What Really Is An "All Around" Player???
- Thread starter 380pistol
- Start date
flyer
Hall of Fame
thank you for correcting my misunderstanding of "all-court game", no need to be sorry i don't mind being wrong....
still the thread asked all around player, and i'd still say thats defined more by a player who wins all around, on all surfaces, no matter his style
Azzurri
Legend
Very good post. Very logical. too bad some won't understand what you mean because they never saw Sampras play and will argue regrdless.
Azzurri
Legend
funny he asks a question that I have answered in my previous posts. He has to be on medication. No other way to explain the ignorance being shown.
The only thing Sampras did not win was the FO. Basically it takes a certain type of player to win this tournament and Pete's game was just not made for this court. He was not a grinder and not being a grinder does not mean he did not have an all-court/all-around game. He had some big wins on clay, but his game was not suited to win the FO...its not really hard to figure out.
Now reality, at this point, tells us that Nadal has NOT won a single major on HC. He has not even been to a final. How anyone continues to use Nadal as an example is beyond dillusional.
Azzurri
Legend
flyer
Hall of Fame
drak your posts pathetic, they have no logic or reason, you try and be funny but you fail at even that, the only thing you prove is that you have the IQ of a brick and maturity of a 15 year old
your on here like 15 hours a day, and even at this you fail to contribute, your quite obviously a loser and an idiot
LOL: your life
flyer
Hall of Fame
Yet he still argues!!!:roll::roll:
he proved my understanding of a term wrong, with all you said you failed to do that
let me ask you this, if your playing a grass court match would you rather win playing a clay court style or lose playing an all-court style?
380pistol
Banned
There it is. Playing effectively form all parts of the court. That's what I was talking about. I broke down players who do this when I opened this thread.
Very well explained.
380pistol
Banned
Very true. Around 1995-96 Pete started to come in more than he did 1992-95, and by 2000 he was a full blown serve and volleyer. Serve and volley may have been is primary mode of attack but he spent a fair ammount of time at the baseline in his prime.
As far as Tilden, Budge and Gonzalez, etc. I can only judge them on what I've read. Laver and Borg I've een on tapes, but I'd be the firt to tell you I'm not the most informed first hand, but I've read about them as well.
Djokovicfan4life
Legend
First of all, it's "you're". I wouldn't make a habit of calling other people idiots when you don't know the difference between "your" and "you are".
This may seem like a silly argument, but just look at all the tennis video games out there. All the players are usually classified as serve and volley, baseline, or all around players. It's not like we've come up with a new concept here. This idea has been around for a while.
drakulie
Talk Tennis Guru
At least I know what an "all-around/all-court" player is.
I guess in your mind>>>> Roddick is a text-book definition of an "all court player" since he has won titles on every surface (including a title on carpet). :roll: LMAO!
SirBlend12
Semi-Pro
Quoted for truth purer than the driving snow.
... so close, and then the car entered oncoming traffic...
ckthegreek
Rookie
I haven't read the whole thread but just wanted to add the number of playing styles is 5.
- All court (Federer)
- Aggressive baseliner (Nadal)
- S&V (Now extinct. Sampras, Edberg, Henman)
- Defensive baseliner (Near extinct, Michael Chang was a good example)
- Counter puncher (Hewitt)
- All court (Federer)
- Aggressive baseliner (Nadal)
- S&V (Now extinct. Sampras, Edberg, Henman)
- Defensive baseliner (Near extinct, Michael Chang was a good example)
- Counter puncher (Hewitt)
Sampras wasn't a serve and volleyer at the outset, but more of a Lendl type aggressive player with softer hands at the net. Until 1994/6 he could very well dictate points with Agassi from the baseline. I recall a set point at the 1996 USO final. Under his new coach Annacone he remodelled his style in the direction of a serve and volleyer, behind his big serve. In some way, he was more of an allcourt player than Federer is today. Maybe the more defensive, solid baseline style of today helps in the new surfaces with the new equipment (especially strings.). The exception to that baseline style,i saw in the last years was Tzonga.
Last edited:
380pistol
Banned
I did (and still somewhat) consider Federer and all around, although he's been coming to net less than he used to.
Nadal, Chand and Hewitt are all baseliners, just a different tupes. Hewitt and Chang are more defensive minded, counterpunchers to me. Nadal originally was in that realm, and to an extent still is but he has definitely morphed into more of an agressive baseliner in the way Hewitt and Chang didn't.
Edberg and Henman are serve and volleyers. Sampras was as well, but although that's his primary mode f play, he was too solid from the baseline and played from there much more than people realize. Even though 1995/96 onwrds he began to come in more, he wasn't serving and volleying consistently on every surface to the late 90's and even 2000. He came served and volleyed on 1st and 2nd serves only on grass and fast indoor surface (esp. carpet). But on hards he stayed back a lot on his 2nd serve and even on his first.
