PDA

View Full Version : Which Game Style Works The Best In Todays Game?


DefyingGravity
Mar 10th, 2008, 02:46 AM
I've seen numerous articles in the past year or so about people wanting to improve their games, and I just want to know what you all think is a better style of tennis to play in todays game. Is it:



Power Baselining-These players have huge strokes, can paint lines like there's no tomorrow, and bully their opponents around with their pace and placement. However, there's usually a glaring weakness (or multiple) within these games, whether it be variety, second serve, net game, or movement.

Examples: Venus and Serena Williams, Ana Ivanovic, Maria Sharapova, Elena Dementieva, and many more women

Net Attacker-These players use their strokes and serve to hit as minimal ground strokes as possible to get closer to the net and use their amazing touch. Can also be considered a doubles specialist at times. Their weakness is long rallies at the baseline, which can cause a major disruption to their game

Examples: Lisa Raymond (at times), Asia Muhammed (at times)

Gallic Flair - The all around, topspin geniuses who can hit flashy winners from all over the court, and keep the ball in for the most part (when they make clean contact). Their deft touch, sharp angles, and athleticism make tennis look so easy. However, their fragile temperament tend to make their games fall apart at crucial moments. Obviously, these players are French or a variation on the Gallic people (such as the Swiss or Belgians). Sometimes their shot selection confuses them so much, that they go for the wrong shot at the wrong time.

Examples: Amelie Mauresmo, Patty Schnyder

Counter Punchers - These players live to track down shots and get the ball back in the court. They will force silly looking shots from all over the court and THEN will they attack. These players fall victim to multiple injuries in their lifespan, because their games require so much physically to sustain them. Some of these counter punchers have traits of either the Net Attacker or Gallic players as well.

Examples: Martina Hingis, Jelena Jankovic, Kim Clijsters

Asiatic Tennis - These players hug the baseline and hit very flat shots. They don't necessarily have stores of power like the Power Baseliners, but they are adept at using other people's pace resourcefully. These solid players also have great net skills and mental fortitude, yet their lack of stature at times or physical strength can kill their games against the bigger girls of the WTA.

Examples: Li Na, Jie Zheng, Yung-Jan Chan

All-Around - These are the rare few who have enough power to handle the Power Baseliners, have the skill of the Net Attackers and Gallic players, and know when to Counter Punch when it is absolutely necessary. These are usually a class above the rest, and not too many players can play this style. Indeed, they are once in a lifetime. However, if they cannot sustain a physical advantage above the rest of the field, their game can be over powered.

Example: Justine Henin

Uranium
Mar 10th, 2008, 03:00 AM
baselining without doubt

i like net attacking, raymond and mauresmo are the best at it

pov
Mar 10th, 2008, 03:04 AM
Great topic BTW. One thing that I see is that when someone is successful then others emulate. I think the Williams sisters pretty much brought the power game to the fore and then it was seen as the way to go. Whether that emulation is driven by the up-and-coming players, coaches or both I don't know.

I'd think that the way to go would be to develop as much of an all-round game as possible and then hone one's key strengths and shore up one's weaknesses as much as possible.

cellophane
Mar 10th, 2008, 03:08 AM
Baseliner, but you can't just be a ballbasher.

Wiggly
Mar 10th, 2008, 03:24 AM
A baseliner whith great movement, good defense and can finish the point at the net.

southpaw58
Mar 10th, 2008, 03:32 AM
Power Baseliner and All Around are the best currently

Willam
Mar 10th, 2008, 03:36 AM
Counter Punching :armed:

Lunaris
Mar 10th, 2008, 03:40 AM
It depends on the opponent and the surface. However you can clearly see that most top players are tall, powerful ballbashers baseliners with a big serve.
All court players are often beaten by powerful players who can outhit them in baseline rallies.
btw. I don't agree with some of the examples of players you set but never mind.

AcesHigh
Mar 10th, 2008, 03:46 AM
I think Hingis and Clijsters fit into a hybrid group. They could both be aggressive, especially Clijsters who could hit with the best of the power baseliners. But, to the point..

You can't just be a power baseliner and expect to "dominate". There's only been one dominant player in the past 5 years and that's been Henin. She was able to rise above the rest b/c of what you said.

In the same way, Serena had weapons(mainly speed) that pulled her above the power baseline class you mentioned. The next dominant player will have an all-around game sufficient to hang with the power baseliners and still deft enough to play with the others.

DimaDinosaur
Mar 10th, 2008, 03:58 AM
Justine is the BEST ever!!!!!

danieln1
Mar 10th, 2008, 04:34 AM
All Around, followed closely by Power Baselining, Lindsay´s case, but she´s inteligent on court also, not just a ballbasher

mckyle.
Mar 10th, 2008, 04:42 AM
Asiatic Tennis - These players hug the baseline and hit very flat shots. They don't necessarily have stores of power like the Power Baseliners, but they are adept at using other people's pace resourcefully. These solid players also have great net skills and mental fortitude, yet their lack of stature at times or physical strength can kill their games against the bigger girls of the WTA.

I would also add that these players are not taught to think, just to hit. They are only taught the essentials because China is desperate for a tennis champion so they teach the easiest, most unstable games. These players and their games are ruining tennis.

SIN DIOS NI LEY
Mar 10th, 2008, 05:07 AM
Spartan tennis

Cakeisgood
Mar 10th, 2008, 06:43 AM
Power Baselining is the norm and therefore in my eyes, the most superior. Nowadays, with kids starting so young, all they learn is hitting hard from the baseline because that's the only thing they can do. It will be the prominent gameplay strategy for this generation, and the next, but beyond that may be different.

Renalicious
Mar 10th, 2008, 08:24 AM
Power baseliner - but with Variety in their game like Serena.

People like Bartoli, Yan, Na, Nakamura or often inconsistent although their games are interesting.

Ben.
Mar 10th, 2008, 08:39 AM
Power baselining along with the All-Round game. Although it depends on the individual really to see which game style works best for them.

I wonder what most posters on WTAWorld who play tennis fit themselves in which style? be quite interesting.

Serenidad.
Mar 10th, 2008, 09:28 AM
Power Baseliner. When they go into a match the match is really all up to them. Especially, if your name is Jameka.

You need that as a primary and two solid secondaries.

lightningquick
Mar 10th, 2008, 10:15 AM
as a jh fan, I would like to say all around, but i think she is a hybrid too (power baseline). I dont care what others say, i think her height is a big disadvantage and affects the potency of her serves.

So, i guess the best would have to be the power baseline game, but it would be devastating if you put more variety into it imo.

DefyingGravity
Mar 10th, 2008, 01:19 PM
Thanks guys. I would love more input.

Andy.
Mar 10th, 2008, 02:26 PM
I wonder what most posters on WTAWorld who play tennis fit themselves in which style? be quite interesting.
Power Baseliner all the way. Im as one dimentional as they come which I find very handy I dont really have to think about what to do because its always the same strategy, thumb the ball as hard as you can and blast your opponent off the court. When Its on its great but when Im not having a good day its an error fest because my strokes are so flat. Thats the way I love to play and the only way I really can play.

frenchie
Mar 10th, 2008, 02:48 PM
Power players unfortunately
They are killing the beauty of tennis but well....

However I'm not convinced at all with your categories
For example Ivanovic is NOT a power player. Yes, she has power but she also use a lot of slices, dropshots and net play
Sharapova and Vaidisova are the only ball bashers these days

Dodoboy.
Mar 10th, 2008, 03:22 PM
I am a power-baseliner definitely!

I do try and go to the net sometimes but i feel more comfortable at the baseline!

WIMBLY2004
Mar 10th, 2008, 03:24 PM
Power players unfortunately
They are killing the beauty of tennis but well....

However I'm not convinced at all with your categories
For example Ivanovic is NOT a power player. Yes, she has power but she also use a lot of slices, dropshots and net play
Sharapova and Vaidisova are the only ball bashers these days

Ivanovic is much more brainless in bashing the ball than Maria :lol:

Wayn77
Mar 10th, 2008, 03:36 PM
Henin's awesome all-round game (USO 2007 variety) :devil:

Agressive, power, finese and variety: the return of serve and cross-court forehand was on fire. The baseline bashers threw the kitchen sink at Justine in New York - all to no avail.

Special mention for the "crafty" counter-punchers. :angel:

DefyingGravity
Mar 10th, 2008, 03:51 PM
I am definitely a Clijsters-esque player (I even do the slides) with a big forehand, big serve, but a lot of variety!

DefyingGravity
Mar 10th, 2008, 03:51 PM
I'm surprised that the Gallic Flair hasn't gotten any votes...

ZeroSOFInfinity
Mar 10th, 2008, 04:00 PM
It's definitely All Rounder, then Power Baseliner. Most

Counter Puncher is a very good technique, but if the opponent knows what you are going to do next, they can "counter" back easily, and you will be like a fish out of water (especially against an all-rounder - Jelena vs Henin is a perfect example)

Matt01
Mar 10th, 2008, 04:37 PM
Ivanovic is much more brainless in bashing the ball than Maria :lol:


Nope. :wavey:

Il Primo!
Mar 10th, 2008, 04:58 PM
Power players unfortunately
They are killing the beauty of tennis but well....

