What Really Is An "All Around" Player???

[380pistol]

Taken form another thread, which I thought was an interesting discussion.....

The "all courter" seems to be a difficult style to pinpoint. Its really just an opinion. there is no right answer.

For example many people say that Federer is primarily a baseliner while others call him an all courter.

Another example would be Pete Sampras....many people also call him a serve and volleyer while others (Bolleteri fo example) call Pete an all courter.

Personally I think Nadal started out as a pure baseliner....but his game has evolved and he now comes into the net at least as much as Federer does. He is sort of a Hybrid.

I think that "all courters" can play effectively from any part of the court but they all have their own "prejudices" and predominantly use one style of play....for example:

Sampras: I think is an all courter whos main focus is on serve and volley

Federer : Is an all courter whos main focus is on agressive baseline and shotmaking play.

Nadal: was a baseliner whos game has evolved into an all courter who's focus is on baseline play

I personally think the term "All Around" and "All Court" players are thrown around loosely, and a lot don't deserve the title.

Tennis in it's simplest form is like football. You run or pass..... tennis you're at the net or the baseline.

In tennis there are genrally 3 styles.....
SERVE AND VOLLEY - self explanatory
BASELINE - offensive or defensive
ALL AROUND - a hybrid of the first two

Not going back too far Rod Laver was an all around player. Though he prefferrd to attack the net he glowed from the backcourt. More modern is Pete Sampras, who through the majority of his career was only a pure serve and volleyer on grass, and maybe on a fast indoor court. He frequently played from the baseline, or would come in on his 1st serve and stay back on his second.

Actually players like Goran Ivanisevic, Cedric Pioline and Todd Martin are more all around players than many who get that title bestowed upon them. These are players who would serve and volley on grass but frequently stay back on other surfaces. In fact in the 1996 US Open SF vs Sampras, McEnroe even questioned why he didn't come in on hardcourts like he did on grass. These are players who would consistently play both styles: serve and volley and at the baseline.

Michael Stich is another, but he served and volleyed more than not.

Roger Federer is also in this class. He is the mirror of Sampras. While Pete was a baseliner who morphed into a S&Ver (he originally had a two handed backhand), Roger was somewhat a S&Ver who morphed into a basliner.
Although Federer has become more of a baseliner as he won the 2003 Wimbledon corwn serve and volleying he won his next 4 from the baseline. You have rarely seen Federer play serve and volley for any considerable period of time or over any stretch. I mean Borg who's considered more of a baseliner, while Roger is considered the all around player, yet Borg actually came in more than Roger. Even at Wimbledon he served and volleyed more than Federe has during their resptive 6 Wimbledon finals appearances.

Constructing a point from the baseline and then coming to net to finish a point isn't really a an all around player to me. That's like a predominant passing team, who get a lead, and then run to preserve the lead, or move the ball mainly through the air and then get to the goal line and then run it in, and say they're mixing it up.

2007 New England Patriots = Passing team.

Players like Laver and Sampras used serve and volley as their primary modes of attack, but were more than aduquate from the baseline and even used it as part of their arsenals. Both had big weapons from the backcourt, Laver (top spin backhand) and Sampras (his forehand).

Nadal is not an all around player, he is a baseliner at his truest essence. I still somewhat consider Federer and all around player, but it get's more difficult through the years as his ventures forward have become less and less. Ancic (and even Tsonga) today are more of all around and/or all courters than Roger as they venture forward more, serve and volley more (esp. Ancic), and incorporate serve and volley (and genral net play) and baseline play into their games more.

Just my opinion.

 

[lilycolefan]

Sorry, Nadal is NOT an allcourt player. Djokovic is more diverse than him. I would say Federer, Sampras, Murray is getting there.

 

[mrmo1115]

Andy Murray

 

[tintin]

Sampras was nothing but a s/v player who was not an ALL around player.An ALL around player is a player who can play well from the baseline and plays well at net and plays well on ALL surfaces;say Federer making ALL 4 major FINALS >>>Sampras wins in Australia/London and New York but just 1 semis in Paris(RG for 3 straight years )and 1 title on the red clay of Europe in Rome which was a fluke imo

Federer
Henin
Mauresmo
Hingis


I wouldn't add Murray in that category because anyone can take him out on clay and for now due to his wins he's proving to be a hard court specialist just like James Blake;that's why he's ranked #5;when he makes the semis or finals at MC;or in rome or Hamburg or Roland Garros and pushes the likes of Federer;Nadal,Djokovic;Nalbandian regularly off hard courts then will talk

 

[mikeler]

Nice post 380pistol. Since the game has changed so much with technology, perhaps an all court player back in those days is not the same as today. In the modern game, I'd say the all court player is somebody who is looking to end points at the net but is not necessarily serving and volleying or chipping and charging predominantly. I just have a problem calling Ivo Karlovic an all-court player, maybe because his baseline game is not so great!