But I guess defining an "All Around" player isn't that cut and dry.
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
I would call Fed a defensive all-courter, and Sampras an offensive all-courter.
The distinction is that Fed will go to the net to finish the point when allowed, but can stay back and slug away. The post-1995 Sampras was more eager to get to the net IMO, and one might say forced the issue more often.
This is, of course, a distinction of degree, not of kind.
A baseliner almost never goes to the net; and a S&V player almost always goes to the net.
What do I call a player who either absolutely never goes to the net no matter what, or a player who absolutely always goes to the net no matter what? A fool.
The distinction is that Fed will go to the net to finish the point when allowed, but can stay back and slug away. The post-1995 Sampras was more eager to get to the net IMO, and one might say forced the issue more often.
This is, of course, a distinction of degree, not of kind.
A baseliner almost never goes to the net; and a S&V player almost always goes to the net.
What do I call a player who either absolutely never goes to the net no matter what, or a player who absolutely always goes to the net no matter what? A fool.
Last edited:
I think it is if one resists the tidal wave of opinion offered by those who never saw it.
Quite simply Laver was the quintessential "all-courter"/"all-arounder".
He played from everywhere on anything. From the back court, mid court and fore court with equal ease. He's the barometer.
There were those who came after who reached number 1 who played a game much more biased toward serve and volley, i.e. Newcombe, Smith, Ashe and later more toward the baseline, Connors, Borg, Vilas, then a slight resurgence of serve and volleyers, i.e. McEnroe, Cash, then back again with a glut of baseline play, lead by Lendl, who staved off Edberg and Becker, who were then matched and outplayed by the best baseliners, Chang, Agassi, Courier.
The point is that all the while no one was compared to Laver as far as all-court prowess. The game had shifted toward the baseline already in terms of numbers by the early nineties, with the arrival of early Sampras, people for the first time were making comparisons to Laver in terms of overall style. The first time in a long time.
Was he different than Laver? Absolutely. He had an incredible weapon in his first and second serves and his fh and was more power based. But he could play from everywhere on the court with equal ease. Back, mid and forecourt. And yes even on clay. People shutting their minds to the realities or acribing to the LIFO method of assessing talent and performance, ignore the fact that, from '92 through '96, Sampras had shown every indication improvement and a establishing himself as a viable threat on euro red clay. During that period of time he played 7 MS clay events and posted two QF's, a SF and had won in Rome. In that time he played 5 RG's where he posted 3 QF's and a SF appearance. When he reached that SF, he was picked as the odds on favorite vs. Kafelnikov, as Sampras had dispatched both YK and Chesnokov, on red clay or "mud" [which everyone debated resulted from either the Russian's intentional design or mere accident from over watering] in the finals of DC, less than six months earlier. This isn't about Sampras though, its an illustration that prior to the emergence of the latest generation, it had already been the topic of conversation.
It's why, the comparisons were drawn. They weren't drawn again until the initial emergence of Federer who before the grass slow down and the later elimination of carpet demonstrated the ability to play from everywhere and on anything with incredible ease. IMO Fed established himself as a more valid comparison to Laver than was Sampras had, as Fed played more defense and with more touch from the backcourt.
Unfortunately due to the continued slow downs of playing conditions, likely coupled with the feeling that there is no need to "risk" playing attacking tennis, and perhaps just being his "A" comfort zone, Fed's all-court skills have suffered atrophy from disuse.
Rafter, a more devout s & v during his best years than Sampras was, always said he needed a lot of match play to keep those skills sharp. If one doesn't use them they will go away. I also don't think it is any coincidence that some of Sampras's own all-court skills diminished (from the baseline) once he lost his mentor Gullickson, who I recall Sampras describing as having had to beat Pete over the head to hit his groundies with more topspin and margin for error, and he was replaced with by Paul Annacone, who was a much more devout, big serving, serve and volleyer, during his own playing days.
The point is that true all-courters, players talented enough and trained enough, in all the skills necessary to play that well from everywhere in the court, are rare. Very rare, no matter the era.
As long as one remains objective, and doesn't attempt to re-define the word the style is easy to identify and it ain't being played today.
If you want other examples of this just punch up a video of Jimmy Connors or Michael Chang, remember how their games were categorized, and watch how often they would approach the net and even serve and volley during their matches especially when facing better net rushers than themselves. Then, for those either stating outright that even a handful of today's players fall under that heading or others "confused" as to what the term "all court" or "all around" means, remember that Connors and Chang fell clearly under the heading of baseliner, albiet under separate sub-species.
No, no one, not the Federer of recent years, nor anyone else today could possibly fall under the definition personafied by Laver, way back when. Not even close.
5
Last edited:
