Offensive vs. Defensive tennis

[raiden031]

Just wondering what you think is a better style of tennis to play (at any level), offensive or defensive tennis? I'll define what I consider to be the characteristics of each below.

Offensive:
Constructing points such that you can end the point on your terms. Taking more risks by adding pace and hitting closer to the lines in order to force your opponent to hit errors and weak shots. Being a proactive player where you are trying to make things happen and open up the court.

The downside to this strategy is that you must be able to hit precisely and also be able to add power and flatten out shots. This means you must have more developed skills which means alot more practice.

Defensive:
Running down offensive shots. Hitting the ball back such that it cannot be attacked as easily, but is not risky either. Being a reactive player where your strategy is based upon defending against your opponent's attack.

The downside to this strategy is that you must be able to move very well since you are not hitting effective enough shots to get your opponent running.

---

So it seems a lot of this board is quick to criticize the offensive style in favor of the defensive style because its somehow foolish to lose a match because you hit too many unforced errors. But really there are players of both types at all levels. I guess the difference is that at the lower levels there is more of a clear distinction between the two. A pusher is the most primitive form of a defensive player and really by the time you're a pro you can't play completely defensively like a pusher, but must be able to use offensive weapons when the opportunity presents itself (ie. Nadal, Murray). So my second question is whether there is anything wrong with being an offensive player at any level?

 

[theZig]

The biggest reason why the boards (and most general players) look down on offensive players is for the downside you just stated, it takes a lot more practice to perform well with the offensive game. That being said, every player should strive to be able to play both offensively and defensively when the situation calls for it.

 

[thejackal]

working hard on my offensive game has really enabled me to get past the hump and move up from being a 4.0-4.5 player. I might be defending better as well, but mostly being able to dictate the action and hitting winners off short balls has allowed me to compete with much better players. when I started playing tennis until when I hit 4.0 I was mostly a defensive counterpunching kind of player.

 

[Flyingpanda]

Until the mid 4.0 level, a defensive safe style of tennis is probably the most consistent winning strategy, especially in singles.

 

[Steady Eddy]

So it seems a lot of this board is quick to criticize the offensive style in favor of the defensive style

I haven't noticed that. If anything, isn't it more the opposite way? Someone who loses to a player with no offense will come on these boards to complain. They don't complain about how they need to be better, they complain that thier opponents had no offense! They call them 'pushers' and then many others will chime in and say that there's nothing lower than a pusher. That sounds like they're critical of the defensive style, and that if somebody wins that way, it shouldn't count.

 

[raiden031]

I haven't noticed that. If anything, isn't it more the opposite way? Someone who loses to a player with no offense will come on these boards to complain. They don't complain about how they need to be better, they complain that thier opponents had no offense! They call them 'pushers' and then many others will chime in and say that there's nothing lower than a pusher. That sounds like they're critical of the defensive style, and that if somebody wins that way, it shouldn't count.

I'll put it this way. The newbies come in and say they lost because the player is a pusher and hit the ball too softly. The knowledgeable people respond that the pusher was the better player. Which this is true, but then they also say people should not be hitting with power or going for winners if they are rec. players. But I challenge that because you can play at any level with a style in which you try to end points with offensive shots rather than relying on your opponents' UEs. Its just a matter of how much effort you want to put into your game.

 

[Steady Eddy]

I'll put it this way. The newbies come in and say they lost because the player is a pusher and hit the ball too softly. The knowledgeable people respond that the pusher was the better player. Which this is true, but then they also say people should not be hitting with power or going for winners if they are rec. players. But I challenge that because you can play at any level with a style in which you try to end points with offensive shots rather than relying on your opponents' UEs. Its just a matter of how much effort you want to put into your game.

I'm trying to understand that. Are there successful serve and volleyers at the 2.5 level? I've seen some 3.5's that play an aggressive baseline game. They'll beat their teammates 6-2, 6-2 all the time. But often it seems that if they decreased their aggression they'd win 0 and 0. I've always heard that the ratio of errors to placements is higher at the lower levels, that seems to imply that placements aren't needed as much because there's a UE coming up soon. A lower level player might want to work on aggressive shots in order to improve, but if he's in a tournament, against a player with similar skills, in this match aggressive shots are likely to create more problems for himself than his opponent. But if it's just a practice match, who cares who wins? He should work on what he'll need in the future.

 

[Cindysphinx]

The best players are neither offensive or defensive. They are the players who put you under constant pressure so that you make the error. They don't take the risk of trying to hit the outright winner, nor do they hit defensive shots. They thread the needle -- a bit of risk, but just enough.

And forced errors are the one stat that they don't track.

 

[GeorgeLucas]

defensive tennis is for squares.

 

[Bagumbawalla]

I don't know why nobody, above, mentioned a third choice, but, to me, really good tennis is a mixture of defensive, offensive and sometimes neutral tactics.

If, for example, you are stretched wide, put into a difficult position as the opponent covers the net-- do you try for the agressive one-in a-thousand shot that may win the point outright, or do you send up a lob and, at worst, restart the point?

If you have worked to set up a point, and get a sitter; do you just keep it in play and hop the opponent will make an error, or do you drive the ball into the open court?

If the answers seem obvious, then you probably play a combination of defensive and offensive, yourself, when the times are right.

 

[dennis10is]

The old

Red light, green light, yellow light still works for me.

 

[Steady Eddy]

defensive tennis is for squares.

