Why are defensive abilities so under rated compared to offensive fire power?

[Messarger]

Some of the older posters, esp the Sampras, Edberg, Becker, Henman, McEnroe fans say that the volley is a lost art and how modern tennis is on a decline due to ball bashers and pushers.

While i would like to see more volleys and net play in tennis, i think you guys are not giving enough credit to players with good defensive ablilities like Borg, Hewitt, Canas, Nadal, Chang, Coria etc players who can run down every ball. Some posters sound as if running down bullet shots and approach shots are as easy as plucking the fuzz of a Wilson Trainer. NO! Do you guys realize how difficult it is to do that?

Let's not delve into the fitness required to run down these cannon balls blasted at them. Rather, it takes a lot of feel and touch to put these balls back in play especially when you're on the the full sprint. We're all tennis players, you guys know what i mean. Try hitting one of those "retriver" shots against the Federer forehand, the Del Potro forehand the Gasquet backhand etc and see if you can put it back in play as consistently as the players mentioned above (Borg, Nadal, Hewitt etc).

In fact, i think a player's defensive abilities are also a good (re: i didnt say best) guage of how much talent they have. I mean, you can hit many balls at a young age and develop a nasty forehand, but it is a lot harder to improve your retriving abilities, even if your fitness level is good. You still need an incredible amont of time to develop the feel and ball sense as mentioned above to put that rocket back in play. And even if you were commited to honing your defensive game, not many are able to really master it as well as Borg and co. It is one thing to feel sad about the lost of the volleying skills of the 90s, but we should be happy that we're able to witness such fantastic retriving abilities.

Thoughts.

 

[ViscaB]

Interesting point. It's the same in all sports. In football for example FC Barcelona playing offensive football will always be more popular than a defensive side like Inter.

 

[caulcano]

Generally speaking, people enjoy watching attacking rather than defensive tennis.

These defensive players generally rely on their ball retrieval skills & consqentially on their opponents making erros to win more points.

I disagree that "a player's defensive abilities are also a good guage of how much talent they have". It gauges how good their physical fitness is.

 

[Messarger]

Interesting point. It's the same in all sports. In football for example FC Barcelona playing offensive football will always be more popular than a defensive side like Inter.

Hi ViscaB. Yup, i do agree that Barcelona's offense, just like Edberg's serve and volley game are a thing of beauty especially when Messi and Xavi are on form. But, at least in football good defensive play are acknowledge by fans and pundits all over the world. They gave a lot of credit to Inter's discipline and team work like when they won with 10 men against Barca in the CL semi final. It's just not the same in tennis, especially on these boards if you've been here long enough...

 

[Dilettante]

Because people think that sports are a kind of movie and they want movie-like heroes. Many people feel sportsmen are a prolongation of themselves as a way to fulfill their frustrated realizations and sharing their heroes coolness. So they want to watch Indianas Jones of tennis and are not able to appreciate deffensive skills that are considered uncool.

Of course that's stupid, because requires as much talent to defend well as to attack well, although many people think that defending equals running and nothing more. No matter how fast can you run to reach a ball if you're not able to get the ball back on opponent's court and it requires talent to make that.

 

[fuzz nation]

My somewhat short response - defense doesn't light up a stat sheet.

Rafa is so utterly demoralizing for opponents because he can force them to hit three or four balls in a row that would be clean winners against most other players. There's no way to list "winners retrieved" but if there was a way to quantify it, I'm sure that Nadal would surpass everyone else with his numbers, especially on the red clay.

The idiots trying to promote the game prefer the material that's useful in a highlight reel, including a big number on a radar gun after a clean ace. Only tennis observers who really understand the game are appreciative of someone who can turn the entire back court into a backboard.

 

[Messarger]

Generally speaking, people enjoy watching attacking rather than defensive tennis.

These defensive players generally rely on their ball retrieval skills & consqentially on their opponents making erros to win more points.

I disagree that "a player's defensive abilities are also a good guage of how much talent they have". It gauges how good their physical fitness is.

It's one thing to enjoy watching watching offensive tennis, it's another to sound as if retriving a Federer fore hand is as easy as ABC.

In bold:
I don't think so. You can have the physical fitness to run down the ball, but what happens when you get there is another issue altogether. Players who are not able to defend well may not be able to get a decent reply on the cannon balls even if they are able to get their racket on it.

