What is a one-dimensional player?

OhDear said:
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.
Click to expand...
His career grass record is 26-18, with no titles and one final (Halle 2005). Without his last flukey Wimbledon SF, his record would be 21-17. Far from stellar.

In fact, he's sort of mediocre on grass. To my eyes, he's much better on clay than on grass.
 
Dear Sentinel ... I am moved to hear that! If there is any reason I consider you a precious jewel among the Federer fans, this is it! Why oh why was the thread deleted? :confused:

By the way, what was the quote, my dear friend? And don't be afraid ... I'm a lover, not a fighter and as gentle as the hand that rocks the cradle! :)

Sentinel said:
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 ;-)
Click to expand...
 
Andres Guazzelli said:
His career grass record is 26-18, with no titles and one final (Halle 2005). Without his last flukey Wimbledon SF, his record would be 21-17. Far from stellar.

In fact, he's sort of mediocre on grass. To my eyes, he's much better on clay than on grass.
Click to expand...

Suddenly a final is bad?
 
OhDear said:
Suddenly a final is bad?
Click to expand...
One final in 10 years, and a slightly-over-0.500-record, no it's not bad, but it's not exactly good.

Coria has a similar grass record too. Is he good on grass? His 10-8 record with one final is also slightly-over-0.500.
 
Andres Guazzelli said:
One final in 10 years, and a slightly-over-0.500-record, no it's not bad, but it's not exactly good.

Coria has a similar grass record too. Is he good on grass? His 10-8 record with one final is also slightly-over-0.500.
Click to expand...

in another words, some ppl are lucky once.
 
edmondsm said:
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?
Click to expand...


You're not comparing fairly though. Karlovic can hit with the top 20 guys, but you're trying to compare him to the #3 and #4 players in the world, who are far and above everyone else in pretty much everything.
 
Andres Guazzelli said:
His career grass record is 26-18, with no titles and one final (Halle 2005). Without his last flukey Wimbledon SF, his record would be 21-17. Far from stellar.

In fact, he's sort of mediocre on grass. To my eyes, he's much better on clay than on grass.
Click to expand...


He's alot better on clay last time I checked his record.
 
Nadal_Freak said:
All you do is insult me. Get another hobby. It is lame to act that way just because you don't agree with me.
Click to expand...


So creating illogical fallacies and insulting everything that isn't named Nadal is better right? Sorry; you're the only person I directly attack other than gj011 (and I don't even bother him that often). There's a reason too. You might try figuring it out.
 
Nadal_Freak said:
ITF also showed Rebound Ace as equal or faster to Decoturf II. I would like for you to explain that.
Click to expand...


New Rebound Ace, not old Rebound Ace. Old Rebound Ace is much slower. The newer Rebound Ace (which Tony Roche and many other Australian Coaches, Players, etc. wanted to be installed) is much faster while still retaining the high bouncing capabilities.


But seriously. If you think the ITF is wrong, why don't you go send them an email? I'm sure they'd be more then willing to listen to an Arm Chair critic who doesn't even play tennis.
 
NamRanger said:
New Rebound Ace, not old Rebound Ace. Old Rebound Ace is much slower. The newer Rebound Ace (which Tony Roche and many other Australian Coaches, Players, etc. wanted to be installed) is much faster while still retaining the high bouncing capabilities.


But seriously. If you think the ITF is wrong, why don't you go send them an email? I'm sure they'd be more then willing to listen to an Arm Chair critic who doesn't even play tennis.
Click to expand...
Seriously you don't know anything about me. Stop guessing. I used to play tons of tennis. I got a bum shoulder these days so no more tennis for me. I've been watching tennis for 16 years. Actually the furthest I remember is when Chang beat Lendl at RG and than won RG. I became a big Agassi fan in the 90's. You never gave me the stats of Wimbledon compared to the Australian Open from the ITF btw.
 
Nadal_Freak said:
Seriously you don't know anything about me. Stop guessing. I used to play tons of tennis. I got a bum shoulder these days so no more tennis for me. I've been watching tennis for 16 years. Actually the furthest I remember is when Chang beat Lendl at RG and than won RG. I became a big Agassi fan in the 90's. You never gave me the stats of Wimbledon compared to the Australian Open from the ITF btw.
Click to expand...


Since you were willing to look up DecoTurf II and Rebound Ace, go look it up yourself. I'm not your mother. I don't have to spoon feed you everything. I've already pointed out fundamental flaws in pretty much every one of your arguments that you have thrown out (such as break percentages where you do not always follow).


You used to play tons of matches? Right. That's why you don't know jack diddly squat about BASIC tennis strategies and BASIC tennis technique.


Also, I've caught you in another lie. First you said your knees gave out on you, now you are saying it is because of a bum shoulder. How much more do you want to be embarrassed on this board due to your lying ways when things go wrong?
 
NamRanger said:
Since you were willing to look up DecoTurf II and Rebound Ace, go look it up yourself. I'm not your mother. I don't have to spoon feed you everything. I've already pointed out fundamental flaws in pretty much every one of your arguments that you have thrown out (such as break percentages where you do not always follow).


You used to play tons of matches? Right. That's why you don't know jack diddly squat about BASIC tennis strategies and BASIC tennis technique.


