What is a one-dimensional player?

Gen

Gen

Banned
Some days ago a thread was started discussing Nadal's "dimensions" (as usual).
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=233175

But in the last 2 pages of this discussion people proposed so many players that are considered one-dimensional either by them or by somedody else, that I started having doubts whether we have two-dimensional players at all.

The nominees are Becker, Wilander, JMac, Connors, Edberg, Agassi (?!) to name a few.

The idea of "one-dimensional" doesn't have a clear definion either. Some people call a player "one-dimensional" if he plays relatively the same game on all the surfaces, for other people "one-dimensional" means lacking in the range of technical aspects and/or variety of shots.

Another question is: who is the most all-round (accomplished) player in your opinion?
 
a guy who has only one weapon. the fh for example. pushing is also considered one-dimensional.

all round player= = good at grass, hardcourts and clay. eg. federer, djokovic, davydenko.
 
wyutani said:
a guy who has only one weapon. the fh for example. pushing is also considered one-dimensional.

all round player= = good at grass, hardcourts and clay. eg. federer, djokovic, davydenko.
Click to expand...

I am not sure about Davydenko. He is no good on grass (at least that's what he says). What about Murrey? And would you call Simon terribly one-dimensional?
 
Gen said:
I am not sure about Davydenko. He is no good on grass (at least that's what he says). What about Murrey? And would you call Simon terribly one-dimensional?
Click to expand...

ok, i made an error on davydenko there, he sucks at grass. Murray is definately not one-dimenisonal, he one of those rare tennis players that actually uses tactics and brains.

I dunno about simon though, his game is somewhat common. more counter-punching, ppl might mistake that for being one-dimensional. remember that one-dimensional players tend to has only ONE weapon. anway, one-dimensional aint that bad, if ur winning with only one weapon, why repair something not broken eh?:)
 
JankovicFan said:
It's true. Check some of the threads. I'm just sayin'. I dare you to have a serious, rational discussion using the term one-dimensional. The fanboys will crap all over it.
Click to expand...

nah, i dun balme you. the forum wasnt like that in my days....:)
 
wyutani said:
ok, i made an error on davydenko there, he sucks at grass. Murray is definately not one-dimenisonal, he one of those rare tennis players that actually uses tactics and brains.

I dunno about simon though, his game is somewhat common. more counter-punching, ppl might mistake that for being one-dimensional. remember that one-dimensional players tend to has only ONE weapon. anway, one-dimensional aint that bad, if ur winning with only one weapon, why repair something not broken eh?:)
Click to expand...

When I heard this word "one-dimensional" before, the readily available names for me were Karlovic and Simon. But when I saw Agassi and Connors classified one-dimensional, I got lost in the woods.
 
Gen said:
When I heard this word "one-dimensional" before, the readily available names for me were Karlovic and Simon. But when I saw Agassi and Connors classified one-dimensional, I got lost in the woods.
Click to expand...

nah, you shouldnt believe what you read all the time. agassi is kinda one-dimensional in his younger days, powerful fh he has. but as he developed a killer return, and superb timing when hitting his groundies, hes considered one of the best. anyway, he won all 4 grandies. b4 agassi, connors was the best returner, average serve but great at voellys.

for karlovic however, i dunno, he has more aces than roddick though.
 
Jmac one dimensional? For the same shot, he could choose between 30 different alternatives. Never seen with a guy with more variety than da Mac!
 
wyutani said:
a guy who has only one weapon. the fh for example. pushing is also considered one-dimensional.

all round player= = good at grass, hardcourts and clay. eg. federer, djokovic, davydenko.
Click to expand...
Davydenko more dimensional than Nadal? Lmao. You should watch the Wimbledon Final and see what shot Nadal didn't use. He was doing everything well in that match.
 
Nadal_Freak said:
Davydenko more dimensional than Nadal? Lmao. You should watch the Wimbledon Final and see what shot Nadal didn't use. He was doing everything well in that match.
Click to expand...