 

[Morrowreze]

I'm glad you brought up Ancic! whenever I think of an all-court player, I think of him.

 

[Cup8489]

Sampras was nothing but a s/v player who was not an ALL around player.An ALL around player is a player who can play well from the baseline and plays well at net and plays well on ALL surfaces;say Federer making ALL 4 major FINALS >>>Sampras wins in Australia/London and New York but just 1 semis in Paris(RG for 3 straight years )and 1 title on the red clay of Europe in Rome which was a fluke imo

Federer
Henin
Mauresmo
Hingis


I wouldn't add Murray in that category because anyone can take him out on clay and for now due to his wins he's proving to be a hard court specialist just like James Blake;that's why he's ranked #5;when he makes the semis or finals at MC;or in rome or Hamburg or Roland Garros and pushes the likes of Federer;Nadal,Djokovic;Nalbandian regularly off hard courts then will talk

sorry, you're dead wrong. yeah, pete was predominantly serve and volley, but if you think that's all he can do, you should really get out there and watch some of his non-wimbledon matches. he can hit from the baseline with the best of them; all around doesnt mean you can play on every surface, but that you're equally, or at least relatively, proficient in all aspects of the game, so yes, muray is an all around player, despite not being great on clay.

your a little bit ignorant, i suggest you do some wising up.

 

[Racer41c]

I think your crazy. Everyone knows an "all around" player buys you a beer after kicking your *** 3 straight.

 

[oneleggedcardinal]

Sampras was nothing but a s/v player who was not an ALL around player.An ALL around player is a player who can play well from the baseline and plays well at net and plays well on ALL surfaces;say Federer making ALL 4 major FINALS >>>Sampras wins in Australia/London and New York but just 1 semis in Paris(RG for 3 straight years )and 1 title on the red clay of Europe in Rome which was a fluke imo

Federer
Henin
Mauresmo
Hingis


I wouldn't add Murray in that category because anyone can take him out on clay and for now due to his wins he's proving to be a hard court specialist just like James Blake;that's why he's ranked #5;when he makes the semis or finals at MC;or in rome or Hamburg or Roland Garros and pushes the likes of Federer;Nadal,Djokovic;Nalbandian regularly off hard courts then will talk

Surfaces have nothing to do with it, sir.

 

[380pistol]

Nice post 380pistol. Since the game has changed so much with technology, perhaps an all court player back in those days is not the same as today. In the modern game, I'd say the all court player is somebody who is looking to end points at the net but is not necessarily serving and volleying or chipping and charging predominantly. I just have a problem calling Ivo Karlovic an all-court player, maybe because his baseline game is not so great!

Thank you. To me ending points at net doesn't make one an all around player, it's the ability to construct points at net, not just finishing them off there cuz the situation presents itself. The only reason the situation presented itself is due to what said player did at the baseline.

Graf and hHas were basliners but can be considered all around players cuz of their ability at net and to move forward although didn't always do it (use it) asmuch as they could.

Many recent players have become some sort of baseliner......
Lendl - power baseliner
Courier - power baseliner
Agassi - power/ technical baseliner
Chang - defensive/ counter
Kafelnikov - technical baseliner
Safin - power baseliner
Federer - agressive/ technical baseliner
Nalbandian - technincal baseliner
Nadal - agressive/defensive baseliner
Murray - counterpunching/ technical baseliner

I guess because they've become hybrids of a certain type of baseliner they are called all courters, but the only one from that list I can really classify as an all round player is Federer.

 

[jackson vile]

Nice post 380pistol. Since the game has changed so much with technology, perhaps an all court player back in those days is not the same as today. In the modern game, I'd say the all court player is somebody who is looking to end points at the net but is not necessarily serving and volleying or chipping and charging predominantly. I just have a problem calling Ivo Karlovic an all-court player, maybe because his baseline game is not so great!

