My fault. I was sure he'd won a major amongst his 20 titles. Probably mixing him up with Jim Courier in my brain. Damn aging is a terrible thing. Next I'll be talking about the time Sampras won the French Open.Brad Gilbert? Brad Gilbert won the French Open?
Wow, I've read "Winning Ugly" several times and can't find any mention of a French Open win. Pretty sure Brad would have mentioned that if it was the case.
BTW, I would not call Brad Gilbert a "Defensive" player. Brad Gilbert's main contribution to the sport was proving that the key to success is identifying your opponent's weaknesses and matching your strengths to those weaknesses. That is not "Defensive" tennis in the traditional sense.
(Brad's best result at the French Open was making the 3rd Round in 1993).
Winning tennis matches is all about finding the right "Risk -vs- Return" formula. The scoring format is pretty irrelevant. It is all "Risk -vs- Return". A scoring format like "No AD, Receiver's Choice" simply changes the "Risk -vs- Return" equation.
And yes you are very much right about risk vs return as the key. You can neither be so aggressive that you elevate the risk side of the equation nor so passive that you diminish the return side of the equation.
But my point is that sometimes aggressive players increase their risk and lose points because of it. The beneficiary should avoid the tendency to feel they got lucky or were outplayed. The aggressive players great shots and their errors come from the same tendencies and learning to take advantage of those tendencies by getting balls back and letting them self destruct is sound tennis and not to be dismissed as being outplayed but lucky.