 

[Messarger]

to Dilettante and fuzz nation: My thoughts exactly. defensive skills are really under rated.

 

[borg number one]

My somewhat short response - defense doesn't light up a stat sheet.

Rafa is so utterly demoralizing for opponents because he can force them to hit three or four balls in a row that would be clean winners against most other players. There's no way to list "winners retrieved" but if there was a way to quantify it, I'm sure that Nadal would surpass everyone else with his numbers, especially on the red clay.

The idiots trying to promote the game prefer the material that's useful in a highlight reel, including a big number on a radar gun after a clean ace. Only tennis observers who really understand the game are appreciative of someone who can turn the entire back court into a backboard.

Yes. I agree. These skills are often "underrated". Moving like this and playing great "defensive", "counter-punching" Tennis requires incredible fitness and skill.

 

[drive]

Generally speaking, people enjoy watching attacking rather than defensive tennis.

These defensive players generally rely on their ball retrieval skills & consqentially on their opponents making erros to win more points.

I disagree that "a player's defensive abilities are also a good guage of how much talent they have". It gauges how good their physical fitness is.

You fail in this sentence. In order to play defensive tennis you must have the ability to hit amazing shots on the run like nadal does, and that's nothing to do with fitness.

 

[valiant]

People like ACTION.

 

[rocket]

I disagree that "a player's defensive abilities are also a good guage of how much talent they have". It gauges how good their physical fitness is.

dude, turning a desperate situation into a winning position is one of the hardest things in tennis.

Fed & Nadal can switch from defense to offense with one shot. that makes them 1 & 2 in the world.

 

[AAAA]

You fail in this sentence. In order to play defensive tennis you must have the ability to hit amazing shots on the run like nadal does, and that's nothing to do with fitness.

but getting to those well paced power shots has everything to do with athletic ability in Nadal's case.

Nadal is formidable because he combines amazing athletic ability with power and shot-making ability.

 

[araghava]

Lets not forget that ultimately these athletes are entertainers. We pay to see them perform. By and large the paying public prefers to see attack. This is true irrespective of the sport. So while extraordinary defensive ability can certainly be a route to success, it's not necessarily good in terms of attracting fans to the sport.

 

[jigar]

because better offense always beats better defense.

 

[Nadalfan89]

because better offense always beats better defense.

That's why Nadal has 7 Grand Slams, right?

 

[OKUSA]

That's why Federer has 16 majors, right?

 

[TheTruth]

To me, people are always trying to gauge who or what's better. I like to think of things as being equally good.

To the argument that offense will trump defense, I disagree. See Sharapova. All offense, but a good retriever can, and usually does beat her.

On the flip side, all defense and no offense will just run you ragged.

That's why Rafa, Fed, and Djoker (yes Djoker when he's playing well) are the best in the world. No one can play defense and offense and switch back and forth at will like they can.

So, to me neither is better. Both are needed.

 

[decades]

because nobody likes a pusher.

 

[OKUSA]

Borg won 11 majors with amazing defense and good defense, Sampras won 14 majors with amazing offense and decent defense

You have to be at least amazing in one, otherwise you will end up like Hewitt

 

[Xenakis]

Do any pros actually play defensive tennis though? The ones who do are counter attackers surely? (Nadal, Murray etc)

Counter attacking tennis players or football teams for that matter are good to watch imo, you get some great retreiving then a killer blow to end the point.

You only get defensive tennis at lower levels of tennis, 'pushing' as it's called (in the US anyway). That doesn't work at the pro level, even if kids on this board idiotically use the term as if it has some meaning (people who know about tennis don't though).

 

[sureshs]

That's why Federer has 16 majors, right?

And a horrible record against Nadal. Head 2 head, Nadal's defense is far superior to Fed's offence.

 

[OKUSA]

because the court they have met most on rewards being defensive. there's a reason why Sampras never won on clay

 

[drive]

Well, i have to admit that when Nadal plays like the first game, second set of yesterday's match i feel like killing him, but when he feels confident and plays more agressively i think his tennis is simply awesome, is has nothing to do with the boring 2 shots rallies that many posters claim as "enjoyable tennis".

 

[SuperFly]

Because firepower is fun to watch. Sure, watching Nadal and Monfils run down impossible balls and firing them for a winner is nice, but hard hitters put asses in the seats.

 

[Sangria]

Xenakis is right. I would be safe to say that a LOT of people on this board don't actually play tennis, rather just jump on the bandwagon and quick to dismiss a pro tennis player's overall game.

Think of defense as the foundation of every facet of their game.

 

[OKUSA]

the problem with players who are more defensive today (Murray, Nadal, Djokovic) than players who were defensive back then (Connors, Borg, Laver) is they didn't have strings and racquets that could give you a 130 mph serve and 5000 rpm on the ball. People who are more defensive today are not using the technology to their advantage imo

 

[Sangria]

Because firepower is fun to watch. Sure, watching Nadal and Monfils run down impossible balls and firing them for a winner is nice, but hard hitters put asses in the seats.

As long as you don't bet on "those" players, then you'll be alright. Be glad that there is a lot of different styles to watch.

Firepower is exactly that. Once it burns out, you get over it.

 

[drive]

Well, it depends. People like offensive game but normally the best points of a match are those in which a player comes back from a highly defensive position to win the point. Something like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-lvdvrw5yA

 

[raiden031]

The best defense is a good offense.

 

[TennisBatman]

The best defense is a good offense.

A common fallacy that is spewed around all too often.

It should read...the best defense is an invincible offense. Because if you are 100% sure you can defeat your opponent with offense, then there will be no need for defense, since your opponent won't be able to fight back.

But no player of tennis or any other game or sport has an invincible offense, so this statement never holds true in practice.

 

[raiden031]

A common fallacy that is spewed around all too often.

It should read...the best defense is an invincible offense. Because if you are 100% sure you can defeat your opponent with offense, then there will be no need for defense, since your opponent won't be able to fight back.

But no player of tennis or any other game or sport has an invincible offense, so this statement never holds true in practice.

A good offense takes alot of pressure off your defense.

 

[TennisBatman]

A good offense takes alot of pressure off your defense.

It doesn't mean that your offense can completely replace your defense.

In other words, the saying, as exactly worded, doesn't fit your point here.


If we look at tennis, for example, defending against a strong server is an important element of play that great players like Federer and Nadal are very good at. But other players who lack in this category have a lot of trouble going up in the ranks and winning titles (take Roddick, for example...an all-out offensive player who is lacking in the defensive category...just look at his record vs. a more complete player like Federer).

 

[Omega_7000]

They are not under rated, they are just boring to watch!

 

[Xenakis]

Well, it depends. People like offensive game but normally the best points of a match are those in which a player comes back from a highly defensive position to win the point. Something like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-lvdvrw5yA

Fantastic example, what a point!

 

[West Coast Ace]

Anyone say it's the tennis equivalent to "chicks dig the long ball."

 

[ViscaB]

because the court they have met most on rewards being defensive. there's a reason why Sampras never won on clay

His backhand was the main culprit. Clay is unforgivable on the ground strokes. You have to be able to hit both backhand and forehand consistently well.

 

[piece]

Some of the older posters, esp the Sampras, Edberg, Becker, Henman, McEnroe fans say that the volley is a lost art and how modern tennis is on a decline due to ball bashers and pushers.

While i would like to see more volleys and net play in tennis, i think you guys are not giving enough credit to players with good defensive ablilities like Borg, Hewitt, Canas, Nadal, Chang, Coria etc players who can run down every ball. Some posters sound as if running down bullet shots and approach shots are as easy as plucking the fuzz of a Wilson Trainer. NO! Do you guys realize how difficult it is to do that?

Let's not delve into the fitness required to run down these cannon balls blasted at them. Rather, it takes a lot of feel and touch to put these balls back in play especially when you're on the the full sprint. We're all tennis players, you guys know what i mean. Try hitting one of those "retriver" shots against the Federer forehand, the Del Potro forehand the Gasquet backhand etc and see if you can put it back in play as consistently as the players mentioned above (Borg, Nadal, Hewitt etc).

In fact, i think a player's defensive abilities are also a good (re: i didnt say best) guage of how much talent they have. I mean, you can hit many balls at a young age and develop a nasty forehand, but it is a lot harder to improve your retriving abilities, even if your fitness level is good. You still need an incredible amont of time to develop the feel and ball sense as mentioned above to put that rocket back in play. And even if you were commited to honing your defensive game, not many are able to really master it as well as Borg and co. It is one thing to feel sad about the lost of the volleying skills of the 90s, but we should be happy that we're able to witness such fantastic retriving abilities.

Thoughts.

Disagree. At a club level pushers and retrievers are often very successful because players of similar standard, but with a game that is intended to be more offensive, can't get the ball past them and make errors. It's only as you go up the ranks that you find players talented enough to really use an offensive game to consistently win them matches.

 

[piece]

Fantastic example, what a point!

hells yes.

one of my favourite matches ever in terms of shotmaking.

 

[Strateon]

The best defense is a good offense.

That's what i told my driving instructor... :-?

 

[Messarger]

Disagree. At a club level pushers and retrievers are often very successful because players of similar standard, but with a game that is intended to be more offensive, can't get the ball past them and make errors. It's only as you go up the ranks that you find players talented enough to really use an offensive game to consistently win them matches.

Hi. Like what you said, that's at club level. The offensive player's supposedly 'fire power' is nothing more than a regular forehand when it's compared to the pro level. That's why the more defensive players and pushers are able to fustrate them time and time again. Ask these defensive players to go up against pro ground strokes. They'd get a lot lesser balls in play.

 

[Dave M]

Some of the older posters, esp the Sampras, Edberg, Becker, Henman, McEnroe fans say that the volley is a lost art and how modern tennis is on a decline due to ball bashers and pushers.
While i would like to see more volleys and net play in tennis, i think you guys are not giving enough credit to players with good defensive ablilities like Borg, Hewitt, Canas, Nadal, Chang, Coria etc players who can run down every ball. Some posters sound as if running down bullet shots and approach shots are as easy as plucking the fuzz of a Wilson Trainer. NO! Do you guys realize how difficult it is to do that?
Thoughts.

To me it's a lack of variety that is killing the interest in the games for a lot of the public.I was sat on cout one at wimbledon last year and saw half the cout empty when two women played the first 3 games as if they were trying to out scream and just out bash one another.THere is more variety in the mens game but just all this retreaving isn't that exciting to watch for a lot of people.

 

[origmarm]

I think the mistake people make is assuming that a player is either defensive or offensive by nature. It's all about the balance. Someone like Federer is say 70% to 30% offense to defence. Someone like Nadal is say 40% to 60% offense to defence. This doesn't mean that Federer is not amazing in defence also. I don't think people underrate these skills at all. I think they just prefer to watch a more offensive balance. People prefer to watch someone who takes the game to the opposition but also defends well. It's the balance that counts.

This is interesting because I feel like tennis players go through a progression as they move up the levels. First they are beginners, then they develop a strategy. This strategy is either power and offense based or pushing, rarely the combination. As they progress they find that this one strategy in isolation just doesn't work when they meet a sufficiently good player and start to develop the other side to their game. By the time they reach 4.5-5.0 say, they have sufficiently developed the other side to get to this state of balanced play. They will always slightly favour the strategy they initially adopted but the balance has come. For me the pros is just a further evolution of this development. To get to the top you need to be amazing at both elements. Thoughts?

 

[reversef]

Lets not forget that ultimately these athletes are entertainers. We pay to see them perform. By and large the paying public prefers to see attack. This is true irrespective of the sport. So while extraordinary defensive ability can certainly be a route to success, it's not necessarily good in terms of attracting fans to the sport.

Defensive abilities attract many people IF it's not the only thing to watch. There is no pusher at the top anymore (I'm talking about the ATP, not about the WTA who recently inherited of Wozniacki for example ), not even Murray, who is the most accused of that. And certainly not Nadal, who is always willing to attack. But not in one or 2 shots. And since nobody wants to play long points with him, the aggress him from the start. So, of course, he has to defend a lot. Even Murray plays more aggressive than against everybody else vs Nadal.

I think that some people also have problems with great defenders because of their personal experience. Everybody has already been the unfortunate attacker on the court. You play great tennis, you feel that you are the best player on the court, but then you face someone who retrieves, moonballs, uses a defensive slice backhand, dropshots and then lobs you, you start missing more and more, you lose your nerves, you break your racquet, you become obscene, you make a fool of yourself... and you lose the match. :evil: Come on, I'm sure that everyone who plays or played competitive tennis, whatever the level, experienced that at least once.

Amongst the fans of S&V who spit on baseliners, I know that you can find different kind of tennis fans. Genuine S&V lovers, nostalgics, old people and snobs who almost regret the days where tennis was only played on grass, in the Commonwealth, with long paints, long skirts and hats, those days without sweat.

