Punch And Judy

Despite coming here from all corners of the Earth, most of us have strong views and opinions on just about anything including tennis.
Some of us like this some that player and the reasoning behind our preferences can be complex, funny, odd, even logical!

Despite the players' different characters and backgrounds, you can almost certainly split them all in two groups: they either attack or counter-punch.

(There is also a group of those who don't have a game, mainly because their skill doesn't allow for one, but that's another story for another time)

Even those of us who play it with more, less or no success have a mindset when we find ourselves on the court.

We either attack or ....

Personally, I can't finish the other sentence as even with the tiny bit of what I have played, I can't bring myself into counter-punching, it's completely against my nature, and I find it very difficult: it feels almost like having to play chess (which I also can't stand).

I used to think that in order to play attacking tennis like e.g. Federer you need to have sublime talent, I kind of looked down on counter-punchers, but the more I play, the more I admire them, always the case with something you can't do, isn't it?

What do you think is more difficult and why? Is it purely the player's character or is it skill as well?

Defending and attacking are different skills both necessary for a top player. I think that wishing to use one skill to a greater extent than the other probably does reflect on a player's temperament and character to a degree, but in a clutch situation also what feels the easiest to them.

[quote="time please"]Defending and attacking are different skills both necessary for a top player. I think that wishing to use one skill to a greater extent than the other probably does reflect on a player's temperament and character to a degree, but in a clutch situation also what feels the easiest to them.[/quote]

I find it fascinating how a player's mindset and character actually form their games.

Murray is a particularly interesting case: his forehand does not allow him to be attacking more, yet he can do virtually everything else. But because of his forehand he possibly plays like he does, or at least used to. Now he's changed the game a bit, trying to play more aggressively, but it was more interesting in the past when he was a pure counter-puncher with a twist.
Even Simon these days plays attacking points now and then and looks really good when he does it.

Some players are just impossible to imagine as counter-punchers, imagine Tsonga!!!?

What is Monfils nole? I will go and ponder that one, too tired now.

Great thread btw, try and do it more justice tomorrow

time please wrote:What is Monfils nole? I will go and ponder that one, too tired now.

Great thread btw, try and do it more justice tomorrow

Monf is a classy counter-puncher, one of the best!

noleisthebest wrote:

time please wrote:Defending and attacking are different skills both necessary for a top player. I think that wishing to use one skill to a greater extent than the other probably does reflect on a player's temperament and character to a degree, but in a clutch situation also what feels the easiest to them.

I find it fascinating how a player's mindset and character actually form their games.

While that is true, also a player's natural physical talents will help to form their game. For example, when I first started playing the game, I was rather short for my age but pretty fast and with good hands so I was more of a counter puncher. In my teenage years I had a growth spurt and developed a real weapon of a serve. My game became more all court and attack minded.

In my thirties I lost a bit of pace and flexibility but put more effort into strength training and became more of an aggressive baseliner trying to pound winners and provoke a weak reply that I could come in on and volley or force a risky passing shot.

So long way around the question but IMO counterpunchers need to be quick, have good hands, great court sense (positioning), good improvisers and above everything else technically sound and calm under pressure to consistently make those infuriating passing shots and lobs that will eventually demoralise weak minded opposition.

"So long way around the question but IMO counterpunchers need to be quick, have good hands, great court sense (positioning), good improvisers and above everything else technically sound and calm under pressure to consistently make those infuriating passing shots and lobs that will eventually demoralise weak minded opposition."

Federer's got all those skills, yet he chooses to attack. Do you think attacking is your ultimate test of skill?

At a very basic level the easier option is all out attack. The eyes shut swing and hit (or miss...) variety. It takes more skill to stay in a point or defend and maybe wait for an error. It takes considerably more skill to work a point and get into a position were its possable to attack and hit a winner into an open court having manouvered the opponant out of position. Cool and calculated. Nothing to do with shutting eyes or crossing fingers.

Some players are just better at getting to stage three...

If you are a good counter-pucher, you will almost never lose badly. At club levels, attackers need to be strong-willed to come back believeing in their game when they have just had a bad day where they brought demise on themselves! You blow hot and cold and consitency seems magically illusive for all out attackers.

I can only think of Fed who has managed to win so much with his attacking style. Sampras had so many bad days that his best years are not comprable to the worst stretches of Fed in his prime and that too when Sampras never lost the effectiveness of his all-important serve.

Djokovic also looks good while attacking but he has a game good enough to win on counter-punching as well - good combination imho.

At club levels, some of us dont even have a choice - many cannot continue running for hours. The strength and stamina required for playing counter-puching effectively means that not many could effectively play it!

"At club levels, some of us dont even have a choice - many cannot continue running for hours"

sad but true...for me it's more a mental than physical challenge, though, although I can see it can be fun for those who can do it. It's almost like having a wind-up nature and annoying the opponent into an error.

For me, the real question is with the pros, they all have the skill as well as the fitness.
You mention Djokovic being good at both, but the interesting bit there is that he is at his best when he is attacking, counter-punching is a plan B, a necessary evil for him.
Also, it requires a tons more skill and mental strength to attack from the baseline than the S&V.

Would disagree there Nitb. For us, attacking from baseline is glorious but for pro these days, pulling off S&V require far greater skills. Its not for nothing that volleying is dead. You risk getting passed, you cannot err by the smallest of margins because the other guy would reach there and most likely with time to spare - need to be perfect with volleys to make any living out of that gameplan anymore.

