could serve up to 145. He was extremely dangerous when clicking. But he never sniffed world #3 in the rankings.

As for the top 2 guys now, Alcaraz and Sinner have the 2 biggest forehands in the game. At one point at the U.S. Open, Sinner and Alcaraz accounted for 9 out of the top 10 fastest FH shots of the tourney. They are your big hitters with some consistency. And because these guys hit so big, they’d win a decent amount of matches(barring nadal on clay) against anybody that ever played. And that’s despite those two having less polish than the Big 3(for now; let’s give them some time).

 

[Ray Mercer]

I agree he was completely dominated and I think he's a huge reason why this bias exists but Cilic for example has an even lower win rate vs the Big 3 despite facing worse versions of them and he's received not even one millionth of the flack Ferrer has. He's viewed as dangerous just because he hits a bigger ball when in reality he got destroyed by them even worse.

Main point I'm making is there's a huge bias towards players who hit bigger balls and it often does not translate to what people think it does.

I think people still few big hitting players as having a slim chance to beat the absolute best but there's always the outside chance that they play high risk tennis and are on fire that day. Cilic and Berdych would often get schooled but the odd day they were blasting and not missing and there's not a lot you can do against that. I view it as similar to boxing in that a huge puncher will often get picked apart but there's the outside chance he lands one of his bombs and ends the fight. It's also more difficult nowadays because the ATP has done everything possible to slow the game down to eliminate the chance of upsets and the chances for big hitters. If you were to bring back really fast hard-court or play more Halle type grass and lighten the balls there would probably be more upsets.

 

[The Guru]

At his best he was more dangerous than Zverev at the majors. Zed had a far superior Bo3 career though.

Agree to disagree. The AO 24 QF destroys any Tsitsipas effort imo. More consistent and better top level. He is also just a better talent tho tbf.

 

[Gastino]

I think people still few big hitting players as having a slim chance to beat the absolute best but there's always the outside chance that they play high risk tennis and are on fire that day. Cilic and Berdych would often get schooled but the odd day they were blasting and not missing and there's not a lot you can do against that. I view it as similar to boxing in that a huge puncher will often get picked apart but there's the outside chance he lands one of his bombs and ends the fight. It's also more difficult nowadays because the ATP has done everything possible to slow the game down to eliminate the chance of upsets and the chances for big hitters. If you were to bring back really fast hard-court or play more Halle type grass and lighten the balls there would probably be more upsets.

Yeah they would have at least a "puncher's ass" sort to say even if the h2h is the same or worse. In retrospect Cilic did manage to win 1 slam and Ferrer didn't come near it.

 

[NachoGPT]

Rublev shouldn’t have a 2-5000 record against top players if big hitting was so important.

 

[Rosstour]

This is exactly the bias I'm saying needs to die. I wasn't really talking about super low rank guys anyway but a Rosol/Brown type upset should not be viewed as particularly different than a Seppi/BVDZ upset. A lot of people have a bias towards "taking the racquet out of their hand" like that's the only way to beat someone better than you when it clearly isn't. And we tend to think of big hitters as more dangerous because they "could do that" but they often aren't more dangerous and never do that.

Of course there is also different weaknesses for different players. Nadal is legitimately vulnerable to big flat hitters on grass but that's a particular weakness of a particular player.

BvdZ to me has more in common with Rosie, Soderling, Darcis etc…big hitters

 

[helterskelter]

I think this is going to depend on the specific comparison and that a general rule is only going to be of limited utility. In the case of Tsonga and Ferrer versus the big three, it made sense that Ferrer being more solid just wasn't going to pass muster, and that Tsonga's explosive firepower might get it done if he caught fire. But I don't think we can conclude from that that it's a general rule that a more attacking player is always more dangerous than a less attacking player. I also don't think a general rule to the contrary is going to be of much explanatory power.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Motivated reasoning, as always.

