Which gives you more satisfaction in tennis?

Which gives you more satisfaction in tennis?

  • Total voters
    117
BreakPoint

BreakPoint

Bionic Poster
Which gives you more satisfaction in tennis?

Winning matches or hitting winners?

I ask this because there are certain racquets that are easy to play with that allow you to be consistent and keep the ball in play forever but are difficult to hit screaming winners with. But consistency wins tennis matches especially at the lower levels in which the outcome of matches is determined by who hits the fewest unforced errors rather than by who hits the most winners. I'll call this type of racquet: Type A.

Then there are racquets that are more demanding to use, and thus, unless you are a very high level player, makes it harder to be very consistent with and results in more unforced errors. However, this type of racquet also allows you hit lots of screaming winners when you are set up properly, along with the unforced errors. At the lower levels, you will be less consistent with this type of racquet than with the Type A racquets described above, and thus, you are likely to lose more matches at the lower levels. I'll call this type of racquet: Type B.

So I think deciding on which type of racquet you choose to use really comes down to why you play tennis? Do you get more satisfaction from winning matches at all costs even if you don't hit any winners and all your points are won from unforced errors from your opponent or do you get more satisfaction from hitting lots of screaming winners even if you end up losing the match? Which makes you happier?

For me, it's the latter. I'd rather lose a match hitting lots of winners than win a match without hitting any winners and won only because I kept the ball in play and allowed my opponent to make all the errors.

How about you guys?
 
I like to win but the greatest feeling is smacking that winner right where you wanted it. Winning a match... it's great and all but you can kind of see it coming considering there is match point. Hitting great winners don't always come when I expect it.
 
I love hitting winners and I loathe those players that push or dink or lob and never hit a true winner

I routinely go for (and make with some consistency) winners; no guts, no glory.
 
I don't even have to hit winners, I just go out and play and I have a good time. I have found my perfect racquet and getting really used to it so I know exactly what to expect everytime I go out there. Not having different racquets every week - it feels different, for a change :p
 
Definitely winning. I dont drive all the way to tournaments, train religiously, diet correctly, etc. to lose.

Winners are great but it doesnt take any discipline to hit ONE shot.
 
I don't thinkk anyone prefers a winner over a loss; but a winner is satisfying

A running, down the line winner stays with me alot longer than beating 'Phil' the 4.0 guy. I guess, better put; even in victory, there is something pure about that winner you hit; it stays with you
 
Nick Irons said:
I don't thinkk anyone prefers a winner over a loss; but a winner is satisfying

A running, down the line winner stays with me alot longer than beating 'Phil' the 4.0 guy. I guess, better put; even in victory, there is something pure about that winner you hit; it stays with you
Click to expand...

I know what you talking about.
There are certain shots and certain winners that you've made, which you remember for a long time. You certainly do not remember every match you win.
In professional sports as well, there are great plays (often in crucial moments) that we remember better than the game in which they occur.
 
So for those that prefer winning to hitting winners, does that mean that you would prefer to use a racquet that allows you to just keep the ball in play (usually a lighter, stiffer, bigger racquet with a bigger sweetspot) over a racquet that allows you hit lots of winners (usually a heavier, smaller racquet with a smaller but sweeter sweetspot)? Remember that at the lower levels, it's usually one or the other since if you could hit lots of winners AND keep the ball in play forever using either racquet then you're probably at a much higher level (e.g., 5.5+).
 
BreakPoint said:
So since the question in this poll is which gives you more satisfaction, I take it that hitting winners gives you more?
Click to expand...

But that often depends on your opponent.
If you're playing a guy who's not very good, then you probably won't get any satisfaction for winning. But dang, did you see all those spectacular winners I hit over there!
Now if you're playing someone who's really good, and you beat him by being really consistent and building the points, then dang, did you see whose butt I just kicked!
 
I prefer winning but there's nothing like smacking a good winner. Also i really get satisfaction from hitting a very good drop shot when playing doubles.
 
Everybody prefers winning. It is just that many can't resist the temptation of going for the winners. Winning is a long term goal. Something you have to work hard for.
So hitting winners is fun during play, winning the match is fun after the match. So the objective must to win while hitting winners hehe.
 
Thats a tricky question BP, i rather win a match with a few winners then lose the match with loads of winners... you have to know your limits.
 
BreakPoint said:
So for those that prefer winning to hitting winners, does that mean that you would prefer to use a racquet ....
Click to expand...

Can I chop the question off there and say....Yes, I'd prefer to use a racquet?