This is how I have always thought of an all-courter, someone that ends a point by any means when it presents its self any where on the court, with a variety ie slices, drops, etc.

I play baseliners on a regular basis, they never come to the net have no variety and at best have a strong back hand, forehand, and serve with no slices, drops, etc

To me that is a baseliner, I don't ever S&V and sure as heck am not a baseline basher.

 

[P_Agony]

Let's see, Federer can hit from the baseline (top spin, slices, whatever), and he can also volley really well. He can hit drop shots, he can smash, he can even backhand-smash, he's got an amazing serve, and he can hit the lob really well, he's got great passing shots too. So yes, I'd say he's an all-around player.

 

[mikeler]

This is how I have always thought of an all-courter, someone that ends a point by any means when it presents its self any where on the court, with a variety ie slices, drops, etc.

I play baseliners on a regular basis, they never come to the net have no variety and at best have a strong back hand, forehand, and serve with no slices, drops, etc

To me that is a baseliner, I don't ever S&V and sure as heck am not a baseline basher.

Yes, the drop shots/volleys plus slices should be added into the definition of an all court player. I would like to serve and volley/chip and charge more but at the 5.0 level on clay it is not very effective. The reason being that my serve is not big enough to guarantee easy volleys and the same with my chip return. If I can work the point a little bit and then see my opponent is forced to slice the ball back on either wing, that is usually when I start creeping into the net either to approach off a short ball or take the ball out of the air and get to the net. After this shot I'm usually in a good position to make a winning volley or overhead. Of course, I also approach off the regular old short ball too.

 

[jackson vile]

I don't S&V because it is too unrealistic, I have a huge serve but with the super baseliners you will will find that ball bending 90 degrees at that net at your feet, heck I'll do this myself.

It is just easier and a higher percentage play to let it bounce first the majority of the time, return are unreal compare to what they used to be with all the spin you can hit so so much harder.

And on clay I can't even imagine!

 

[Andres]

I'd say Ivan Ljubicic is an all-courter.

 

[Lendl and Federer Fan]

Just watch matches of Federer, Lendl, Sampras, Becker, and Edberg.

 

[bluetrain4]

Very few players play all-court tennis in that they divide baseline play (or even a variety of baseline play such as grinding as well as aggression) along with attacking net play in proportions that are fairly equal, or at least not hugely divergent even if they play one style more the other.

To me, an all-courter is more about what a player can do out of necessity than about what a player actually does. Can that player adjust and play in a manner he normally does not if he needs to. Fed does play "primarily" from the baseline, but he moves forward and can serve and volley when needed, either by choice or because his opponent dictates that he do so. Sampras would be another example. He was a serve and volleyer, a hugely aggressive player, but he could, if needed, hang back on the baseline, get into a rally, and wait for his opportunity. He wasn't going to do this a huge percentage of the time, but he was more than competent when he did do it.

In contrast, Becker was someone who should have been less of an all-courter and not tried to stay back for so long against a lot of players. This is not to say that Boris didn't have a good ground game or that he couldn't win longer rallies, but sometimes I think he stayed back to negative effect.

 

[Ballinbob]

whats the difference between a S&V an all courter then? What is the fine line between an al courter and S&Ver??

What to you guys defines a S&V player? Because honestly Im surprised how Sampras isnt a S&V player, he sure seems like it. You've made me doubt myself now that I'm a S&Ver lol. If sampras isnt then maybe Im not either.

 

[BetterTen]

Good questions

 

[Deleted member 25923]

whats the difference between a S&V an all courter then? What is the fine line between an al courter and S&Ver??

What to you guys defines a S&V player? Because honestly Im surprised how Sampras isnt a S&V player, he sure seems like it. You've made me doubt myself now that I'm a S&Ver lol. If sampras isnt then maybe Im not either.

It's subjective. For example, Nadal is an aggressive baseliner. But he can counterpunch out of necessity. Some people might see him as just an aggressor, while others consider him a counterpuncher.

 

[Leublu tennis]

The question was what is an all around player. I immediately thought of a player who plays both singles and doubles. That way, he is comfortable anywhere on the court and not just on the baseline.

