The Greatest Tacticians and Strategists in tennis history.

[pc1]

Off topic but in your opinion who are the greatest tacticians on a tennis court?

Sometimes consistency wins out over power, I find that a lot when I play . Being able to absorb and redirect pace, keep good depth etc...is just as useful as power.

Historically I would say Tilden, Riggs, Kramer, Segura, Gonzalez, Borg, Lendl, Wilander, Lacoste and perhaps Connors.

Tilden was known for being a chessplayer on the court. Riggs was brilliant at finding his opponent's weaknesses. Kramer spotted any weakness and Segura was brilliant that way also.

Borg is underrated in this area but I was amazed by his variety of styles in playing different opponents. Lendl was great at formulating plans as sort of proven by his great coaching of Andy Murray. Lacoste used to keep detailed notes on every player and we all know how brilliant he was.

NatF posted a nice question that I thought deserved a thread on who are the greatest tacticians on a tennis court.

I named a few in the post above. I thought of Rosewall but it seems to me that he rarely deviates from his normal intelligent game. I have never seen him vary tactics that much. However Rosewall is a possibility although I would leave him out.

So do any of you have any other possibilities and why?

 

[boredone3456]

Men: Tilden, Kramer, Gonzalez, Segura, Lendl

Women: Lenglen, Marble, Conolly, Evert, Hingis to a degree

 

[pc1]

Men: Tilden, Kramer, Gonzalez, Segura, Lendl

Women: Lenglen, Marble, Conolly, Evert, Hingis to a degree

Lenglen and Evert are great picks. Lenglen apparently worked with Helen Jacobs on strategy on how to beat Helen Wills.

What about Henin?

 

[BTURNER]

first we ought to be clear about the difference between tactics and strategy, between a tactical mind, and a strategic mind.

 

[hoodjem]

I believe Wilander should be on the list.

 

[pc1]

I believe Wilander should be on the list.

(And Ashe--particularly for what he did to Connors in the 1975 Wimbers final.)

Wilander was a brilliant strategist. I also think his talent is very underrated. When the Swedes dominated the Davis Cup, many thought Wilander was easily the most talented of the bunch which included Edberg.

 

[boredone3456]

Lenglen and Evert are great picks. Lenglen apparently worked with Helen Jacobs on strategy on how to beat Helen Wills.

What about Henin?

Henin was a strategist in the sense that she wasn't afraid to use an all court game and could comfortably play from anywhere on the court when she had to. She could strategically work her way to the net or open up the court from the baseline. However, I'm not if she looks so strategic because she actually was, or if she was just better than what was around her. She certainly was good...but I dunno if I would put her on the same tier as Lenglen or Evert in that department

 

[Fedinkum]

Hingis. She has no major weapons and a tiny body. Just a big forehead cradling that massive tennis brain of her.

 

[pc1]

John Newcombe was a very good thinker on the court. In the 1975 Australian Newcombe was out of shape and also exhausted after his long five set semi against Tony Roche. However he developed a plan to lob Connors and somehow he won the match in four sets.

 

[BTURNER]

Maybe we should ask what attributes are necessary for a tactical game plan to succeed, and which minds do the best work at predicting which will.

1. First you need to understand the court, the geometry and the odds of the possible patterns. I don't think I mean an intellectual understanding as much as an instinctive, intuitive understanding. You need court sense.

2. You need to absorb the patterns of behavior in your opponent, and his strengths and weaknesses, Not just those your coach told you about, but the patterns as they develop in the match. You may not even be able to verbalize it, but you have to be calculating which patterns are working, which are not and why.

3. you have to synthesize all that into a plan of action, a plan that is flexible and includes even subtle variables of spin, timing etc. Remembering that tactics are not just confined to a court, a ball and a stroke, you will be more successful if you include the weather, the crowd, the officiating, the mood, and the temperament of your opponent. Yes, gamesmanship can be part of the larger tactical gameplan.

4. You have to have the emotional and mental discipline to detach yourself. No, this tennis tactics stuff is definitely not all about you and your game. You have to see these patterns clinically and compartmentalize your frustration, your fear, your excitement, and your feelings about your own game long enough to do so.

Last, those that have those attributes but not the fundamentals of stroke production, footwork, variety of shot, strength, stamina, ball control, the athletic skills and talent to execute this plan, will get no credit for the hard work done upstairs to create it.

 

[Limpinhitter]

NatF posted a nice question that I thought deserved a thread on who are the greatest tacticians on a tennis court.