This is true. Even if you become the best player at your club, if you play defensively, no one will respect your game. So unless money is involved, there's nothing to be gained by playing defensively. Even at the pro level, defensive stars don't get the adulation and endorsements that offensive players get.

 

[Blake0]

I think offensive tennis is better. But without a good defence, you won't get very far. You need a nice blend of the two. And there are a ton of different offensive tennis styles, ex: serve volley, baseline blaster, transitional tennis, etc. The key is to find which one's that fit you, and how you can use them to win points on a consistent basis.

Defensive tennis is also equally important, i just like offensive tennis better because that's my style . Defensive tennis may seem like you don't need as much skill to pull off, but thats not true. I'd say it takes the same amount of skill, if not more. (ever seen those federer flick passes, nadal passing shots on the dead run with a 99.99% chance of losing the point, don't forget the defensive shot making to go from defense to offense in 1 or 2 shots).

Theres nothing wrong in being an offensive player, but make sure you have a solid defense, and are able to play offensive consistently (no point going for win it all or lose it all tennis..unless you're extremely lucky ). Ofcourse against better players, you might have to kick up your offense a notch and you might make more errors that usual.

 

[Blake0]

This is true. Even if you become the best player at your club, if you play defensively, no one will respect your game. So unless money is involved, there's nothing to be gained by playing defensively. Even at the pro level, defensive stars don't get the adulation and endorsements that offensive players get.

Don't forget the federer flick passing shots, and nadal's insane passing shots, and the transition from defense to offense in 1 shot, is all part of defensive tennis, just at a totally different skill level. Then again only people you usually see making these shots are in the top ten atp..

 

[BU-Tennis]

There is not one good player that plays a purely defensive game. Even if they don't hit winners, it doesn't mean that they aren't forcing their opponents to come up with awesome shots. Of course, they all try to get cheap points on their serve or either setup their next shot.

In almost every rally, you hit a mix of defensive and offensive shots.

 

[Steady Eddy]

Don't forget the federer flick passing shots, and nadal's insane passing shots, and the transition from defense to offense in 1 shot, is all part of defensive tennis, just at a totally different skill level. Then again only people you usually see making these shots are in the top ten atp..

Nadal's a defensive player, but he's admired because when you get to be THAT good, they can't ignore you. But they used to knock even Borg, for being 'too defensive'. An SI article on Jose Higueras said that he wasn't more loved in his home country of Spain, because he played too defensively. And when Bobby Riggs won a triple crown at the only Wimbledon he ever attended, half the crowd walked out during the final because of the extended rallies. I also think people overlook how good Mats Willander was because he didn't have the big weapons, he was just always very hard to beat. He didn't beat himself very often.

At club player tennis the bias is even worse. People there simply think that playing defensively is cheating.

 

[GuyClinch]

^^^All pro tennis players are both offensive and defensive players. That includes Murray and Nadal.

 

[user92626]

Not sure what the OP meant by "Hitting the ball back such that it cannot be attacked as easily," when he described "defensive". A shot that cannot be attacked as easily is indeed an offensive shot because if a shot isn't attacked, it must be handled either neutrally or defensively. (How many types of shot are there?)

One should play the style that one's capable of. It cannot be a better style for someone who doesn't know how to attack, ie construct point and attack, to suddenly play an attack game. He would be out of his elements and ensure a lose.

Vice versa, if you know how to attack and dictate, why would you want to play defensively and allow your opponent to dictate your win by him making eu's or not?

 

[defrule]

For me if I get a weak ball then I would try to attack on it. However in a neutral rally how do you go into the offense? You need a weapon to create the opening for attack right?

 

[user92626]

However in a neutral rally how do you go into the offense?

At a more advanced level, I don't think there's a neutral rally. Maybe one or two shots look neutral but capable players always look for chances to create difficulties for opponents or maybe they themselves are trying to gain control. You want to put faster pace and wider angle, essentially get your opponent on the run as much as possible.

Control is so important that at the pro level, server has to win, ie they relentlessly attack starting from the serve, putting receiver on defense with almost every shot.

 

[raiden031]

Not sure what the OP meant by "Hitting the ball back such that it cannot be attacked as easily," when he described "defensive". A shot that cannot be attacked as easily is indeed an offensive shot because if a shot isn't attacked, it must be handled either neutrally or defensively. (How many types of shot are there?)

Well you can hit a shot that pressures your opponent or you can hit a shot that keeps you in the point. So then I'm talking about hitting all neutral shots instead of taking more risky offensive shots.

 

[chico9166]

Me thinks most club level player could literally spend years increasing the value of their "neutral rally shot", before they worry too much about offense. Improving the depth, speed, placement, of their rally shot, will make offensive opportunities abudantly clear.

 

[raiden031]

One should play the style that one's capable of. It cannot be a better style for someone who doesn't know how to attack, ie construct point and attack, to suddenly play an attack game. He would be out of his elements and ensure a lose.

Vice versa, if you know how to attack and dictate, why would you want to play defensively and allow your opponent to dictate your win by him making eu's or not?

How do you know what style you are capable of? I know that I can beat 3.5s by playing offensively, but can't necessarily win at 4.0 with the same tactics. Does this mean I should change my tactics to play more defensively in order to stay in the points longer, or does it mean I should continue with my offensive strategy but just keep practicing and it will come together? BTW, I'm not looking for advice on my own game per se, but just wondering how one knows what is the right strategy they should be using.