However I'm not convinced at all with your categories
For example Ivanovic is NOT a power player. Yes, she has power but she also use a lot of slices, dropshots and net play
Sharapova and Vaidisova are the only ball bashers these days


Not even close, you're just a plain hater:lol:. Look at the top10, you'll see the light I'm talking about.. no, I'm not giving namic names

Dave.
Mar 10th, 2008, 05:24 PM
The top 10-20 players all have a unique part of their game which is why they are above everyone else. I think most players are power baseliners or counter-punchers.

In the early 90's it was Seles, Capriati, Pierce, Davenport who took the game with a big-hitting baseline game (having power off both wings from the back). Serena and Venus would later on get to the top with their power playing style (adding onto the baseliners with better physical strength and explosive power, and speed). I think that has been the way for most players now (you have to hit the ball hard from both wings, and you have to be strong, fit and fast).

Viktymise
Mar 10th, 2008, 05:44 PM
I would also add that these players are not taught to think, just to hit. They are only taught the essentials because China is desperate for a tennis champion so they teach the easiest, most unstable games. These players and their games are ruining tennis.

How come they are so good at doubles then if they don't think? :o

Anyway this statement is rediculous because players like Zheng and Yan are 2 of the best readers of the game on the tour.

Just because Na Li is a BBB, doesn't mean the rest of them are.

kwilliams
Mar 10th, 2008, 05:57 PM
Power Baselinging. Venus, Serena, Sharapova and Ivanovic.

That's 17 slam titles and 11 slam runner ups.

VeeReeDavJCap81
Mar 10th, 2008, 06:15 PM
I've seen numerous articles in the past year or so about people wanting to improve their games, and I just want to know what you all think is a better style of tennis to play in todays game. Is it:



Power Baselining-These players have huge strokes, can paint lines like there's no tomorrow, and bully their opponents around with their pace and placement. However, there's usually a glaring weakness (or multiple) within these games, whether it be variety, second serve, net game, or movement.

Examples: Venus and Serena Williams, Ana Ivanovic, Maria Sharapova, Elena Dementieva, and many more women

Net Attacker-These players use their strokes and serve to hit as minimal ground strokes as possible to get closer to the net and use their amazing touch. Can also be considered a doubles specialist at times. Their weakness is long rallies at the baseline, which can cause a major disruption to their game

Examples: Lisa Raymond (at times), Asia Muhammed (at times)

Gallic Flair - The all around, topspin geniuses who can hit flashy winners from all over the court, and keep the ball in for the most part (when they make clean contact). Their deft touch, sharp angles, and athleticism make tennis look so easy. However, their fragile temperament tend to make their games fall apart at crucial moments. Obviously, these players are French or a variation on the Gallic people (such as the Swiss or Belgians). Sometimes their shot selection confuses them so much, that they go for the wrong shot at the wrong time.

Examples: Amelie Mauresmo, Patty Schnyder

Counter Punchers - These players live to track down shots and get the ball back in the court. They will force silly looking shots from all over the court and THEN will they attack. These players fall victim to multiple injuries in their lifespan, because their games require so much physically to sustain them. Some of these counter punchers have traits of either the Net Attacker or Gallic players as well.

Examples: Martina Hingis, Jelena Jankovic, Kim Clijsters

Asiatic Tennis - These players hug the baseline and hit very flat shots. They don't necessarily have stores of power like the Power Baseliners, but they are adept at using other people's pace resourcefully. These solid players also have great net skills and mental fortitude, yet their lack of stature at times or physical strength can kill their games against the bigger girls of the WTA.

Examples: Li Na, Jie Zheng, Yung-Jan Chan

All-Around - These are the rare few who have enough power to handle the Power Baseliners, have the skill of the Net Attackers and Gallic players, and know when to Counter Punch when it is absolutely necessary. These are usually a class above the rest, and not too many players can play this style. Indeed, they are once in a lifetime. However, if they cannot sustain a physical advantage above the rest of the field, their game can be over powered.