I am not 5.5+, and yet I have never chosen a racquet on the basis of winners versus consistency, as I don't feel these are mutually exclusive. I choose a racquet I feel I can play well with, and playing well for me means consistency and the ability to hit winners.

There are plenty of players below 5.5 who are consistent enough, and yet still hit their share of winners. There are also many many players who hit many many winners and errors, and yet use 95+ frames. I played one of each of the above this afternoon, and ironically, they use the same racquet.
 
Last edited:
As long as i'm playing real tennis (no pushing), i'd rather win than go for everything. But I voted for hitting winners because the racquet I choose to use is a part of your "hitting winners" category. My N90 is definitely harder to use but I love how great my shots are with it. No doubt though, at this level, i would be more consistent with something lighter/bigger

I'd rather hit a bunch of winners and unforced errors because it feels like better practice, the people who get good the fastest it seems are the people who right when they started playing were already going for winners all the time. Not the players who tried to beat their current competition with consistent/dinky shots.
 
Last edited:
I'm sitting with the same problem. I used a racquet that was less demanding up to a month/two ago. I made less errors but winners were few and far between. The racquet just didn't give me enough confidence to go for winners I know I'm capable of. Recently switched to the DNX10 Mid: I won't say my errors have increased but my confidence did. It's as if everything just came together.

Now for something more demanding: K90.....

To answer your question: I definitely want to win but there's not much satisfaction in pushing the ball back and waiting for your oppenent to make the mistake. I want to win and hit a lot of winners!!
 
Winning matches. But for me, more importantly is playing well. If I play well and lose, I am satisfied, if I play poorly and win, I am not satisfied.
 
I like constructing the strategy and tactics to win which comes from playing a lot of chess growing up.
 
I love to hit winners but as you say consistency is where it is at to win. The simple answer is to get your standard to a level where you dont have to play the annoying pusher types and if you do come across one you can just hit side to side then hit that winner down the line.
 
BP, I haven't been on this board long at all and I honestly have only been playing organized tennis for about 5-6 months. From what I read of your posts on any thread in here, you generally know what you are talking about and are pretty well respected. I hope this does not offend you. What do people play competitive tennis for? To win a couple points here and there or to win the whole match no matter what? I have no clue why people, highly skilled, intermediate, or beginners, would choose hitting winners over winning the match. Points are merely little battles in a long war when it comes to a match. Most players, decent ones anyway, can tell right off the bat how good their opponent is going to be. Some guys get to everything and you HAVE to put yourself in a position to put one away with a winner and some other guys have a hard time maintaining any sort of long volley. With the second guy, are you going to try and take uneccessary risks by going for a bunch of winners or are you going to play it safe and wait until he messes up? Obviously, if the guy bops one back to you and you have a chance to put it away without a problem, you're going to do that. That's not the point. The other day, I played a guy in my 3.0 league and he probably hit double the amount of winners I hit. However, he didn't have a great backhand so instead of trying to make a perfect shot or go for something I didn't necessarily need, I just pounded it to his backhand side and made him try and beat me with it. Sometimes it didn't work and most of the time it did. Now, I know that when you get higher in skill, those guys don't come along as often but the same theory can work because it is all relative to how good you and your opponent are. (For instance, if he is great at serving and volleying but not so great hitting baseline to baseline with you.) I'm sorry if I am missing the point, or winner, if you will :-) , but I would much rather beat my opponent and have that satisfaction than to brag about 35 winners and lose in three sets.
 
hitting winners AND winning matches.

i believe that the two go hand in hand. hitting winners and winning points wins matches. and minimizing one's unforced errors also plays a part. this holds true at all skill levels. finally, with the exception of serving, the pace behind a shot does not always constitute a winner. it simply means that your opponent was unable to get to the ball.
 
Winning matches are everything. It can be ugly or it can be pretty but I want to win win win win win.

You can hit 20 winners within a match but at the end, there is 1 win, 1 loss.
 
Bab06 said:
Definitely winning. I dont drive all the way to tournaments, train religiously, diet correctly, etc. to lose.

Winners are great but it doesnt take any discipline to hit ONE shot.
Click to expand...

Word. Freak winners are gravy, but building the point to have people so befuddled and out of position that even a slow to medium paced ball becomes a routine winner - THAT'S where it's at.

If you're not playing open level tennis, your game simply isn't lethal enough to rely so heavily on offense - and even then there are plenty of open level grinders out there. Court craft and learning to gain and regain leverage during a point will get you much, much better results.

There's a huge spectrum between roundhouse knockout artists and rope-a-dope counterpunchers. The difference is that unlike in boxing, martial arts, wrestling, etc. - going for it all in tennis can't win you the whole thing. There's simply not enough reward, there. That's also why club level "shotmakers" almost never have results consistent with their level of flash.
 