 

[Andyk028]

I would say Rog is a good example of an All Around..Nadal is getting there though, dude has some sick touch at the net when he does come up

 

[flyer]

my opinion is a player that performs well on all surfaces...

others would prob say that it is a player with a well rounded all court game

my response to that being the players that do have an "all court game" but still underperform on certain surfaces (exp Murray on clay, Blake on grass and clay), so who really cares about your style and how you win, the most important thing being results not style....

basically who cares if you have an all court game if you don't win on all courts.

 

[Azzurri]

Sampras was nothing but a s/v player who was not an ALL around player.An ALL around player is a player who can play well from the baseline and plays well at net and plays well on ALL surfaces;say Federer making ALL 4 major FINALS >>>Sampras wins in Australia/London and New York but just 1 semis in Paris(RG for 3 straight years )and 1 title on the red clay of Europe in Rome which was a fluke imo

Federer
Henin
Mauresmo
Hingis


I wouldn't add Murray in that category because anyone can take him out on clay and for now due to his wins he's proving to be a hard court specialist just like James Blake;that's why he's ranked #5;when he makes the semis or finals at MC;or in rome or Hamburg or Roland Garros and pushes the likes of Federer;Nadal,Djokovic;Nalbandian regularly off hard courts then will talk

you never watched Sampras play.

 

[flyer]

you never watched Sampras play.

all due respect to pete and what he acconplished, although he certainly was not a vintage serve and volleyer, he was just as certainly not an all around player

 

[Azzurri]

all due respect to pete and what he acconplished, although he certainly was not a vintage serve and volleyer, he was just as certainly not an all around player

Yes he was. He did not become a S&V player until 1995-1996. He was tough to beat because he had a good baseline game to go along with an excellent transition game (net). It used to be discussed all the time by most how Pete played well no matter what game. I am not talking about surfaces here. Pete was more of an all-court player the first half of his career. It was well-known he changed to a more of a S&V game because the speed of the courts allowed him to and he was just more dominating. But to poo-poo his all court game like the previous poster shows he did not watch Pete play. Also, maybe you should learn to read...he said Pete was nothing but a S&V player..completely 100% wrong. If you agree with him, then you are just as ignorant..with all due respect.

 

[380pistol]

whats the difference between a S&V an all courter then? What is the fine line between an al courter and S&Ver??

What to you guys defines a S&V player? Because honestly Im surprised how Sampras isnt a S&V player, he sure seems like it. You've made me doubt myself now that I'm a S&Ver lol. If sampras isnt then maybe Im not either.

For me Sampras wasn't a pure serve and volleyer as the only time he heally played that way was on grass or maybe a fast indoor surface. For the majority of his prime he came in on 1st serves and stayed back on bvery frequently on 2nd serves.

Have a look....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHyNFNyNDBI&fmt=18
1996 San Jose vs Agassi
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y7s1ap03Vvo&fmt=18
1997 Indianapolis vs Larsson
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dW2tyIHd6mc&feature=related
1997 Paris vs Becker/Muster/Bjorkman
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mA-MacvQuGM&feature=related&fmt=18
1997 ATP World Champ

He showed the ability to saty back and play from the baseline. Serve and volleyer (Edberg, Rafter for eg.) don't have predilection of Sampras to play from the baseline.

As his career wore on about 1999 and moreso 2000 onwards Sampras became a serve and volleyer,but before then not so much.

Take these #'s in, net approaches for Pete...
2000 Aus Open SF vs Agassi - 71/122 (5 sets)
2001 US Open QF vs Agassi - 96/137 (4 sets)
2001 US Open F vs Hewitt - 49/98 (3 sets)
2002 US Open 4th vs Hass - 76/101 (4 sets)
2002 US Open SF vs Schalken - 62/85 (3 sets)
2002 US Open F vs Agassi - 69/105 (4 sets)

1993 Wimbledon QF vs Agassi - 65/107 (at 3-2 in the 5th) on grass

With....
1990 US Open F vs Agassi - 39/62 (3 sets)
1995 Aus Open F vs Agassi - 21/38 (2-2 in 3rd.. translates to about 60 over 4 sets)
1995 US Open F vs Agassi - 43/59 (4 sets)

Even his 1995 Aus and US Open matches vs Courier follows the same trend. he was averaging about half the net approaches outside of grass as he did 2000 onwards.

Other serve and volleyers Edberg, Rafter, Krajicek, Henman etc. probably don't have #'s that resemble Pete's.

 

[Azzurri]

^^Good post! It's mind numbingly annoying to argue with peple that never watched Pete play. They have no clue that he was considered an all-court player by most/if not everyone because he was not a S&V player like Edberg, Mac, rafter, Cash..etc. He was like Becker in a sense, but just better all around. This is one of the things I dislike about this forum. The eople that never played a racquet or watched a player, yet make "informed" opinions. I have said time and time again, I could never rate guys I never watched. I rarely talk about Borg, Vitas and other players from the 70's because I did not watch them. I started watching tennis and undertsood the game more in and around 1983. For me to judge Laver, is ridiculous. Funny how some mention Tilden, yet NOT ONE person seen him play.

 

[flyer]

all due respect to pete and what he acconplished, although he certainly was not a vintage serve and volleyer, he was just as certainly not an all around player

Yes he was. He did not become a S&V player until 1995-1996. He was tough to beat because he had a good baseline game to go along with an excellent transition game (net). It used to be discussed all the time by most how Pete played well no matter what game. I am not talking about surfaces here. Pete was more of an all-court player the first half of his career. It was well-known he changed to a more of a S&V game because the speed of the courts allowed him to and he was just more dominating. But to poo-poo his all court game like the previous poster shows he did not watch Pete play. Also, maybe you should learn to read...he said Pete was nothing but a S&V player..completely 100% wrong. If you agree with him, then you are just as ignorant..with all due respect.

ok buddy, first off maybe you should learn to read because i very clearly said pete was not a pure S&V player....i have highlighted that text from you just to be sure you don't miss it again

and secondly, yes pete did have an all court game duri9ng his early career, but he did not have success on all courts, so let me ask you this: What good is an all court game if you are not successful on all court surfaces?

nadal has had just as much success on hard as pete ever did on clay, and nadal is only 22, so f*ck style of play, results are what count...and in that department pete was absolutely not an all court player

 

[RoddickAce]

sorry, you're dead wrong. yeah, pete was predominantly serve and volley, but if you think that's all he can do, you should really get out there and watch some of his non-wimbledon matches. he can hit from the baseline with the best of them; all around doesnt mean you can play on every surface, but that you're equally, or at least relatively, proficient in all aspects of the game, so yes, muray is an all around player, despite not being great on clay.

your a little bit ignorant, i suggest you do some wising up.

haha that's true; actually, if someone was a pure serve and volley'er, how could they win return points? So maybe the term to classify such types of players should be net rushers?

 

[Cup8489]

haha that's true; actually, if someone was a pure serve and volley'er, how could they win return points? So maybe the term to classify such types of players should be net rushers?

they are also called net rushers. edberg is a great example, especially when he was serving. he ALWAYS came in, no matter what. he made his opponents come up with great shots, because he had such good hands at the net that he always made the volley.

players who are like edberg (i can't recall if he did this as well) tend to chip the return and rush the net, because that's their game. pete did this on occasion, but especially early on, he seemed wiling to stick it to his opponents off the ground, because he was great in the backcourt as well.

and that forehand.....phew.

 

[Azzurri]

ok buddy, first off maybe you should learn to read because i very clearly said pete was not a pure S&V player....i have highlighted that text from you just to be sure you don't miss it again

and secondly, yes pete did have an all court game duri9ng his early career, but he did not have success on all courts, so let me ask you this: What good is an all court game if you are not successful on all court surfaces?

nadal has had just as much success on hard as pete ever did on clay, and nadal is only 22, so f*ck style of play, results are what count...and in that department pete was absolutely not an all court player

Flyer, are you on medication? I was talking TO Tintin...He said Pete was NOTHING BUT A S&V PLAYER..ok? Feel better now? I was NOT talking to YOU! Now, was I clear? I was talking about Tintin...not you.

What are you blabbing about? You are comparing Nadal's all-around game to Sampras? OK, I will say this then no longer post to you since its obvious you are just a bit clueless.

Sampras has won AO, USO and W titles. All three were significantly different surfaces, but as I can see you don't get this discussion is not about surfaces, but you brought it up. Pete was an ALL-AROUND player for more than half of his career. i won't argue with you. He has won many titles playing an all-court game. Nadal plays mainly ONE surface. Wimbledon is a joke and is slower than the USO courts. Has Nadal won an AO or USO??????????? Yes or no! So don't mention Nadal and Sampras as being all-around players. Nadal is a PURE baseliner...you are a JOKE! Funny, you said he wasnot a true S&V player, yet not a all-court player...WTF??? what was he then??? Do you know how clueless you are???

THIS DISCUSSION IS NOT ABOUT SURFACES YOU TOOL! ALL-AROUND, NOT ALL-COURT!

 

[Azzurri]

they are also called net rushers. edberg is a great example, especially when he was serving. he ALWAYS came in, no matter what. he made his opponents come up with great shots, because he had such good hands at the net that he always made the volley.

players who are like edberg (i can't recall if he did this as well) tend to chip the return and rush the net, because that's their game. pete did this on occasion, but especially early on, he seemed wiling to stick it to his opponents off the ground, because he was great in the backcourt as well.

and that forehand.....phew.

well said. guys like Flyer and Tintin never watched Pete play. tired, so tired of these types of guys on this forum.

 

[flyer]

Flyer, are you on medication? I was talking TO Tintin...He said Pete was NOTHING BUT A S&V PLAYER..ok? Feel better now? I was NOT talking to YOU! Now, was I clear? I was talking about Tintin...not you.

What are you blabbing about? You are comparing Nadal's all-court game to Sampras? OK, I will say this then no longer post to you since its obvious you are just a bit clueless.

Sampras has won AO, USO and W titles. All three were significantly different surfaces, but as I can see you don't get this discussion is not about surfaces, but you brought it up. Pete was an all-court player for more than half of his career. i won't argue with you. He has won many titles playing an all-court game. Nadal plays mainly ONE surface. Wimbledon is a joke and is slower than the USO courts. Has Nadal won an AO or USO??????????? Yes or no! So don't mention Nadal and Sampras as being all-cort players. Nadal is a PURE baseliner...you are a JOKE! Funny, you said he wasnot a true S&V player, yet not a all-court player...WTF??? what was he then??? Do you know how clueless you are???

THIS DISCUSSION IS NOT ABOUT SURFACES YOU TOOL!

so your saying sampras has won on hard and grass, true, nadal has won on grass and hard, true, and they both have been to semis on their worst surface, truuuuuuue

lets just assume sampras had an all court game, although i'd wonder if pete himself would even make that claim, but for the sake of discussion...

what good is an all court game if you don't win on all courts!????

...please anybody, becuase for all the talking some of you do nobody can answer this simple question, its results that matter, not style

 

[drakulie]

my opinion is a player that performs well on all surfaces...

That would not define an "all-court" player.

Agassi, won on every surface, and won every slam (when the slams played very differently from one another). He was never considered an "all-court" player. He was a pure baseliner who won on "all surfaces".

Sampras was an "all-court" player. Even when he was a pure serve and volleyer later in his career, he still played "all-court" when returning serve (this never changed thru his career).

 

[Azzurri]

That would not define an "all-court" player.

Agassi, won on every surface, and won every slam (when the slams played very differently from one another). He was never considered an "all-court" player. He was a pure baseliner who won on "all surfaces".

Sampras was an "all-court" player. Even when he was a pure serve and volleyer later in his career, he still played "all-court" when returning serve (this never changed thru his career).

funny how your post is so simple, so easy to understand. Yet there are people that think Nadal is an all-court/all-around player that is comparable in style. Funny how people will compare Nadal and Sampras HC and grass victories when Sampras won 7 W titles o Nadal's ONE (on grass as slow as clay) and Nadal has yet to even get to ONE HC Major...NOT ONE! Sampras has won 7 HC slams...how many has Nadal won??? So its pretty funny to read people comparing nadal and Sampras as both having all-court games.

 

[Djokovicfan4life]

so your saying sampras has won on hard and grass, true, nadal has won on grass and hard, true, and they both have been to semis on their worst surface, truuuuuuue

lets just assume sampras had an all court game, although i'd wonder if pete himself would even make that claim, but for the sake of discussion...

what good is an all court game if you don't win on all courts!????

...please anybody, becuase for all the talking some of you do nobody can answer this simple question, its results that matter, not style

Huh? This thread is about a style of play, not results! Do you even read the thread titles before you post? I guess not.

 

[Azzurri]

Huh? This thread is about a style of play, not results! Do you even read the thread titles before you post? I guess not.

incredible..yet he questions my comprehension.

 

[CityHeightsTennis]

I say Federer is the definition of an "All Around" player.....I believe Sampras is similar, but imo he was more of a s/ver.