High peak low ceiling is by its nature more dangerous to stronger players than mid peak mid ceiling.

Ferrer was obviously much better and more dangerous than Cilic on clay, while Cilic was much better and more dangerous than Ferrer on grass, but on HC despite being overall comparable Cilic was clearly more dangerous when context is applied.

Both of Ferrer's wins against Djokovic on HC came when Noel was demonstrably sick (2007 YEC, lost all RR matches in straight break sets) or injured (2011 YEC; Djokovic managed to edge Berdych in the first RR match despite injury and effectively tanked the second RR match vs Ferrer in order to recuperate for the third RR match vs Tipsarevic - almost worked but not quite, Djokovic comfortably won the first set but then ran out of fitness and lost in three), otherwise Ferrer was his utter HC pigeon winning just 1 set in 13 matches, and even that in strong winds which famously make Djoko weak (1st set USO '12 SF).

Both of Ferrer's HC wins against Murray also came when Murray was compromised - 2011 YEC RR when Murray had back pain and withdrew after that match, and 2014 Shanghai 3R when Murray also had back pain (which bothered him intermittently throughout the whole 2014 season). Other than that, Ferrer is 0-12 against Murray on HC with only three matches being competitive (2011 AO where Ferrer had SP to lead 2-0, 2013 Miami where he had championship point, 2014 Vienna).

Although Ferrer's two HC slam wins over Nadal look good, Nadal was in fact compromised in both - at 2007 USO, not so much but still visible (still reeling from the Cincinnati injury, apparently); at 2011 AO, clearly so (hamstring). His two wins over Nadal indoors (2007 YEC, 2013 Paris) are fully legit though, nothing wrong with Ned there. Nadal's 6 HC wins over Ferrer were mostly one-sided (though boosted by two retirements), Ferrer only took one TB set.

Federer of course never lost to Ferrer in 17 matches, although once Fed left his peak / Ferrer fully primed, most of their matches were somewhat competitive but Ferrer only came close to winning twice (09 Cincy, 17 Canada), and still not really close.

Compare that to Cilic:

When it comes to facing Djokovic on HC, Cilic was also a huge pigeon but did beat a decent-ish Djokovic in Paris '16 (Joe was under the weather at the time but certainly not outright poor as he was in the Ferrer losses), and took 4 sets off him in 15 matches otherwise (3 of those 4 were 1st sets, so Cilic was actually up a set on Djo a couple times but couldn't keep it up).

Against Murray, Cilic has three wins - a rout at 2009 USO (though Murray carried some injury I think?), 2014 Rotterdam, and a victory over actual top Murray in 2016 Cincinnati. Also led by a set at 2010 AO and was famously 6-3 5-1 up at 2012 USO then completely disintegrated (lol). Still did better than Ferrer overall.

Not as good against Nadal, crushed him in their first match in 2009 Beijing (though Nadal was under the weather at the time) but lost most of their subsequent matches quite easily. Did get another win at 2018 AO when Nadal got injured mid-match while leading 2 sets to 1, although Cilic did play Nadal tight while he was still healthy, but was losing until Ned got hurt and eventually gave up.

Cilic's dominant win over Federer at 2014 USO is of course his crowning achievement, although that Federer was not nearly as good as the one Ferrer usually faced (but I'd wager he was better than the Nadal Ferrer beat at 2007 USO, let alone 2011 AO). Also took him to five sets at 2018 AO.

For what it's worth, their overall record vs top 10 on hard/carpet is very close (Ferrer 30-66, Cilic 28-65), but Cilic has clearly better wins in slams (Ferrer basically got injured Nadal x2, Cilic got injured Murray, injured Nadal, and also healthy Roddick & Delpo at 2010 AO, Federer and Berdych at 2014 USO, Rublev at 2022 AO). I think Cilic wins the 'who was more dangerous on HC' comparison despite being less consistent and a total mug at the YEC.

 

[Red Rick]

No one is saying that Musetti and Tien are weaponless players.

I am categorically saying Tien is a weaponless player

 

[Red Rick]

Rublev shouldn’t have a 2-5000 record against top players if big hitting was so important.

The joke about Rublev is that for a big hitter he doesn't hit big enough.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

I also wonder how anyone could think Deminor is more dangerous than Fritz. ADM is a complete pigeon of all superior players: Sinner's ultra pigeon (0-13 H2H, two sets won, barely close matches), Alcaraz's pigeon (0-6 H2H, actually had MP in their first match but since then it's not close, just one set won), Tsits' tour-level pigeon when he was still good (1-11 H2H, only two close losses), Zverev's pigeon (3-8 H2H, 2 wins in fairly irrelevant start-of-the-season Mug Cup + 1 in Exho Cup; other than that, 1 set won in the last 7 losses), Medvedev's pigeon off clay (2-8 H2H off clay, losses rarely close, credit for the two wins though back when Med was decent).
I guess he can be proud of being competitive with Rublev (2-4 H2H when Andrey was a top player, competitive matches throughout), FAA (2-3 H2H on the adult tour), Berrettini (2-3) etc. Or farming wins over Decrepitdal and Hipray. Or when he beat Oldovic in Mug Cup (outside of which Deminor has been as helpless against Ancientvic as Fritz has).

Fritz is also a pigeon for many, but at least not so helpless: 0-4 against Alcaraz excluding Exho Cup, but did almost push him to five sets in WB SF and wasn't far off winning in YEC RR; 1-4 against Sinner (0-3 since Sinner's ascension, all in straight break sets - that was peak Sinner though, I don't see ADM doing anything in Fritz's place either), 2-3 vs Tsitsipas (1-1 in slams, close loss + semi-comfortable win), and of course he's become Zverev's master, winning their last 6 matches (2x slam + 1x YEC + 1x 250 final + 2x Exho Cup). Sure, he's been pretty useless against Oldovic with a 0-11 H2H, but the same is true for ADM, albeit on a much smaller sample size, but I suppose if it was larger nothing would likely change.

Their personal H2H itself is 7-5 for de Minaur, but that includes 4-0 before both were even top 20 players (ADM is younger but bloomed earlier so he wasn't disadvantaged), which I don't think is too relevant. Fritz has been 5-3 since 2021 (1-0 in slams, 1-1 at the YEC).

 

[MichaelNadal]

Motivated reasoning, as always.

High peak low ceiling is by its nature more dangerous to stronger players than mid peak mid ceiling.

Ferrer was obviously much better and more dangerous than Cilic on clay, while Cilic was much better and more dangerous than Ferrer on grass, but on HC despite being overall comparable Cilic was clearly more dangerous when context is applied.

Both of Ferrer's wins against Djokovic on HC came when Noel was demonstrably sick (2007 YEC, lost all RR matches in straight break sets) or injured (2011 YEC; Djokovic managed to edge Berdych in the first RR match despite injury and effectively tanked the second RR match vs Ferrer in order to recuperate for the third RR match vs Tipsarevic - almost worked but not quite, Djokovic comfortably won the first set but then ran out of fitness and lost in three), otherwise Ferrer was his utter HC pigeon winning just 1 set in 13 matches, and even that in strong winds which famously make Djoko weak (1st set USO '12 SF).

Both of Ferrer's HC wins against Murray also came when Murray was compromised - 2011 YEC RR when Murray had back pain and withdrew after that match, and 2014 Shanghai 3R when Murray also had back pain (which bothered him intermittently throughout the whole 2014 season). Other than that, Ferrer is 0-12 against Murray on HC with only three matches being competitive (2011 AO where Ferrer had SP to lead 2-0, 2013 Miami where he had championship point, 2014 Vienna).

Although Ferrer's two HC slam wins over Nadal look good, Nadal was in fact compromised in both - at 2007 USO, not so much but still visible (still reeling from the Cincinnati injury, apparently); at 2011 AO, clearly so (hamstring). His two wins over Nadal indoors (2007 YEC, 2013 Paris) are fully legit though, nothing wrong with Ned there. Nadal's 6 HC wins over Ferrer were mostly one-sided (though boosted by two retirements), Ferrer only took one TB set.

Federer of course never lost to Ferrer in 17 matches, although once Fed left his peak / Ferrer fully primed, most of their matches were somewhat competitive but Ferrer only came close to winning twice (09 Cincy, 17 Canada), and still not really close.

Compare that to Cilic:

When it comes to facing Djokovic on HC, Cilic was also a huge pigeon but did beat a decent-ish Djokovic in Paris '16 (Joe was under the weather at the time but certainly not outright poor as he was in the Ferrer losses), and took 4 sets off him in 15 matches otherwise (3 of those 4 were 1st sets, so Cilic was actually up a set on Djo a couple times but couldn't keep it up).

Against Murray, Cilic has three wins - a rout at 2009 USO (though Murray carried some injury I think?), 2014 Rotterdam, and a victory over actual top Murray in 2016 Cincinnati. Also led by a set at 2010 AO and was famously 6-3 5-1 up at 2012 USO then completely disintegrated (lol). Still did better than Ferrer overall.

Not as good against Nadal, crushed him in their first match in 2009 Beijing (though Nadal was under the weather at the time) but lost most of their subsequent matches quite easily. Did get another win at 2018 AO when Nadal got injured mid-match while leading 2 sets to 1, although Cilic did play Nadal tight while he was still healthy, but was losing until Ned got hurt and eventually gave up.

Cilic's dominant win over Federer at 2014 USO is of course his crowning achievement, although that Federer was not nearly as good as the one Ferrer usually faced (but I'd wager he was better than the Nadal Ferrer beat at 2007 USO, let alone 2011 AO). Also took him to five sets at 2018 AO.

For what it's worth, their overall record vs top 10 on hard/carpet is very close (Ferrer 30-66, Cilic 28-65), but Cilic has clearly better wins in slams (Ferrer basically got injured Nadal x2, Cilic got injured Murray, injured Nadal, and also healthy Roddick & Delpo at 2010 AO, Federer and Berdych at 2014 USO, Rublev at 2022 AO). I think Cilic wins the 'who was more dangerous on HC' comparison despite being less consistent and a total mug at the YEC.

 

[Shaolin]

I am categorically saying Tien is a weaponless player

 

[Subway Tennis]

Ppl who say Musetti is “weaponless” don’t watch his matches, he is a far cry from DeMinaur

Musetti as weaponless is a very unique assessment. You don't often see a magician of Lore's calibre described that way. He can elongate points. That potentially misleads people who are new to the sport about what his game is.

Also somewhat strange to think of Tsitsipas as the most aggressive of the next gen when he is in fact a very timid returner (particularly on the BH) at a time in the sport where return points won is a key indicator.

 

[mtommer]

it's time to rethink what we call a "threat."

"We"? You're welcome to rethink all you like but there is no "we".

 

[DjokoLand]

A dangerous player is one with weapons that can potentially cause an upset.

Would be like Delpo or Cilic when Ferrer was a better player. Ferrer would beat the other 2 a lot but never had the weapons to beat the big 3.

Bublik would be a good example albeit he is top 10 now. He was a player used to hover around top 50 but had the weapons to cause a upset

 

[The Guru]

Underpowered players racking up the upsets right on queue Norrie, Hijikata, and Tien with 3 top 10 wins . Hell even Michelsen is a pusher for his archetype.

 

[Cabeza del Demonio]

It seems everyone is always in consensus about the person who can hit a big ball and moves forward more often is the person that top players should be most afraid of when it comes to upsets. The guys with the big "weapons" are always seen as capable of providing the most challenge. The prototypical example of this would be looking at how Ferrer performed vs the Big 3 versus someone like Tsonga. Ferrer may have had less holes in his game but Tsonga was more capable of attacking and thus was more of a threat. And it is absolutely true that Tsonga was more of a threat but does that mean we had the principle right?

After watching Fritz and Shelton be completely hopeless against top competition while comparatively "weaponless" players like Tien and Musetti have fared far better are we sure that we had that right?

I believe we've always had that wrong while Nishikori got memed for 2-5000 Raonic and Cilic and many other big hitters were quietly even worse. Tsitsipas was the most offensive of the Next Gen trio and he got owned the hardest. Even going farther back Hewitt caught more flack than comparatively big hitting Roddick despite performing far better against top competition.

This myth needs to die. Big hitting does not equate to upset potential or ability to beat top end competition. In a world where the guy who can generate more pace than anyone in the world is the least dangerous player in the top 10 it's time to rethink what we call a "threat."

I think what people miss is that it's not just power and big hitting, it's unpredictability.

Tsonga hit bigger than Ferrer, but Berdych was an even bigger hitter than either of the 2 and he also ended up more of a "gatekeeper" like Ferrer. It's not just about hitting big, it's about being able to catch fire with weapons that can match the top players.

Likewise with Roddick. Sure, he was the biggest hitter on the block, but the top players had a formula to counteract his power reliably (except Djokovic, whom Roddick will get to boast about for the rest of his life). You know who the top players didn't always have an answer to? Nalbandian. Davydenko. Baghdatis. Old Man Andre, who still showed flashes of his old self later on. Roddick may be the biggest hitter out of all of them, but these guys had the skill set to match Federer & Nadal (sometimes).

The only lower-ranked player I can think of in today's game who has that quality is Dimitrov. And he's still that crocodile in the pond for Sinner & Alcaraz.

Well, there's also Shapo. But we don't talk about him anymore.

EDIT: One of yall mentioned Sascha Bublik too, good call!

 

[junior74]

The joke about Rublev is that for a big hitter he doesn't hit big enough.

Press mute and suddenly he's not hitting as big

 

[ADuck]

I think it's multi-layered. In some sense there's a logic to it, those who play offensively and have "big weapons" we believe have a higher variability in their level. If we think about it statistically, they might on average play worse, but at their peak play better than the more defensive players are capable of doing. That is why some see this players as more capable of producing upset, because they can potentially produce a higher level of play.

However it might also have a lot to do with what the specific top player's weaknesses are. If there's a more defensive-minded player which plays more into a top player's specific weaknesses, that player could be more capable of producing upsets than the more offensive-minded player.

 

[MichaelNadal]

Tour full of Mario villains lol

 

[aldeayeah]

Dangerous player = high ceiling relative to their ranking, it's as simple as that.

If we go into individual matchups, a player can also be called dangerous if their game matches up well against a particular top player.

Like how Djokovic was more bothered by big serves at one point in his career, or how Alcaraz used to be quite bothered by deep flat hitting exposing his overly aggressive positioning.

 

[Breakpointerer]

Tour full of Mario villains lol

Filled with goombas right now

 

[junkieballer]

Big3 only lost to each other in the last 4 Slams, they are 64-0 against the rest of the field.

The #4-10 might be weaker than usual, but it is impossible that no dangerous player exists. The current Big3 are as good as anyone has ever been.

 

[Ombelibable]

To me the ultimate dangerous player was Marat Safin.

On several days he could lose to someone ranked outside the top 200 while breaking three racquets but if he was dialed in on his day, there was literally no one he could *not* beat. No exceptions.

 

[Aabye5]

Truly depends.
Shelton hits big but the depth consistency and shape of his ball doesn’t push more superior opponents.

Learner Tien doesn’t hit a heavy ball but it’s flat and low similar to med. what he does great is creating space taking opponents off the court.