I love the relationship of chess to tennis.

In chess, you can have open or closed games or something in between. An open game would be like tennis players hitting out and using all of the court with relatively fast action. A closed game would be like the old womens matches where you need to hit 30 balls to end a point.

Most players, especially young players, like open games. They like to try to come up with combinations or clever tactics to score a knockout blow or gain some kind of an advantage. A lot of older players will go for the closed positions as these are very frustrating to play if you prefer open positions. You essentially clog up as much of the board that you can and it takes you a while to gain small advantages that can be used later to break things open. Those that don't like this kind of play can get frustrated and make errors.

Similar to the dinker, pusher, lob specialist, moonballer, human backboard, etc. I have nothing against these guys as they are using a technique that works for them and someone that plays against these guys only strengthens their own game and will by playing against these guys.

There's one guy that I play with that most other people hate to play with. He is a great retriever with a really tough forehand and has numerous other weaknesses but he uses his strengths to hide his weaknesses. I like the aspect of mental challange of tennis as well as the physical challenge. Maybe that's from chess or table tennis. Table tennis requires much more mental work than tennis does as you have much less time to react to your opponent so you have to read their shots earlier and by their body positions and movements.
 
I love playing well, whether it's defense (riding out the storm and winning points by scrambling) or offense (well built point with an easy point-ender). The icing on the cake comes from the ridiculous winners. But hitting two ridiculous winners isn't as great (anymore) as making the right choices over and over again.

Well crafted points = beautiful tennis.

That said, I DETEST playing ugly tennis, like hitting lollypop shots on the serviceline and letting the other guy miss.. Won't do that in friendly matches.
 
BreakPoint said:
So for those that prefer winning to hitting winners, does that mean that you would prefer to use a racquet that allows you to just keep the ball in play (usually a lighter, stiffer, bigger racquet with a bigger sweetspot) over a racquet that allows you hit lots of winners (usually a heavier, smaller racquet with a smaller but sweeter sweetspot)? Remember that at the lower levels, it's usually one or the other since if you could hit lots of winners AND keep the ball in play forever using either racquet then you're probably at a much higher level (e.g., 5.5+).
Click to expand...

Hey BreakPoint...How's the tennis elbow?

Isn't this a bit of over-simplification?
1. I don't think your choice of racquet dictates or limits your ability to hit winners.
2. I have never run across an opponent in league or tournament play that would prefer to have more winners than me, but lose the match.
3. What about the multitude of racquets that fall in between the extremes of your example?

Rather than focus on winners, I focus on the right shot for each situation. So, if the right shot is a dtl, topspin backhand and I nail it...great. If I shank it off the frame, so be it. However, if I have hit that shot well a few times, my opponent might be expecting it, so a defensive lob (pusher shot?) might be the right shot. My opponent misses an overhead from the baseline and I win the point. Did I hit a winner? No. Am I satisfied? You bet.

My goal in each match is to maximize the ratio of winners to UE's. I love to hit winners, but would prefer to win the match.

btw, where does my racquet fall on your spectrum? Based on your assumptions, have I chosen a racquet that allows me to maximize winners or minimize UE's?
 
tom4ny said:
hitting winners AND winning matches.

i believe that the two go hand in hand. hitting winners and winning points wins matches. and minimizing one's unforced errors also plays a part. this holds true at all skill levels. finally, with the exception of serving, the pace behind a shot does not always constitute a winner. it simply means that your opponent was unable to get to the ball.
Click to expand...

Ditto! I enjoy hitting winners (who doesn't?), but in a match situation, I stay focused on winning that darn game, then set, and eventually, match. I'm constantly working on forcing errors by hitting pacy & well placed shots, yet minimizing uncessary risky or loose shots from my part. I guess I'm into the percentage tennis.
 
please tell me !!! which are those racquets .......

BreakPoint said:
Which gives you more satisfaction in tennis?

Winning matches or hitting winners?

I ask this because there are certain racquets that are easy to play with that allow you to be consistent and keep the ball in play forever but are difficult to hit screaming winners with. But consistency wins tennis matches especially at the lower levels in which the outcome of matches is determined by who hits the fewest unforced errors rather than by who hits the most winners. I'll call this type of racquet: Type A.

Then there are racquets that are more demanding to use, and thus, unless you are a very high level player, makes it harder to be very consistent with and results in more unforced errors. However, this type of racquet also allows you hit lots of screaming winners when you are set up properly, along with the unforced errors. At the lower levels, you will be less consistent with this type of racquet than with the Type A racquets described above, and thus, you are likely to lose more matches at the lower levels. I'll call this type of racquet: Type B.

So I think deciding on which type of racquet you choose to use really comes down to why you play tennis? Do you get more satisfaction from winning matches at all costs even if you don't hit any winners and all your points are won from unforced errors from your opponent or do you get more satisfaction from hitting lots of screaming winners even if you end up losing the match? Which makes you happier?

For me, it's the latter. I'd rather lose a match hitting lots of winners than win a match without hitting any winners and won only because I kept the ball in play and allowed my opponent to make all the errors.

How about you guys?
Click to expand...

that allow you to be consistent and keep the ball in play forever

I want to buy a bunch of those right now, thanks
 
I am happy when the ball goes where I intend for it to go. I go for winners alot, so that would mean hitting some winners. If my opponent is able to hit winners against me or force errors on me so that I lose, I'm fine as long as my offensive shots go in.
 
raiden031 said:
I am happy when the ball goes where I intend for it to go. I go for winners alot, so that would mean hitting some winners. If my opponent is able to hit winners against me or force errors on me so that I lose, I'm fine as long as my offensive shots go in.
Click to expand...

What if you are on the defensive most of the match and you only get about 10-15 offensive shots, (assuming they all go in), but you get beat 6-1, 6-1? You're telling me you're fine with that? I'm not saying that I don't like hitting winners. Who doesn't!? All I'm saying is that if this were basketball, would you rather score 25 and lose or score 10 and win? Seriously, think about it.
 
Hitting winners is always a great feeling ,but I think to have the control to put the ball anywhere you want is better. Ever have those days where you can just do anything out there. Now that's an awesome feeling.

Hey Breakpoint- I just leaded up my asian ncode racquets to SW2 and it feels incredible. Have you tried?
 
TheGreatestAudia said:
What if you are on the defensive most of the match and you only get about 10-15 offensive shots, (assuming they all go in), but you get beat 6-1, 6-1? You're telling me you're fine with that? I'm not saying that I don't like hitting winners. Who doesn't!? All I'm saying is that if this were basketball, would you rather score 25 and lose or score 10 and win? Seriously, think about it.
Click to expand...

If I'm in that scenario then I am playing a far superior player, so I don't mind. I just hate beating myself when I know I can beat the other player.
 
I enjoy playing well, win or lose. But winning does have that extra since of satisfaction. I also can't recall anyone saying to me, "remember that forehand winner you hit 3 years ago?" I have heard, "remeber that play off match 3 years ago that you and your partner were down 5-2 in the final set, and then you came back and won!"
 
raiden031 said:
If I'm in that scenario then I am playing a far superior player, so I don't mind. I just hate beating myself when I know I can beat the other player.
Click to expand...

You are basically proving my point when it comes to playing someone who may not be quite as good as you are at carrying a rally. You don't want to beat yourself so you continue to hit to a certain area he has a problem with to force him out of his comfort zone and make him beat you. Why take a risk by going for a winner when he is going to do the work for you?

As for playing someone far superior, I understand what you mean by saying that you will take "moral victories" if that's all you can expect from playing this guy. I, on the other hand, was always taught not to take moral victories because you end up rationalizing everything when the bottom line is that you lost the match. I get really ticked and it only motivates me to work harder and play this guy again. I will never, ever feel good after losing a match. I don't want to get to that point. I feel as though I need to stop playing competitively if I feel good when I get my butt handed to me. Don't get me wrong, I'm not one of those guys who doesn't have fun if they lose. I love playing tennis competitively and recreationally and no matter how bad I lose, I will be ticked but I still had a TON of fun. Does that make sense?
 
TheGreatestAudia said:
You are basically proving my point when it comes to playing someone who may not be quite as good as you are at carrying a rally. You don't want to beat yourself so you continue to hit to a certain area he has a problem with to force him out of his comfort zone and make him beat you. Why take a risk by going for a winner when he is going to do the work for you?

As for playing someone far superior, I understand what you mean by saying that you will take "moral victories" if that's all you can expect from playing this guy. I, on the other hand, was always taught not to take moral victories because you end up rationalizing everything when the bottom line is that you lost the match. I get really ticked and it only motivates me to work harder and play this guy again. I will never, ever feel good after losing a match. I don't want to get to that point. I feel as though I need to stop playing competitively if I feel good when I get my butt handed to me. Don't get me wrong, I'm not one of those guys who doesn't have fun if they lose. I love playing tennis competitively and recreationally and no matter how bad I lose, I will be ticked but I still had a TON of fun. Does that make sense?
Click to expand...