Example: Justine Henin

Kim Clijsters a counter-puncher :confused: And IMO Na Li is more of a power player like the Williamses, Sharapova etc;

DarkchildSwiss
Mar 10th, 2008, 06:44 PM
Power Baselining

Destiny
Mar 10th, 2008, 06:45 PM
Power baseline :hearts:

DefyingGravity
Mar 10th, 2008, 06:49 PM
Kim Clijsters a counter-puncher :confused: And IMO Na Li is more of a power player like the Williamses, Sharapova etc;

I view Kim as more of a counter puncher...now does that mean she can't attack...of course not, and anyone who's seen Kim play knows that! But, does she have tendencies to defend more than she should, hell yes! Especially through 2001-2002, she was playing more defensive than I would've liked. Many commentators have even said that, and they've seen Kim play longer than I have.

Li Na is another person who could go in a different category. I just think she uses pace better than she generates it...because she goes WAY off when she has to use her own power.

--------------------------------------------------------------
Also for kwilliams...Power Baselining vs. the other styles in terms of slams in todays game.

Power Baseliners...17 Slams, 11 Runner Up Showings

Everyone Else...9 Slams, 14 Runner Up Showings

It shows that while Power Baseliners are hard to stop, Everyone Else tend to get there more often. However, the Power Baseliners win by virtue of the Williams sisters. If we were to take them out and replace them with Capriati and Davenport, Everyone Else would win.

pov
Mar 10th, 2008, 07:04 PM
Power Baselinging. Venus, Serena, Sharapova and Ivanovic.

That's 17 slam titles and 11 slam runner ups.

That's a simplistic analysis. Since there have been almost no decent all-rounders recently, of course power prevailed. And without the Williams sisters that's only 3 slam titles.

DefyingGravity
Mar 10th, 2008, 09:23 PM
Right...

theDreamer
Mar 10th, 2008, 09:24 PM
That's a simplistic analysis. Since there have been almost no decent all-rounders recently, of course power prevailed. And without the Williams sisters that's only 3 slam titles.

It actually seems like a valid analysis to me - how long have sharapova, etc been playing for compared
to the williams, henin, mauresmo etc

"there have been almost no decent all-rounders" is a total and utter cop-out.

The term all-rounder refers to someone who is good at everything - does that give an hint why there's
only been one "all-rounder" in at least the last 10 yrs?

Of course, by virtue of its definition, an "all-round" should be the best game style -
but how often do you get people talented enough to be good at everything?
e.g. I actually think mauresmo tries to play an all-round game. But what separates her from henin
in this regard is that she totally lacks power from the baseline. It's a lot more difficult
for her to hit winners from the baseline than for henin, which is why she loses a lot to powerful
baseliners.

And with powerful and easy to use rackets, and slower and higher bouncing courts etc. the nature of
the game today is that the game is mostly won from the baseline. Thus, even though it helps to be able to volley, use slice, etc, the most important component of a winning game style IMO is solid, powerful, play from the baseline.

pov
Mar 10th, 2008, 10:20 PM
All-rounder means someone who has a multi-faceted game. It does notmean being good at everything. I don't see anything in your post to refute my assertion that games are being won from the baseline because that is where many of this crop of women are choosing to, or have been coached to, center their play.

pov
Mar 10th, 2008, 10:27 PM
This from an article on player development and why there are so many "got baseline?" players today:

-----------
All athletes are influenced by several factors in their development but no other has more relevant position on the scale then training and training methods.

Presently about 80% to 90% of the tennis training time of most players is spent on the baseline.
-------

Serenidad.
Mar 10th, 2008, 10:39 PM
I'm surprised that the Gallic Flair hasn't gotten any votes...

You can't play tennis and hope for errors by doing dinks, moonballs, and angles.

Too many girls close their eyes and hope it goes in, and one day it just might.

Plus, against top players they don't really control the match. They mostly chase and that can work if the opponent having an off day. You're really depending on a lot of circumstances. Let alone if they're having an off day as well.

Look at the upsets that happen to Mauresmo and Schnyder.

theDreamer
Mar 10th, 2008, 11:49 PM
All-rounder means someone who has a multi-faceted game. It does notmean being good at everything. I don't see anything in your post to refute my assertion that games are being won from the baseline because that is where many of this crop of women are choosing to, or have been coached to, center their play.

Ok, tell me how many facets can a tennis game style possibly have:
winning baseline play, defense(counterpunching), and netplay
come to mind.
In which case, yes, players who are considered all rounders are generally good in
all these areas.

Serve and volley/net rushing is not viable as a primary game style (outside of Wimby)
in today's women's game. Do you disagree with this statement? If so, why?

theDreamer
Mar 10th, 2008, 11:53 PM
You can't play tennis and hope for errors by doing dinks, moonballs, and angles.