Alcaraz can generate such a big ball, flat or higher RPMs and just push you off the court and close.

I think Shelton might be the prime example of a power hitter that doesn’t consistently hit his spots well enough to create space on court.

This I think it is the key. There are so many players now that can hit a big ball, and that's enough against 90% of players. But they don't have the combined consistency that I think earlier players also had, which is why they falter in big matches.

 

[Aabye5]

Underpowered players racking up the upsets right on queue Norrie, Hijikata, and Tien with 3 top 10 wins . Hell even Michelsen is a pusher for his archetype.

Because tennis is about more than just power, something so many players seem to forget.

 

[DSH]

To me the ultimate dangerous player was Marat Safin.

On several days he could lose to someone ranked outside the top 200 while breaking three racquets but if he was dialed in on his day, there was literally no one he could *not* beat. No exceptions.

What about JMDP, shouldn't he be in this category too?

 

[Ombelibable]

What about JMDP, shouldn't he be in this category too?

I agree, JMDP on his day could absolutely dial up his level to 11. But maayyybe I'd put Safin half a notch above him because he knew how to close out matches.

JMDP has all my respect, and he gave us some bangers in Wimbledon '13 and '18, but was outlasted by two GOAT-tier players. Safin was able to get to the finish line more often. What JMDP did in USO '09 , Safin did in AO '02, '05.

 

[tudwell]

Underpowered players racking up the upsets right on queue Norrie, Hijikata, and Tien with 3 top 10 wins . Hell even Michelsen is a pusher for his archetype.

To be fair, if being able to upset Alexander Bublik makes a tennis player “dangerous”, then everyone on tour is dangerous lol.

 

[4UTRMoutet]

Usually what separates the best players from the second rates is exceptional mental and intellectual capacity. The ability to hit big requires no brain and thus frustrates tennis geniuses like Big 3 and Sincaraz. Hence why Federer is defeated by Delpo and Rafa by Soderling!

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

I think what people miss is that it's not just power and big hitting, it's unpredictability.

Tsonga hit bigger than Ferrer, but Berdych was an even bigger hitter than either of the 2 and he also ended up more of a "gatekeeper" like Ferrer. It's not just about hitting big, it's about being able to catch fire with weapons that can match the top players.

Likewise with Roddick. Sure, he was the biggest hitter on the block, but the top players had a formula to counteract his power reliably (except Djokovic, whom Roddick will get to boast about for the rest of his life). You know who the top players didn't always have an answer to? Nalbandian. Davydenko. Baghdatis. Old Man Andre, who still showed flashes of his old self later on. Roddick may be the biggest hitter out of all of them, but these guys had the skill set to match Federer & Nadal (sometimes).

The only lower-ranked player I can think of in today's game who has that quality is Dimitrov. And he's still that crocodile in the pond for Sinner & Alcaraz.

Well, there's also Shapo. But we don't talk about him anymore.

EDIT: One of yall mentioned Sascha Bublik too, good call!

lol

 

[slal1984]

It seems everyone is always in consensus about the person who can hit a big ball and moves forward more often is the person that top players should be most afraid of when it comes to upsets. The guys with the big "weapons" are always seen as capable of providing the most challenge. The prototypical example of this would be looking at how Ferrer performed vs the Big 3 versus someone like Tsonga. Ferrer may have had less holes in his game but Tsonga was more capable of attacking and thus was more of a threat. And it is absolutely true that Tsonga was more of a threat but does that mean we had the principle right?

After watching Fritz and Shelton be completely hopeless against top competition while comparatively "weaponless" players like Tien and Musetti have fared far better are we sure that we had that right?

I believe we've always had that wrong while Nishikori got memed for 2-5000 Raonic and Cilic and many other big hitters were quietly even worse. Tsitsipas was the most offensive of the Next Gen trio and he got owned the hardest. Even going farther back Hewitt caught more flack than comparatively big hitting Roddick despite performing far better against top competition.