Also, I've caught you in another lie. First you said your knees gave out on you, now you are saying it is because of a bum shoulder. How much more do you want to be embarrassed on this board due to your lying ways when things go wrong?
Click to expand...
Shoulder came first. Knees got bad as well. It was not a lie as I don't usually like to overwhelm posters with every single injury I have. Lets say I'm very brittle. :cry:
And you never proved the break percentages weren't any good. The theory is the faster the court is, the harder it is to break as the serve comes at you faster. For the statistics to work, you need a lot of data since there are exceptions in each match where a player can overcome the speed of the court to break many times. Even than, it is not exact but you can get pretty close to exact. I would say there is a .5%-1% error rate which isn't that much imo.
 
Nadal_Freak said:
Shoulder came first. Knees got bad as well. It was not a lie as I don't usually like to overwhelm posters with every single injury I have. Lets say I'm very brittle. :cry:
And you never proved the break percentages weren't any good. The theory is the faster the court is, the harder it is to break as the serve comes at you faster. For the statistics to work, you need a lot of data since there are exceptions in each match where a player can overcome the speed of the court to break many times. Even than, it is not exact but you can get pretty close to exact. I would say there is a .5%-1% error rate which isn't that much imo.
Click to expand...


Except serving numbers do not take into account for environmental factors such as lighting, wind, and other things. For example, the USO is far harder to return at night due to the way the lights are positioned. Or, it is far harder to return at Wimbledon not only because of the way the ball bounces, but also because it is very tough to change directions on grass.


And these environmental factors ARE consistent. They appear at EVERY tournament.


Also, serving numbers do not take into account for what balls were used. Too many things that affect the serve that are not directly included in your break percentage theory.
 
NamRanger said:
Except serving numbers do not take into account for environmental factors such as lighting, wind, and other things. For example, the USO is far harder to return at night due to the way the lights are positioned. Or, it is far harder to return at Wimbledon not only because of the way the ball bounces, but also because it is very tough to change directions on grass.


And these environmental factors ARE consistent. They appear at EVERY tournament.


Also, serving numbers do not take into account for what balls were used. Too many things that affect the serve that are not directly included in your break percentage theory.
Click to expand...
Well we'll never know exactly but I think 4% less breaks at Wimbledon is enough difference to say it is faster. The point is that Wimbledon is much faster than anything clay and faster than most hard courts. I think Cincinnati might be faster than Wimbledon. Madrid is also possibly faster due to the altitude. I do think Nadal is able to overcome the fast surface at Wimbledon due to how well he moves on grass. He did it at Queens to.
 
NamRanger said:
Obviously. I mean, if polar bears and penguins can live in Portugal, why can't the ITF lie to people for no apparent reason?
Click to expand...

well he said it himself. ITF lies to people... but about surfaces ITF is honest as we are seing now...
:)

just saw a peguin crossing my backyard.. he was helding a ps 85 with white but cap... could be a st vincent...?:)
 
The more I think about this, the more I wonder. Don't all players strive to be tactically one-dimensional? Jimmy Connors used to say that he didn't change his game, he made the other guy change his. Connors used to impose his game on other players. I understand that some time it worked and some time it didn't. As Connors got older, I don't know that he changed much. My point is that when you are playing tennis, you try to emphasize your strengths. The player hasn't been born yet who does everything equally well; i.e. not everything is a strength.

It seems to me that tennis players in general are forced into being more than one-dimensional. There is an old adage never change a winning game but always change a losing one. If a player is winning a match, his tactic then shouldn't change. Now if the tide of the match turns, then he may be forced into a change.

I guess my thought here is why should any player, let's take Nads for instance, change what he's doing if he's winning? Someone else posted that Nads hits the majority of his forehands cross court to his usually right-handed opponents' backhand. He wins the majority of the points. Nads serves 90% of his first serves to his right-handed oponents' backhands. Tactically then he is one-dimensional.

From a game standpoint, I don't see any player today being one-dimensional. Everybody on tour has a all the tools. There aren't any players who can't hit every shot with the possible exception of volleys. But, I think that's the norm today and you can't count that as a knock. I really don't know that any professional can be classified from a mechanics perspective as one-dimensional.
 
There are definitely players with more variety then others. For instance we've seen Federer start serving and volleying when his plan A isn't working. Nadal doesn't change his game when he is losing, he just fights harder. Nadal can't change up his serve like his peers in the top 4 can, and his backhand is also plain compared to Fed, Djokovic, and Murray. When have you ever seen Nadal hit a bh winner down the line, unless it is a wide open pass? Almost never. In a baseline rally the Nadal bh always goes cross-court. Djokovic and Murray can rip backhands down the line, and you won't even see them coming. When you assess Nadal against his peers, I think he is one-dimensional by comparison.
 
Which is why he has winning h2h's over the peers mentioned. Lol! Never change a winning game for the sake of a title. Between Federer, Djoker, and Murray Nadal is:

Nadal 12 Fed 6
Nadal 10 Djoker 4
Nadal 5 Murray 1
____ ____

27 11

Wow!
 
TheTruth said:
Which is why he has winning h2h's over the peers mentioned. Lol! Never change a winning game for the sake of a title. Between Federer, Djoker, and Murray Nadal is:

Nadal 12 Fed 6
Nadal 10 Djoker 4
Nadal 5 Murray 1
____ ____

27 11

Wow!
Click to expand...


Indeed Wow! But isn't the whole point edmondsm is trying to get across that being one-dimensional is not exactly a bad thing if you're so damn good at what you do? No one is telling Nadal to change his game, we're just comparing his style to other top players. So by saying "Never change a winning game for the sake of a title", are you not agreeing with what most (sane) people (and I know there aren't many here) are trying to say? That RELATIVELY speaking Nadal just may be a bit more one dimensional than the other top players.
 
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