 

[alcheng]

I took this from the post-match interview of FO10 final, Solderling on Nadal:

"That's why he's so good - because he's moving so well and gets everything back,'' Soderling said. "He's a great defensive player, but also has a great offensive game, as well. He can really change defense to offense really quick.''

I agree tennis players should go for winners, however, how player convert a defensive sequence into an offensive winner is one of the most beautiful thing in tennis too.

 

[sh@de]

I think the mistake people make is assuming that a player is either defensive or offensive by nature. It's all about the balance. Someone like Federer is say 70% to 30% offense to defence. Someone like Nadal is say 40% to 60% offense to defence. This doesn't mean that Federer is not amazing in defence also. I don't think people underrate these skills at all. I think they just prefer to watch a more offensive balance. People prefer to watch someone who takes the game to the opposition but also defends well. It's the balance that counts.

This is interesting because I feel like tennis players go through a progression as they move up the levels. First they are beginners, then they develop a strategy. This strategy is either power and offense based or pushing, rarely the combination. As they progress they find that this one strategy in isolation just doesn't work when they meet a sufficiently good player and start to develop the other side to their game. By the time they reach 4.5-5.0 say, they have sufficiently developed the other side to get to this state of balanced play. They will always slightly favour the strategy they initially adopted but the balance has come. For me the pros is just a further evolution of this development. To get to the top you need to be amazing at both elements. Thoughts?

Wow. Brilliant post. Couldn't have put it any better myself.

 

[Dilettante]

To get to the top you need to be amazing at both elements. Thoughts?

Yes. No matter the player's style; at pro level all players are great at defense AND offence (sp?). The simple fact of getting in play a pro's groundstroke return requires an enormous amount of skill. You can see that in some pro player's practice videos, where junior or amateur players have big trouble managing the pro's strokes and returning a controlled ball to the other side of the court.

That's why makes no sense comparing amateur and pro levels in terms of skills; they are two totally different games. There are no pushers among top players. All top players are capable of defending and attacking in levels that amateur players can only dream of.

I agree, there's no such thing as purely deffensive or offensive players among the tops.

 

[origmarm]

Wow. Brilliant post. Couldn't have put it any better myself.

Merci!

Yes. No matter the player's style; at pro level all players are great at defense AND offence (sp?). The simple fact of getting in play a pro's groundstroke return requires an enormous amount of skill. You can see that in some pro player's practice videos, where junior or amateur players have big trouble managing the pro's strokes and returning a controlled ball to the other side of the court.

I couldn't agree more. I had a chance to hit with Azarenka when I was in Qatar a while back. To hear people criticise the WTA on this forum you would think they were all useless. I realise it's not comparable to a top men's pro but even her balls were hit heavy.

That's why makes no sense comparing amateur and pro levels in terms of skills; they are two totally different games. There are no pushers among top players. All top players are capable of defending and attacking in levels that amateur players can only dream of.

I agree, there's no such thing as purely deffensive or offensive players among the tops.

Agree completely. The game is so complete once you get past a certain level. There are marginal tendencies but a lot has to do with subtle shifts in balance and natural talent exploitation. People think Nadal is defensive but it's merely because his defense and particularly his movement is just incredible. He's actually pretty offensive as a player I think. Sort of "passive aggressive" the whole time. He's just showcasing his natural talent for movement on court in particular.

If you look at Federer defence it's the same thing. The movement is incredible. It's just that it's not as spectacular and you remember Federer for those amazing "shots from nowhere". That's showcasing his natural talent for that in particular.

This leads to a perception that one is attacking and one is defensive which is not the case.

I really like the comments that other posters make about a shift in one/few shots from defence to attack. This for me is what seperates a top 100 player from a top 25 player in many respects.

 

[piece]

Hi. Like what you said, that's at club level. The offensive player's supposedly 'fire power' is nothing more than a regular forehand when it's compared to the pro level. That's why the more defensive players and pushers are able to fustrate them time and time again. Ask these defensive players to go up against pro ground strokes. They'd get a lot lesser balls in play.

Well my point was that the less talented players (club level) seem to find defense an easier winning strategy. So, going on this, I inferred that good offense requires more talent as it becomes more and more of a viable winning game the higher up the talent echelons you go.