This myth needs to die. Big hitting does not equate to upset potential or ability to beat top end competition. In a world where the guy who can generate more pace than anyone in the world is the least dangerous player in the top 10 it's time to rethink what we call a "threat."

At this level everyone can crush a forehand or backhand when not on the move!

the true differentiator is how each players hits the ball when on the run or while playing defense. To your point, Fritz and Sheldon compared to Tien and Musetti dont have that same defensive capability, they tend to slice and stay in the point vs use their defense to be able to transition into an offensive position.

 

[Waves]

With the last 1.5 decades of vanilla game, I think Novak has shown the secret, defense, foot speed and patience. Alcaraz is here to correct this disturbance in the force.

 

[Kralingen]

I think this is directionally correct, in two important ways: a) a big serve/big shots is more of a floor raiser than people realize, simply being able to get thru service games and finish points from advantageous positions gets you into TBs which gets you into wins which gets you into a higher ranking

b) usually an upset comes on a top player's 'off' day, which is no disrespect to the player upsetting them, just that in general it makes more sense that getting a star to play B-level is more replicable than going A+ and beating said star also playing A-level.

Good poast. Would have to do some data research to back it up but think assuming a bare minimum level of weaponry (i.e. above a De Mug) it's a reasonable assumption.

 

[The Guru]

I think this is directionally correct, in two important ways: a) a big serve/big shots is more of a floor raiser than people realize, simply being able to get thru service games and finish points from advantageous positions gets you into TBs which gets you into wins which gets you into a higher ranking

b) usually an upset comes on a top player's 'off' day, which is no disrespect to the player upsetting them, just that in general it makes more sense that getting a star to play B-level is more replicable than going A+ and beating said star also playing A-level.

Good poast. Would have to do some data research to back it up but think assuming a bare minimum level of weaponry (i.e. above a De Mug) it's a reasonable assumption.

Yeah I agree I think the De Minaur counter example is a bad one because he literally doesn't do anything at a high level but move. The fact that he might crack the top 5 just on the strength of his court coverage just shows how much of a movement sport tennis has become.

Other "underpowered" top players like Hewitt, Murray, Nishikori, Ferrer, Musetti had genuinely strong aspects to their game in the actual hitting the ball part of tennis and you need that to beat top talents

 

[Vincent-C]

No one is saying that Musetti and Tien are weaponless players.

Tien's the best counterpuncher I've seen in a long, long time. If he and Chang ever part ways (no!) I'd love to
see Connors coach him. Jimmy's getting old, though; even older than me.

 

[BauerAlmeida]

Yep, there is a bit of bias towards big hitters, but it's not always justified. Berdych was a big hitter and was as poor as Ferrer when it came to beating the top guys.

Nalbandian was one of the best at beating the top guys and reaching a high peak level and wasn't terribly powerful (compared to the ballbashers like Berdych, Soderling, etc).

Murray is the player with the most wins against the Big 3, by far, and didn't have the power of Delpo or Tsonga.

Of course, sometimes big hitters did achieve an unusual number of big wins compared to players of their caliber who couldnt hit as hard. Calleri is one of the prime examples of that, he has tons of big wins for a guy who never cracked the TOP 10 and peaked at 15 or 16 or so.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Yeah I agree I think the De Minaur counter example is a bad one because he literally doesn't do anything at a high level but move. The fact that he might crack the top 5 just on the strength of his court coverage just shows how much of a movement sport tennis has become.

Other "underpowered" top players like Hewitt, Murray, Nishikori, Ferrer, Musetti had genuinely strong aspects to their game in the actual hitting the ball part of tennis and you need that to beat top talents

Isn't that what people said about Brad Gilbert? No weapons, just winning ugly, etc. He did peak at #4 and won a masters-level title beating Becker and Edberg... so maybe this isn't new at all, in fact?