 

[drakulie]

funny how your post is so simple, so easy to understand. Yet there are people that think Nadal is an all-court/all-around player that is comparable in style. Funny how people will compare Nadal and Sampras HC and grass victories when Sampras won 7 W titles o Nadal's ONE (on grass as slow as clay) and Nadal has yet to even get to ONE HC Major...NOT ONE! Sampras has won 7 HC slams...how many has Nadal won??? So its pretty funny to read people comparing nadal and Sampras as both having all-court games.

Unfortunately, they are ****s who never had the privilage of seeing a true "ALL-COURT" player like Sampras. Guy was like an effen Panther on the court. Explosive, and one of, if not the quickest step (cat-like leap) forward into the court. He hit the ball and in an instant was like an anaconda wrapped aound the net!!

They see nadal make a few volleys and equate this to "all-court" player. Blah!


BTW>>> The grass today is like a fast clay court (painted green).

 

[flyer]

Huh? This thread is about a style of play, not results! Do you even read the thread titles before you post? I guess not.

The threat title is this "What Really Is An 'All Around' Player???"

read the title carefully

that doesnt say anything about style, i said an all round player is a player that performs well on all surfaces, you may think it has to do with style of play, that would be your opinion, but the threat title itself does don't specify style...following me? good

so if your opinion is that an "all round" player is determined by style, i ask you this question:

what does it matter if you have an all court game(which would be your style of play) if you don not win on all courts?

incredible..yet he questions my comprehension.

answer the question...

 

[Djokovicfan4life]

The threat title is this "What Really Is An 'All Around' Player???"

read the title carefully

that doesnt say anything about style, i said an all round player is a player that performs well on all surfaces, you may think it has to do with style of play, that would be your opinion, but the threat title itself does don't specify style...following me? good

so if your opinion is that an "all round" player is determined by style, i ask you this question:

what does it matter if you have an all court game(which would be your style of play) if you don not win on all courts?



answer the question...

Read the OP's post. He clearly shares our belief that an all around player is determined by style, not surface.

A total pusher could win on all surfaces at the 3.5 level, but would you call that person an all around player?

 

[Azzurri]

Unfortunately, they are ****s who never had the privilage of seeing a true "ALL-COURT" player like Sampras. Guy was like an effen Panther on the court. Explosive, and one of, if not the quickest step (cat-like leap) forward into the court. He hit the ball and in an instant was like an anaconda wrapped aound the net!!

They see nadal make a few volleys and equate this to "all-court" player. Blah!


BTW>>> The grass today is like a fast clay court (painted green).

I remember reading somewhere that Pete was working out with Charles Woodson while he was with the Raiders (I believe when he was a rookie). If I remember correctly, Pete and Charles raced each other in 40 yard dash and Pete was right with him...wicked fast for a white boy.

yes, he was smooooooth on the court. But a different smooth than Federer..Panther like is a good way to describe it and Fed I guess would be Ballet dancer like..kinda floats.

I think Nadal has solid net skills (compared to other top 10 players), but in no way should he even be mentioned along with Pete.

I recall during a W telecast they showed the differnce in bounce height from 2006 (I believe) compared to the 90's and it was significant. The 2006 bounces were much higher.

 

[Azzurri]

Read the OP's post. He clearly shares our belief that an all around player is determined by style, not surface.

A total pusher could win on all surfaces at the 3.5 level, but would you call that person an all around player?

Djoko...just ignore him. He is a foolish poster. I have had run-ins with his bafoonery before. makes no sense. If you ignore him, he will go away.

 

[fastdunn]

I say Federer is the definition of an "All Around" player.....I believe Sampras is similar, but imo he was more of a s/ver.

I disagree. As mary carillo said, I also think Sampras was slightly more of baseliner (if you look at his entire career).

Federer is an "all around" baseliner. Sampras was the most complete "all courter" I've ever seen.

Today's tennis is so biased toward baseline game and there is no "all courter" who actually use "all part of court". Therefore, the definition of "all couter" and "all around" player has become fuzzy.

Federer is very complete all around player but still mainly in baseline domain. He is all around in "other" dimension: he can play many different styles: attacker, grinder, crafty player, counter puncher and so on. Sampras could play some different style but mainly was an attacking player (in a way he did not really need other style).

In that sense, Federer is the most "all around" player i've ever seen (with the new definition of "all around player").