As you can see, i try not to mention nadal. see....not one word has nadal on it cos i know you'll be coming...haha.:)

im wondering too, how did you get to be "legend" before me? i was before you.
 
Last edited:
Thinking aloud:
why should one-dimensional have anything to do with surface or even weapon.
Is not tactics more important.Can the player play both offensive and defensive well. Can he turnover a point in which he was being dictated?
Does he have different strategies up his sleeve which he can pull off successfully.

e.g. a player with only a strong forehand culd use it in many ways to win a point.
 
wyutani said:
As you can see, i try not to mention nadal. see....not one word has nadal on it cos i know you'll be coming...haha.:)

im wondering too, how did you get to be "legend" before me? i was before you.
Click to expand...
1. haha, i tried very hard myself.
2. forget legend, the fight for GOAT is on. He is possibly the next GOAT, going by rate of carpet-bombing, er posting.

wyutani, nadal has many weapons, er dimensions .. like delaying on each serve, distracting opponents with his habits, fake injury timeouts, etc etc. ;-)
 
Last edited:
Sentinel said:
1. haha, i tried very hard myself.
2. forget legend, the fight for GOAT is on. He is possibly the next GOAT, going by rate of carpet-bombing, er posting.

wyutani, nadal has many weapons, er dimensions .. like delaying on each serve, distracting opponents with his habits, fake injury timeouts, etc etc. ;-)
Click to expand...

omg, you just said the "N" word.:):twisted:
 
JankovicFan said:
That is a term used by trolls to get people to argue that they are wrong.
Click to expand...

wyutani said:
dude, stop being negative.
Click to expand...

Actually I agree with the first assessment. It is just a demeaning term that has no real meaning and is indiscriminately used whenever a troll feels the need to bash some player or provoke heated reactions in his fans.

Not even Karlovic is one-dimensional, in the sense of one weapon or one surface. He has amazing hands at the net, can crunch a mean forehand or overhead, has decent results on clay and would double-bagel any member of this forum even if we set the rule that all twelve games were return games for him. Sure, compared to other top-50 pros his ground game or movement are slightly worse, but it is still a top of the world ground game.

People who say that Karlovic or Roddick don't have top 100 groundstrokes are just tools. You can see pro players as a set of different stats, like in computer games. All of them have all the stat bars near the max (forehand, backhand, serve, endurance, mental toughness...) because otherwise they wouldn't be there, top of a chain food of thousands, no one reaches the top without a full set of weapons.

That is talking in absolute terms, of course. In a relative approach, at tour level even small differences can mean a lot because the competition is so fierce. But "one-dimensional"? Every player tries to play to his (relative) strengths and capitalize on the (relative) weaknesses of his opponent, that's only logical.
 
One dimensional player:

Cincinnati2007306.jpg
 
Rafa isn't one dimensional

technically no one in the top 50 is, we all know it, but this board.... don't let it get to ya mate

Why does Rafa get some slack? perhaps because he plays to the backhand, with his lefty topspin forehand

perhaps he serves to the backhand 90%?

it matters not, if it works why change a winning formula, non?
 
Sentinel said:
Thinking aloud:
why should one-dimensional have anything to do with surface or even weapon.
Is not tactics more important.Can the player play both offensive and defensive well. Can he turnover a point in which he was being dictated?
Does he have different strategies up his sleeve which he can pull off successfully.

e.g. a player with only a strong forehand culd use it in many ways to win a point.
Click to expand...

I agree. 10 char
 
I tend to think of a 1D player as someone who can't adapt. You don't have to be an all-court player to be 3D (can just be a pure baseliner) but you have to be able to improvise out there. Using Agassi as an example, he's a guy who used pretty much the same game all the time, but made adjustments that allowed him to stay on top for 3 or 4 generations. He went to net quite often in the 80's. And I remember that Moya match in the FO '99 where he was losing from the baseline and so started charging the net and was able to win the match. Then he goes to Wimbledon which used to be a polar opposite surface with serve and volleyers and makes the final there. That's 3 dimensional.

A guy like Davydenko is very 1 dimensional. Wimbledon keeps getting slower and slower for him and yet he still can't manage it. He doesn't know how to adjust, he just knows how to grind.
 
superman1 said:
I tend to think of a 1D player as someone who can't adapt. You don't have to be an all-court player to be 3D (can just be a pure baseliner) but you have to be able to improvise out there. Using Agassi as an example, he's a guy who used pretty much the same game all the time, but made adjustments that allowed him to stay on top for 3 or 4 generations. He went to net quite often in the 80's. And I remember that Moya match in the FO '99 where he was losing from the baseline and so started charging the net and was able to win the match. Then he goes to Wimbledon which used to be a polar opposite surface with serve and volleyers and makes the final there. That's 3 dimensional.

A guy like Davydenko is very 1 dimensional. Wimbledon keeps getting slower and slower for him and yet he still can't manage it. He doesn't know how to adjust, he just knows how to grind.
Click to expand...
1. Wimbledon is still quite fast
2. Davydenko is good on fast surfaces. Ever seem him play on carpet or indoor hardcourts? I think the reason Davydenko struggles with the grass as it is the hardest surface to take the ball early on. Thus that is his best part of the game and grass being his enemy.
 
^^^Davydenko has a hard time at Wimbledon, because he can't understand how they made clay look like grass. he focuses on this too much.
 
Nadal_Freak said:
1. Wimbledon is still quite fast
2. Davydenko is good on fast surfaces. Ever seem him play on carpet or indoor hardcourts? I think the reason Davydenko struggles with the grass as it is the hardest surface to take the ball early on. Thus that is his best part of the game and grass being his enemy.
Click to expand...

Davydenko has poor movement on grass. It is very slippery and requires expert movement on grass to play effectively. Many players take the ball early,especially Agassi, but he still managed to win Wimbledon because he can adjust his movement on grass.
 
helloworld said:
Davydenko has poor movement on grass. It is very slippery and requires expert movement on grass to play effectively. Many players take the ball early,especially Agassi, but he still managed to win Wimbledon because he can adjust his movement on grass.
Click to expand...
True but Agassi was the greatest ball striker of all-time. Even than, grass was always his worst surface and he got lucky one year where Sampras didn't get to the Final and Ivanisevic choked. Grass is not great for players that rely on taking the ball so early. Blake, Davydenko, and etc. In other words they can't wait on the ball as it takes away their biggest strength of rushing their opponent. True athletes do well on grass. They don't like their athleticism being punished by rough hardcourts.
 
Pure genius I say, he can bounce the ball with a racket in one hand even while pulling with the other.

I believe once while playing roger, he managed to pick mid-rally - now that's multi-dimensional if anyone is.

drakulie said:
One dimensional player:

Cincinnati2007306.jpg
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Nadal_Freak said:
True but Agassi was the greatest ball striker of all-time. Even than, grass was always his worst surface and he got lucky one year where Sampras didn't get to the Final and Ivanisevic choked. Grass is not great for players that rely on taking the ball so early. Blake, Davydenko, and etc. In other words they can't wait on the ball as it takes away their biggest strength of rushing their opponent. True athletes do well on grass. They don't like their athleticism being punished by rough hardcourts.
Click to expand...


Yea, that's it. Agassi got lucky one year. That's why he made 2 QFs, 3 SFs, and another final. Get real idiot.



Blake is an amazing athlete, as well as Safin and many other guys who don't do well on grass. You're logic is just pure idiocy. Seriously.
 
Agassi got lucky. haha, thats funny. so if he's lucky, someone else needs to be unlucky aint it?

thats so 1+1 = 2...:)
 
wyutani said:
Agassi got lucky. haha, thats funny. so if he's lucky, someone else needs to be unlucky aint it?

thats so 1+1 = 2...:)
Click to expand...


I guess we can discount Nadal's victory too. He got lucky against a choking Federer. Don't you just love using people's own ******** logic against them?
 
cucio said:
Actually I agree with the first assessment. It is just a demeaning term that has no real meaning and is indiscriminately used whenever a troll feels the need to bash some player or provoke heated reactions in his fans.

Not even Karlovic is one-dimensional, in the sense of one weapon or one surface. He has amazing hands at the net, can crunch a mean forehand or overhead, has decent results on clay and would double-bagel any member of this forum even if we set the rule that all twelve games were return games for him. Sure, compared to other top-50 pros his ground game or movement are slightly worse, but it is still a top of the world ground game.

People who say that Karlovic or Roddick don't have top 100 groundstrokes are just tools. You can see pro players as a set of different stats, like in computer games. All of them have all the stat bars near the max (forehand, backhand, serve, endurance, mental toughness...) because otherwise they wouldn't be there, top of a chain food of thousands, no one reaches the top without a full set of weapons.

That is talking in absolute terms, of course. In a relative approach, at tour level even small differences can mean a lot because the competition is so fierce. But "one-dimensional"? Every player tries to play to his (relative) strengths and capitalize on the (relative) weaknesses of his opponent, that's only logical.
Click to expand...

Great post. I think the term is used by some posters to create havoc on the board. One dimensional to me would mean you only do one or two things constantly and that's the only way you win matches. Thanks for the logic. In the future I will avoid such posters.
 
helloworld said:
And the next thing he does is smelling his own fingers. Yuck!
Click to expand...


This thread has never been intended for insulting players. Why don't you say all these things to your family instead of polluting internet with rudeness and dirt? The family that raised the likes of you deserves it, Nadal doesn't.
 
Nadal_Freak said:
he got lucky one year
Click to expand...

MuahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahaMuahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahaMuahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahaMuahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahaMuahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahaMuahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahaMuahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahaMuahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahaMuahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahaMuahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahaMuahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahaMuahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahaMuahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahaMuahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahaMuahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahaMuahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahaMuahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahaMuahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahaha
 
TheTruth said:
Great post. I think the term is used by some posters to create havoc on the board. One dimensional to me would mean you only do one or two things constantly and that's the only way you win matches. Thanks for the logic. In the future I will avoid such posters.
Click to expand...
I wish I could do that but these posters are spamming up the board. It's hard to ignore such hatred.
 
Last edited:
cucio said:
Actually I agree with the first assessment. It is just a demeaning term that has no real meaning and is indiscriminately used whenever a troll feels the need to bash some player or provoke heated reactions in his fans.

Not even Karlovic is one-dimensional, in the sense of one weapon or one surface. He has amazing hands at the net, can crunch a mean forehand or overhead, has decent results on clay and would double-bagel any member of this forum even if we set the rule that all twelve games were return games for him. Sure, compared to other top-50 pros his ground game or movement are slightly worse, but it is still a top of the world ground game.

People who say that Karlovic or Roddick don't have top 100 groundstrokes are just tools. You can see pro players as a set of different stats, like in computer games. All of them have all the stat bars near the max (forehand, backhand, serve, endurance, mental toughness...) because otherwise they wouldn't be there, top of a chain food of thousands, no one reaches the top without a full set of weapons.

That is talking in absolute terms, of course. In a relative approach, at tour level even small differences can mean a lot because the competition is so fierce. But "one-dimensional"? Every player tries to play to his (relative) strengths and capitalize on the (relative) weaknesses of his opponent, that's only logical.
Click to expand...

Unlike what TheTruth says, I don't believe this to be a very good post. Why would we be comparing top players like Roddick and Karlovic to players ranked in the thousands? Of course Ivo has an all-around game compared to members of TTW, of course he could double-bagel us, these are pointless observations. The question is, is Karlovic well-rounded compared to Andy Murray or Novak Djokovic?
 
If you do that, you'll seldom have any conversations with any Federer fan! :)

I see that after Nadal won Wimbledon beating Federer, many Federer lovers have become bitter and since then have been trying to belittle Nadal one way or another. Sad really because it won't allow them to appreciate & enjoy the variety and contrasting styles that this sport presents in it's players.

By the way, I do believe Federer is a predominantly one-dimensional player.

TheTruth said:
Great post. I think the term is used by some posters to create havoc on the board. One dimensional to me would mean you only do one or two things constantly and that's the only way you win matches. Thanks for the logic. In the future I will avoid such posters.
Click to expand...
 
ksbh said:
If you do that, you'll seldom have any conversations with any Federer fan! :)

I see that after Nadal won Wimbledon beating Federer, many Federer lovers have become bitter and since then have been trying to belittle Nadal one way or another. Sad really because it won't allow them to appreciate & enjoy the variety and contrasting styles that this sport presents in it's players.

By the way, I do believe Federer is a predominantly one-dimensional player.
Click to expand...

This guy cannot be serious!

If Federer is a one-dimensional player, then what does that make Nadal??...a dimensionless player :confused: :-P
 
I'd say Karlovic is one dimensional because his serve is pretty much all that makes him a pro players.

I guess you could also say someone who can only compete at a pro level on one surface is one dimensional, but if they can vary their game on that surface then who knows?
 
Gen said:
Another question is: who is the most all-round (accomplished) player in your opinion?
Click to expand...


Sampras and Federer.

Sampras: primarily attacking style but he had the most complete all court game I've ever seen (truely masterful at both baseline or net game).
Federer: primarily baseliner(like everyone these days) but he has the most verstile game i've ever seen (attacking but defense, power game but also crafty touch, can also counter punch or has transition game, can push with pushers as well).

If Federer can truely master net game, his game is the ultimate holy grail: all courts style + all playing styles.

But you know, that's pretty impossible. they are the two of the most versatile players I've ever seen. They just emphasised different dimensions of this game...
 
Everyone seems to bash Nadal and his "one-dimensional" game. What makes it so 1D? The fact that he only excels on one surface (false)? The fact that he only has one good stroke (false)?
 
One of the most all-around players is Marat Safin. He can hit winner off both sides, his serve is deadly, excellent hands at net, such skill.
He's also proved to be an adept grass-court player in addition to hard courts, and he's not half bad at clay.
 
OhDear said:
Everyone seems to bash Nadal and his "one-dimensional" game. What makes it so 1D? The fact that he only excels on one surface (false)? The fact that he only has one good stroke (false)?
Click to expand...
NO one mentioned Nadal here. Go back and see who brought him in .... Nadal Freak . ... when someone was talking of Davydenko !

ksbh, i had quoted a priceless statement of yours in my sig. Thread got deleted -- and even my sig did !!
I am now afraid of having anything to do with you ;-)
 
fastdunn said:
Sampras and Federer.

Sampras: primarily attacking style but he had the most complete all court game I've ever seen (truely masterful at both baseline or net game).
Federer: primarily baseliner(like everyone these days) but he has the most verstile game i've ever seen (attacking but defense, power game but also crafty touch, can also counter punch or has transition game, can push with pushers as well).

If Federer can truely master net game, his game is the ultimate holy grail: all courts style + all playing styles.

But you know, that's pretty impossible. they are the two of the most versatile players I've ever seen. They just emphasised different dimensions of this game...
Click to expand...

What about Bjorn Borg? Usually he is described as a baseliner. But when a watch his matched, I can't help noticing that he volleys a little more than Sampras and much more than Federer, and his volleys are very effective, he has a good touch.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Sport
  • Poll Poll
Is Kyrgios a one-dimensional servebot or a more complete player?
2
Replies
52
Views
4K
BringBackWood
B
tennis_hack
A lot of the best players are one dimensional?
Replies
7
Views
1K
JustBob
JustBob
P
'DANIIL MEDVEDEV'S GAME'S ONE-DIMENSIONAL' - STEFANOS TSITSIPAS 'SURPRISED' AT WHAT US OPEN CHAMPION ACHIEVED
2 3 4
Replies
161
Views
12K
nolefam_2024
N
Federer20042006
What is with all the Raonic hype?
Replies
21
Views
5K
Ellipses
E
flyinghippos101
Most one dimensional Player
Replies
32
Views
2K
Benhur
B
Back
Top