Not only S&V, volleying in general is very pleasing to eyes (may be because it is so rare now). Actually noone volleys these days with authority as nobody puts in infinite hours practising it anymore! Go watch the video of Wimbledon second round where a 40 year old Kimiko Date nearly beat Venus displaying some unbelievable hands at net - awesome stuff!!

Two of the best baseliners in the game today, Djokovic (attacking baseliner) and Nadal (defensive baseliner) look so so mediocre and clumsy on net. Despite all the shots that Djokovic has, his volleying (though effective) look so labored and clumsy - I would even say that Nadal is a better volleyer than Djokovic. Contrast that to Fish, Tsonga, Stepanek, Fed, Llodra who are so pleasing to eyes on net and are very successful on fast courts, atleast.

When things get tough, I have seen many pros being extra offensive pulling off winners on both sides but not many have the courage to go to net still - imho, it requires tons more skill and an artistic touch to be successful at net!!

Volleying isn't that hard when you are hitting a hospital ball return off of an old racquet with old strings. For me S and V is highly overrated, today people get excited by it because it happens less and less often due to the quality of the racquets and strings. But watching S and V tennis as a dominant style for my own preference isn't particularly enjoyable. Hitting a great passing shot is much harder than most of the volleys you have to make. So again I don't feel one can say that S and V player are just naturally more talented. Try hitting a cross court pass off your backhand on the dead run from 2 or 3 meters beyond the baseline like Nadal, Djoko, or murray can. Much more difficult than the vast majority of volleys.

socal1976 wrote:Volleying isn't that hard when you are hitting a hospital ball return off of an old racquet with old strings. For me S and V is highly overrated, today people get excited by it because it happens less and less often due to the quality of the racquets and strings. But watching S and V tennis as a dominant style for my own preference isn't particularly enjoyable. Hitting a great passing shot is much harder than most of the volleys you have to make. So again I don't feel one can say that S and V player are just naturally more talented. Try hitting a cross court pass off your backhand on the dead run from 2 or 3 meters beyond the baseline like Nadal, Djoko, or murray can. Much more difficult than the vast majority of volleys.

I must say volleying is the most fun and exciting thing for me when I play, it just gives me the buzz like no other shot. Obviously, my level is submentionable, but I can only speak from what I have experienced.

Having said that, watching S&V of the 90s WAS boring, mainly because of the ridiculous serving. My dream tennis is all-court 6+ rallies kind of game. Llondra's game is very nice to watch, and I look forward to his good form in Bercy.

Nitb, didn't say it isn't fun, volleying is fun when you are playing but did pete sampras really excite you as a player. I found his game completely dull, and he grew up about 35 miles away from where I went to high school in Palos Verdes, California. Nothing is as dull as big serve tennis in terms of watching. When I am playing I love hitting aces as well, but I don't particularly get excited by watching a top pro bomb 50 aces in a match.

No Socal - that's not what Nitb and I were discussing. Both of us seem to like attacking tennis more than counter-punching but just agree to disagree on the relative courage and skills required on being attacking from baseline or being in-your-face attacker from net.

I think more courage is required to come to net because you will get passed a lot more these days. Attacking from baseline, many can attempt and some can even pull it off consistently but not many can do it from net these days - I dont want to get into the reasons and whether physicality, racquet, strings etc is good or bad etc.... to me, volleying is very difficult and requires a great deal of startegy to know when to come in and to execute it well and yeah, I love watching it.

Lets not talk about individual shots - I will direct you to some hot-dog videos and would not even ask to try that ever!

Nitb, didn't say it isn't fun, volleying is fun when you are playing but did pete sampras really excite you as a player. I found his game completely dull

Had Goran been more no-nonsense, he would've dominated dull Pete on grass. 14 slams for that player is more criminal than Jack the Ripper..

DEFENCE FOR THE WIN!!!

Instinctively I love S&V, but I'd not like to see a return of the boring years of Sampras, Stich, Becker, and Krajicek when it was far more about the serve than the volley.

I saw Men's QF day at Wimbledon 2001 and watched Safin v. Ivanisevic and Federer v. Henman - of all four men the absolute standout at the net was Henman, he had the best hands and the best anticipation. To be fair I think it was a step too far for Roger that day, but the other two of the quartet did not look at home at the net at all. I think Henman was so good because he was so used to having to deal with the consequence of a weaker serve and less heavy approach shots.

I have seen Fed, Nadal, and Djoko live at Wimbledon more recently and I was very impressed by the softness of Nadal's hands at the net. To me he had real touch - that may be because he rarely comes to the net save to finish a point when he's on an absolute winner, but he was a lot better than I expected. Fed's volleying hasn't stood out for me - but in the most recent match I watched him in he was rather going through the motions (2009 vs. Kohlschreiber - spelling?).

"To me he had real touch - that may be because he rarely comes to the net save to finish a point when he's on an absolute winner, but he was a lot better than I expected"

Agreed. Which is why I started this topic, I really find it fascinating how players with soft hand for eg. (Murray and Nadal) end up playing games they do. OK, in Nadal's case blame it on Tony's love for Frankenstein movies, but with Murray....ah yes...it's the forehand...
Mind you, last time I watched Murray, he was average at the net, his dicing is not as good as his slicing

Hmm well he doesn't look natural when he has to run forward to hit a ball, he's ok going from side to side but panics too much when he has to go the net. He should be getting coaching by Tim considering how authoritative his volleying was!

Josiah Maiestas wrote:Hmm well he doesn't look natural when he has to run forward to hit a ball, he's ok going from side to side but panics too much when he has to go the net. He should be getting coaching by Tim considering how authoritative his volleying was!

Ah JM - movement and touch are two different things - when he gets there and puts racquet to ball it can be pretty impressive.