I am having trouble following your first paragraph. What I'm getting at is that my desired style of play is pretty aggressive from the baseline, basically to get my opponent running to create an opening and also punish short balls. This is definitely not a winning strategy at the lower levels, because the UEs always take over my game. So if I'm playing a player that is better at this than me so that I'm always on the defensive, that is fine because he must be way better than me to pull this off. At least I can try to learn from him and find out why he was able to exploit me so bad. On the contrary, if every point I lost was a UE, than his game didn't matter because I beat myself anyways.

If I was setting out to win each match, I would resort to more defensive playing when I'm against a guy like myself who is overly aggressive and hits alot of UEs. But instead I choose to stick with my game plan, but make smaller adjustments based on his weaknesses, but I still always try to play an offensive game.
 
There is a big fallacy in the OP. It assumes that if you lose most of your matches, you will still have the enthusiasm to keep hitting winners. Doesn't work that way. A certain %tage of wins is essential to boost confidence, and also to move to the next levels, where you will be tested more, and be able to hone the winners. The other problem is that winners don't exist in a vacuum. There is a set up to go thru, and if that is weak because of a too-demanding racquet, winners will not come easily.
 
ebtide said:
Hey Breakpoint- I just leaded up my asian ncode racquets to SW2 and it feels incredible. Have you tried?
Click to expand...
No I haven't, I play with mine stock. But wouldn't leading the Asian version up to SW2 defeat the purpose of getting the lighter Asian version in the first place? :confused: I mean, don't you end up essentially with the U.S. version?
 
sureshs said:
There is a big fallacy in the OP. It assumes that if you lose most of your matches, you will still have the enthusiasm to keep hitting winners. Doesn't work that way. A certain %tage of wins is essential to boost confidence, and also to move to the next levels, where you will be tested more, and be able to hone the winners. The other problem is that winners don't exist in a vacuum. There is a set up to go thru, and if that is weak because of a too-demanding racquet, winners will not come easily.
Click to expand...
For some players, hitting winners is what gives them the most satisfaction. So if they keep hitting winners, they're happy, win or lose.
 
For me, it's winning matches, for sure. But I am a good loser too. I don't mind if a better player beats me.
 
BreakPoint said:
No I haven't, I play with mine stock. But wouldn't leading the Asian version up to SW2 defeat the purpose of getting the lighter Asian version in the first place? :confused: I mean, don't you end up essentially with the U.S. version?
Click to expand...

It's still still quicker through the air w/ more stability and feel with the positives of a SW2. I considered the asian version extremely light compared to the US.
 
I find that hitting winners provides greater satisfaction. I would gladly take a loss, or even many losses, if it helped me improve my game. I look at tennis as an ongoing learning process.
 
Does anybody now which are these racquets??????

javier sergio said:
that allow you to be consistent and keep the ball in play forever

I want to buy a bunch of those right now, thanks
Click to expand...

I'm eager to buy these racquets that breakpoint says;

"there are certain racquets that are easy to play with that allow you to be consistent and keep the ball in play forever but are difficult to hit screaming winners with. "

Any help?
 
BreakPoint said:
So for those that prefer winning to hitting winners, does that mean that you would prefer to use a racquet that allows you to just keep the ball in play (usually a lighter, stiffer, bigger racquet with a bigger sweetspot) over a racquet that allows you hit lots of winners (usually a heavier, smaller racquet with a smaller but sweeter sweetspot)? Remember that at the lower levels, it's usually one or the other since if you could hit lots of winners AND keep the ball in play forever using either racquet then you're probably at a much higher level (e.g., 5.5+).
Click to expand...

Bp,
For me, your categories of racquets are backwards. I can keep the ball in play better with a heavier, more flexible racquet that let's me hit with more spin and margin for error, but I can hit penetrating winners better with a lighter, stiffer racquet.
 
In my eyes it's winning matches. Hitting winners are satisfying but winning matches is the ultimate. You get that feeling when you win a match that you are unstoppable, well that's what I get. When I hit winners I just give the fist pump and go YEAH!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

BreakPoint
  • Poll Poll
Which type of racquet would you choose? Type A or Type B?
Replies
40
Views
2K
kreative
kreative
BC1
Everyone wants Consistency... which type of racquet delivers?
2
Replies
61
Views
10K
Sreeram
Sreeram
JaoSousa
Two Extremely Underrated Fedal Matches
2
Replies
85
Views
2K
mike danny
mike danny
I
Which Babolat do you prefer?
Replies
32
Views
2K
nickb
nickb
O
Personal tennis stats
Replies
26
Views
3K
olivierd
O
Back
Top