I named a few in the post above. I thought of Rosewall but it seems to me that he rarely deviates from his normal intelligent game. I have never seen him vary tactics that much. However Rosewall is a possibility although I would leave him out.

So do any of you have any other possibilities and why?

Newcombe and Ashe for reasons which are known to some, that I will expand on later.

 

[urban]

Some Tennis Einsteins, who wrote brilliantly on tennis, some maybe more in the theoretical department were Tilden, Lacoste, Billy Talbert, Allan Fox, and as a sort of Diogenes Torben Ulrich.

 

[Limpinhitter]

Newcombe and Ashe for reasons which are known to some, that I will expand on later.

In Ashe's case, his comback win against Borg at the WCT final in Dallas and his domination of Connors in the 1975 Wimbledon final was an example of a player who is both willing, and able, to employ a dink/steady strategy which is completely contrary to his usual aggressive power game, to win at the highest level. In both cases, he knew that Borg and Connors were able to match his power and keep the ball in play longer than he could if he tried to hit out with them, not a winning solution in those cases. So, he swallowed his pride and did what he knew he had to do to win and have probably the best year of his career.

In Newk's case, his win at the 1974 WCT championship and the 1975 AO, Newcombe employed much more subtle changes in recognition of his opponents strengths and weaknesses. At the WCT, he was down 4-0 to Borg in the first set, made minor adjustments to account for Borg's dipping returns and passing shots and won 4-6, 6-3, 6-3, 6-2. At the AO, it seemed to me that Newcombe decided to exploit Connors' smash by dinking and lobbing as often as possible.

 

[PDJ]

Hingis. She has no major weapons and a tiny body. Just a big forehead cradling that massive tennis brain of her.

Hingis is using her tactical brain much more now as a doubles player - sublime knowledge of the court.
As a singles player, whilst she was one of the more tactical, and shrewd, of her era, I don't think she comes close to Evert, because the latter was rarely (if ever!) reduced to some suicidal point play out of petulance or arrogance.
Evert would adapt her strategy to an opponent in ways Hingis never could day in day out. Even in the dotage of her career she had very few really bad upsets.
Evert's incredible consistency bares this out, I feel.

 

[pc1]

Hingis is using her tactical brain much more now as a doubles player - sublime knowledge of the court.
As a singles player, whilst she was one of the more tactical, and shrewd, of her era, I don't think she comes close to Evert, because the latter was rarely (if ever!) reduced to some suicidal point play out of petulance or arrogance.
Evert would adapt her strategy to an opponent in ways Hingis never could day in day out. Even in the dotage of her career she had very few really bad upsets.
Evert's incredible consistency bares this out, I feel.

It's funny to me that three of the greatest baseliners of all time, Evert, Connors and Borg are not known for how smart they were tactically even though they are. Evert and Borg especially were often categorized as baseline machines when they were far more than that.

 

[pc1]

In Ashe's case, his comback win against Borg at the WCT final in Dallas and his domination of Connors in the 1975 Wimbledon final was an example of a player who is both willing, and able, to employ a dink/steady strategy which is completely contrary to his usual aggressive power game, to win at the highest level. In both cases, he knew that Borg and Connors were able to match his power and keep the ball in play longer than he could if he tried to hit out with them, not a winning solution in those cases. So, he swallowed his pride and did what he knew he had to do to win and have probably the best year of his career.

In Newk's case, his win at the 1974 WCT championship and the 1975 AO, Newcombe employed much more subtle changes in recognition of his opponents strengths and weaknesses. At the WCT, he was down 4-0 to Borg in the first set, made minor adjustments to account for Borg's dipping returns and passing shots and won 4-6, 6-3, 6-3, 6-2. At the AO, it seemed to me that Newcombe decided to exploit Connors' smash by dinking and lobbing as often as possible.

One of the traits I believe of a great tactician is not only the ability to have a new plan on how to play an opponent but also to change tactics in a match. Newcombe was a master of this. Of course on fast surfaces his plan A was his usual serve and volley and forehand power game however he was quite capable of the touch game with lobs and dink angles.

 

[pc1]

List of Tacticians and Strategists mentioned that could be on all time list.
Tilden
Wilander
Newcombe
Talbert
Ashe
Lacoste
RIggs
Borg
Connors
Lendl
Segura
Kramer
Allen Fox
Pancho Gonzalez

 

[Navdeep Srivastava]

List of Tacticians and Strategists mentioned that could be on all time list.
Tilden
Wilander
Newcombe
Talbert
Ashe
Lacoste
RIggs
Borg
Connors
Lendl
Segura
Kramer
Allen Fox
Pancho Gonzalez

How will you rate Agassi, Sampras, Fed, Rafa and Novak?

 

[PDJ]

It's funny to me that three of the greatest baseliners of all time, Evert, Connors and Borg are not known for how smart they were tactically even though they are. Evert and Borg especially were often categorized as baseline machines when they were far more than that.

My Grandmother (a frequent Wimbledon spectator ) said that you get absolutely no sense of what Evert does with a ball until you see her play live, and had little time for fellow tennis club members that labelled her 'boring'. She still attends and this year will be her own personal Wimbledon centenary as she turned 100 last year. Not that she's been from age '0' but as a school girl and has seen everyone from Lenglen, Tilden onwards.
My love of the history of tennis comes from my Grandparents.
In case you're interested, her favourite match she saw live was Ashe/Connors final - she has no time for Connors!

 

[pc1]

How will you rate Agassi, Sampras, Fed, Rafa and Novak?

Agassi was never the smartest player imo especially when young but of course not many are brilliant tactically when young. Gilbert taught him a lot on how to play a smarter game.

I never thought of Sampras as a great tactician or strategically brilliant but when he was playing his best it didn't matter. I think Agassi made some comments once that Sampras could play horribly and still be tied because of his serve. And that Sampras just had to play a few good minutes of tennis to win a set due to that serve.

Federer is actually imo a pretty smart player. I love the way he mixes the slices and angle along with the net rushes to take advantage of his opponents.

I have noticed especially against Federer how Nadal changes his approach to playing Federer depending on the situation and the surfaces. It's not only the usual topspin lefty forehand to Federer's backhand as his only strategy. I think Rafa's a very smart player.

 

[NatF]

I have noticed especially against Federer how Nadal changes his approach to playing Federer depending on the situation and the surfaces. It's not only the usual topspin lefty forehand to Federer's backhand as his only strategy. I think Rafa's a very smart player.

Nadal's approach to Federer is always the same. Hit to the backhand and serve to the backhand. He hit to the forehand more in that 2013 period perhaps but that was when Federer was suffering with his back and not moving as well. Nadal's tactic's against Federer are about as one dimensional as you can get.

 

[pc1]

Nadal's approach to Federer is always the same. Hit to the backhand and serve to the backhand. He hit to the forehand more in that 2013 period perhaps but that was when Federer was suffering with his back and not moving as well. Nadal's tactic's against Federer are about as one dimensional as you can get.

I was thinking primarily of a serving stat they had in how he varied the serving area far more I think on grass than on clay. I guess you're right overall.

However I do think he's an intelligent player.

 

[NatF]

I was thinking primarily of a serving stat they had in how he varied the serving area far more I think on grass than on clay. I guess you're right overall.

However I do think he's an intelligent player.

That's interesting. Don't suppose you have access to it?

No doubt Nadal is intelligent. I remember his interview with Charlie Rose after the USO 2013, he was quite insight talking about his match up with Djokovic. I think there are subtleties to Nadal's game rather than overt adjustments. When playing Federer though his tactic is very straight forward - it's also the tactic most of the tour have used over the years.

 

[pc1]

That's interesting. Don't suppose you have access to it?

No doubt Nadal is intelligent. I remember his interview with Charlie Rose after the USO 2013, he was quite insight talking about his match up with Djokovic. I think there are subtleties to Nadal's game rather than overt adjustments. When playing Federer though his tactic is very straight forward - it's also the tactic most of the tour have used over the years.

It was in one of the Wimbledon finals I think that Nadal played against Federer. My best guess would be 2008.

 

[Limpinhitter]

List of Tacticians and Strategists mentioned that could be on all time list.
Tilden
Wilander
Newcombe
Talbert
Ashe
Lacoste
RIggs
Borg
Connors
Lendl
Segura
Kramer
Allen Fox
Pancho Gonzalez

I consider Nadal to be one of the most disciplined, high percentage shotmakers of all time. I rarely see him make a tactical error.

 

[Limpinhitter]

Agassi was never the smartest player imo especially when young but of course not many are brilliant tactically when young. Gilbert taught him a lot on how to play a smarter game.

I never thought of Sampras as a great tactician or strategically brilliant but when he was playing his best it didn't matter. I think Agassi made some comments once that Sampras could play horribly and still be tied because of his serve. And that Sampras just had to play a few good minutes of tennis to win a set due to that serve.

Federer is actually imo a pretty smart player. I love the way he mixes the slices and angle along with the net rushes to take advantage of his opponents.

I have noticed especially against Federer how Nadal changes his approach to playing Federer depending on the situation and the surfaces. It's not only the usual topspin lefty forehand to Federer's backhand as his only strategy. I think Rafa's a very smart player.

I think that Agassi was also a very disciplined, high percentage, tactician, moreso than Federer. Federer makes more tactical errors than Agassi or Nadal.

 

[BTURNER]

I think that Agassi was also a very disciplined, high percentage, tactician, moreso than Federer. Federer makes more tactical errors than Agassi or Nadal.

The more complicated your tactics and style are, the more choices in shots and patterns you allow yourself, the more tactical errors you are likely to make. On the other hand, the fewer options you allow yourself in shots and patterns, the less complicated your tactics and style are, the less you are likely to change them up, whether you should or not.

 

[BTURNER]

delete duplicate

 

[70sHollywood]

I agree with Limpin' about Nadal. I remember in 2013 thinking he always hit the right shot. Whether he executed it is another matter but his decision making was flawless. I think he improved in this area from 2008.

The Nadal/Federer issue raises an interesting point. Nadal's tactics are one dimensional, but you cannot argue with the results. So how much credit should we give people who are smart enough not to change a winning formula?

I don't know what others think but I feel you play to your strengths first, your opponents weakness second.

 

[Limpinhitter]

The more complicated your tactics and style are, the more choices in shots and patterns you allow yourself, the more tactical errors you are likely to make. On the other hand, the fewer options you allow yourself in shots and patterns, the less complicated your tactics and style are, the less you are likely to change them up, whether you should or not.

This is a topic I've had many disagreements about in the "tennis tips/instruction" section. In my view, tennis is a very simple game. It is a percentage game. Players who make high percentage shot selections generally win against players who make low percentage shot selections. In any situation there are multiple choices of shot selection, but, usually only one high percentage option. More disciplined players chose the high percentage option more consistently.

In my view, Federer's tactics aren't complicated. He just likes to improvise and go for lower percentage shots because he likes to end points quickly and can usually get away with it. All players improvise from time to time. Nadal and Agassi less than most.

 

[Limpinhitter]

I agree with Limpin' about Nadal. I remember in 2013 thinking he always hit the right shot. Whether he executed it is another matter but his decision making was flawless. I think he improved in this area from 2008.

The Nadal/Federer issue raises an interesting point. Nadal's tactics are one dimensional, but you cannot argue with the results. So how much credit should we give people who are smart enough not to change a winning formula?

I don't know what others think but I feel you play to your strengths first, your opponents weakness second.

That depends on how strong your strengths are and how weak your opponents weaknesses are. It just so happens that Nadal playing his strength against Federer's weakness is the high percentage play for Nadal in most circumstances against any opponent.

 

[Mareqnyc]

Would anyone consider Radwanska a great tactician? Or not good enough since she doesn't have a slam?

 

[pc1]

Would anyone consider Radwanska a great tactician? Or not good enough since she doesn't have a slam?

You don't have to win a major to be called a great tactician. I like her tactics.

 

[PDJ]

Would anyone consider Radwanska a great tactician? Or not good enough since she doesn't have a slam?

You don't have to win a major to be called a great tactician. I like her tactics.

Me to. And she plays with a rare breed of elegance that is rarely seen by those that occasionally blast her off the court.
It's testament to her shrewd mind/tactical awareness that she beats the majority of big hitters that lack consistency.

 

[Mareqnyc]

Me to. And she plays with a rare breed of elegance that is rarely seen by those that occasionally blast her off the court.
It's testament to her shrewd mind/tactical awareness that she beats the majority of big hitters that lack consistency.

So true. I used to be all about "hit as hard as you can". Watching Radwanska I see it is more important where I hit the ball rather than how hard!

 

[hoodjem]

In case you're interested, her favourite match she saw live was Ashe/Connors final - she has no time for Connors!

Your Grandmother is an intelligent woman.

Neither do I.

 

[joekapa]

John Newcombe was a very good thinker on the court. In the 1975 Australian Newcombe was out of shape and also exhausted after his long five set semi against Tony Roche. However he developed a plan to lob Connors and somehow he won the match in four sets.

1975 AO means stuff all.

 

[joekapa]

Macenroe, Lendl. Djokovic should also be on this list.

 

[PDJ]

1975 AO means stuff all.

Connors in 1975! It means considerably more than that!

 

[joe sch]

Men: Tilden, Kramer, Gonzalez, Segura, Lendl

Women: Lenglen, Marble, Conolly, Evert, Hingis to a degree

I concur with Tilden, and Segura since they were two of the greatest players of their eras and also both produced many outstanding books covering tactics, strategy, and techniques.