 

[CityHeightsTennis]

I disagree. As mary carillo said, I also think Sampras was slightly more of baseliner (if you look at his entire career).

Federer is an "all around" baseliner. Sampras was the most complete "all courter" I've ever seen.

Today's tennis is so biased toward baseline game and there is no "all courter" who actually use "all part of court". Therefore, the definition of "all couter" and "all around" player has become fuzzy.

Federer is very complete all around player but still mainly in baseline domain. He is all around in "other" dimension: he can play many different styles: attacker, grinder, crafty player, counter puncher and so on. Sampras could play some different style but mainly was an attacking player (in a way he did not really need other style).

In that sense, Federer is the most "all around" player i've ever seen (with the new definition of "all around player").

okay, i see. i definitely agree w/ what u said. i guess Sampras seems to be s/ver to many ppl b/c thats where most of his easy pts came from...n Federer gets most of his pts during rallies than his serves, altho he has an awesome serve anyway. But overall, I still think Fed is the most "all around" player i have watched.

 

[flyer]

Read the OP's post. He clearly shares our belief that an all around player is determined by style, not surface.

A total pusher could win on all surfaces at the 3.5 level, but would you call that person an all around player?

and i disagree with you in that an all around player is determined by style

at the 3.5 level yes he would be an all court player

now you answer my question....

what good is it to have an all court game of you do not win on all courts?

 

[flyer]

Djoko...just ignore him. He is a foolish poster. I have had run-ins with his bafoonery before. makes no sense. If you ignore him, he will go away.

you ignore because you simply can not answer my questions and prove a point...

i ask again, what good is an all court game if you do not win on all courts?

murray has an all court game, but nadal wins on all courts....so based on the notion that results are more important than style nadal is more of an all court player...got it genius

or do you think style is more important than results? if you do just say so

 

[drakulie]

i ask again, what good is an all court game if you do not win on all courts?

Good enough to win 3 of the 4 majors (which were all completely different) ala Sampras. Win 14 slams, 5+ years as the number one player in the world, hundreds of week at number one, etc, etc, etc.

Unlike nadal's "all-court" game which has only enabled him to win on two surfaces.

 

[Cup8489]

you ignore because you simply can not answer my questions and prove a point...

i ask again, what good is an all court game if you do not win on all courts?

murray has an all court game, but nadal wins on all courts....so based on the notion that results are more important than style nadal is more of an all court player...got it genius

or do you think style is more important than results? if you do just say so

you are arguing under the idea that an all-court game means you win on all courts. AN ALL COURT GAME IS THE ABILITY TO PLAY EFFECTIVELY FROM ALL AREAS OF THE COURT

sorry to make you look a bit foolish, but you're totally misunderstanding the term.

All-court players have aspects of every tennis style, whether that be offensive baseliner, defensive counter-puncher or serve-and-volleyer. All-court players use the best bits from each style and mix it together to create a truly formidable tennis style to play against. In game situations, they have the ability to select an action usually executed by one tennis style. They usually have an attacking game, mixing some groundstrokes and volleys to keep the opponent guessing. Most all-court players won't rush the net immediately after a serve like a typical serve and volley player would. However, their game often revolves around "constructing" a point to where they will be able to approach the net and put away an easy volley or pulling their opponent into the net and hitting a passing shot. They are very versatile; when an all-court player's baseline game is not working, he may switch to a net game, and vice versa. All-court players have the ability to adjust to different opponents that play different styles easier than pure baseliners or serve and volleyers. All-court players stereotypically have the speed, determination and fitness of a defensive counter-puncher, the confidence, skill and flair of offensive baseliners and have the touch, the agility around the net and tactical thinking of the serve-and-volleyer. But just because the all-court player has a combination of skills used by all tennis styles doesn't necessarily mean that they could beat an offensive baseliner or a defensive counter-puncher or even a serve-and-volleyer. It just means it would be more difficult to read the game of an all-court player.

Among the best all-court players of all time are: Bill Tilden, Ellsworth Vines, Don Budge, Ken Rosewall, Rod Laver, and Steffi Graf. Great all-court players today include Roger Federer, Novak Djokovic, Richard Gasquet, David Nalbandian, Marat Safin, Fabrice Santoro, Tommy Haas, Thomas Johansson, Justine Henin, Martina Hingis, Svetlana Kuznetsova, Amélie Mauresmo and Daniela Hantuchová.

all court player defined.