 

[RacquetAbuse101]

John McEnroe and Martina Hingis should be on the short list.

In singles and doubles.

 

[suwanee4712]

Billie Jean King. She made her opponents have to hit the shots they didn't want to hit in order to win. Her strategic approach to the Riggs match was spot on despite going against her own strengths. And her latter matches vs. Martina were sometimes masterful. She could give Martina trouble when no one else could. Her 1982 Wimbledon run was a great one because of her smarts. She managed to knock out Austin and darn near put Chris out too. Had she gotten to the final, she might've beaten Martina.

 

[Dan Lobb]

Billie Jean King. She made her opponents have to hit the shots they didn't want to hit in order to win. Her strategic approach to the Riggs match was spot on despite going against her own strengths. And her latter matches vs. Martina were sometimes masterful. She could give Martina trouble when no one else could. Her 1982 Wimbledon run was a great one because of her smarts. She managed to knock out Austin and darn near put Chris out too. Had she gotten to the final, she might've beaten Martina.

Was that Riggs match a full-scale effort by Riggs?

 

[BTURNER]

Billie Jean King. She made her opponents have to hit the shots they didn't want to hit in order to win. Her strategic approach to the Riggs match was spot on despite going against her own strengths. And her latter matches vs. Martina were sometimes masterful. She could give Martina trouble when no one else could. Her 1982 Wimbledon run was a great one because of her smarts. She managed to knock out Austin and darn near put Chris out too. Had she gotten to the final, she might've beaten Martina.

I could never find fault with King's tactics, but they were constrained by her temperament. She was too impatient to employ the full range of options, much like Evert was too restrained to employ them all either. King could not think or play like Evert, whatever the tactical advantage to lengthening a rally and Evert could not serve and volley, however useful that may have been. King also had a technical deficit in her forehand groundstroke which narrowed her 'plan B' options. Someone like Goolagong could have had the whole bucket full of options as a pure all-courter, but unlike Evert or King, she did not have the mental discipline to stick to any one of them. In a way, fate was unkind to all three

 

[pc1]

Was that Riggs match a full-scale effort by Riggs?

Lot of rumors to the contrary.

 

[PDJ]

Lot of rumors to the contrary.

Given what a self-publicist Riggs was, he's probably smiling somewhere ..

 

[pc1]

Given what a self-publicist Riggs was, he's probably smiling somewhere ..

It really is a shame Riggs is mainly known for his match with Billie Jean King. He really was a super player and one of the all time greats. I love his smooth strokes. The guy even had a great serve. Pancho Gonzalez and Ellsworth Vines wrote about what a great serve Riggs had. Vines thought Riggs' serve was even superior to Don Budge's in his prime because of the variety he had. Riggs had every shot and also had a fantastic service return. The only guy who bothered him on serve was Jack Kramer.

 

[Limpinhitter]

1. Riggs was a notorious lifelong gambler as far back as his Wimbledon Singles/Doubles triumph in 1939.
2. At the time of his match with BJK, Riggs allegedly had mafia gambling debts.
3. 8 Months earlier, Riggs beat the better player, Margaret Court, 6-2, 6-1, known as the Mother's Day Massacre. (The set up).
4. Riggs then loses to the lesser player, BJK, in straight sets, 6-4, 6-3, 6-3.
5. If it walks like a duck . . . (no pun intended, lol).

 

[pc1]

It's because of that Riggs match that Margaret Court enhanced a reputation of a player who could not play big matches. That to me is ridiculous considering Court's unbelievable record in majors. Everyone chokes at times.

I always found it absolutely silly that some so-called experts rank Billie Jean King ahead of Margaret Court on there all time lists. They are not even close as far as level of play and accomplishments are concerned.

 

[suwanee4712]

Was that Riggs match a full-scale effort by Riggs?

If you had asked me 20 years ago, I would've said "yes" without any hesitation. It's not as clear anymore because we have more info. and the longer time has gone on, the less womens sports needs for that to be 100% true. I can't answer that question definitively. But I can judge what happened on BJK's side of the court.

If you look purely at what BJK did, she studied the Court match where she played her normal game which was a good matchup for Riggs. He liked players feeding him balls driven through firmly and mostly flat with pace. BJK went against that even though it wasn't her strength. It wasn't beautiful tennis. But Riggs had to work harder. And he did look winded the more that match progressed.

So I won't argue with those that knew Riggs better than I and believe that he did what he did to make a big payday. But I do think that BJK did do what she has done so often before and since that Riggs match. She figured out how to put herself into a winning position.