Too many girls close their eyes and hope it goes in, and one day it just might.

Plus, against top players they don't really control the match. They mostly chase and that can work if the opponent having an off day. You're really depending on a lot of circumstances. Let alone if they're having an off day as well.

Look at the upsets that happen to Mauresmo and Schnyder.

Exactly.
Yet people on here seem to think this style of tennis is "pretty" to watch,
and are derogatory towards those who are trying to play more proactive tennis ("brainless")

slamchamp
Mar 11th, 2008, 12:44 AM
Nope. :wavey:Yes:wavey::wavey::wavey::wavey::wavey::roll eyes:

Lunaris
Mar 11th, 2008, 01:13 AM
All-rounder is a player who doesn't have any major weakness but also no ultimate "weapon" in their game. Hingis for example was a great all-rounder, but she had difficulties when facing power baseliners who had some weaknesses in their respective games but could rely on one big weapon which guided them through the match. For example in case of the WS it was the sheer pace of their shots which was killing Hingis despite the fact she was a pretty good all-rounder.

Yes:wavey::wavey::wavey::wavey::wavey::rolleyes:
Matt01 is right here. :p
When I think about it, he's right quite often. ;)

Matt01
Mar 11th, 2008, 01:19 AM
Matt01 is right here. :p
When I think about it, he's right quite often. ;)


:kiss:

Greetings to Czechoslovakia :) :wavey:

hingisGOAT
Mar 11th, 2008, 01:20 AM
All-rounder is a player who doesn't have any major weakness but also no ultimate "weapon" in their game. Hingis for example was a great all-rounder, but she had difficulties when facing power baseliners who had some weaknesses in their respective games but could rely on one big weapon which guided them through the match. For example in case of the WS it was the sheer pace of their shots which was killing Hingis despite the fact she was a pretty good all-rounder.


Hingis had a very good record against the Williamsx2, actually. This "Hingis is beaten by power" myth is just that: a myth. Almost all of Hingis' opponents at the top level had a significant power advantage so saying that she lost to more powerful girls tells us nothing at all. Historically Hingis struggled more with Graf, Clijsters, Mauresmo, Capriati -- all players whose game was characterized as much by their versatile defense as their offense :shrug:

hingisGOAT
Mar 11th, 2008, 01:21 AM
And for that matter Hingis' backhand was better than the backhand of all her contemporaries so I would take issue with saying she had "no weapons" as well :p

The Daviator
Mar 11th, 2008, 01:22 AM
Ivanovic is much more brainless in bashing the ball than Maria :lol:

Sorry, but you're wrong :hug:

hingisGOAT
Mar 11th, 2008, 01:27 AM
And the answer to the question is this: NONE of these styles are "most" effective, the most talented girl will win at the end of the day, and that is that. The only reason that power baseline play is dominant right now is because that is how the vast majority of young girls are trained from a very young age. But power basline play is easily the most exploitable style of play in the poll and Sharapova & co. are only place-holding for the next "all-around" great to come along. Also they're doing a pretty poor job of place-holding as Henin seems to be winning most of the big titles these days anyway.

And to go on another Hingis rant, I find the notion that she is listed under counter-puncher to be truly ridiculous, because she made a career out of running power players into the ground and controlling the rallies against them, not playing defense

shell
Mar 11th, 2008, 01:35 AM
The all power baseline player is the measure today, but the all court player - if they can do it well - is the neutralizer for this. Therefore, the all court player could always have the advantage. BUT, they must be incredibly athletic, talented and on that day. There is less room for error. A blend is probably the best.

I think that Henin provides this, and it doesn't hurt that she was once a baseliner and can fall back to that. I also think that Venus, and to some extent Serena, could add some years to their careers if they would focus on that aspect of their games. They are both capable, but just not entirely comfortable.

Ultimately, the ability to hit a variety of shots and have those options should win out. It's just mighty tough to do, and very tough to do consistently. But oh so fun to watch!!!!!

theDreamer
Mar 11th, 2008, 01:42 AM
All-rounder is a player who doesn't have any major weakness but also no ultimate "weapon" in their game.

I don't agree. Federer is to me an all-rounder but his forehand is an
absolute weapon. So is his serve when he's on.
Similarly, henin's backhand is a big weapon (so is her forehand actually).

theDreamer
Mar 11th, 2008, 02:00 AM
The all power baseline player is the measure today, but the all court player - if they can do it well - is the neutralizer for this. Therefore, the all court player could always have the advantage. BUT, they must be incredibly athletic, talented and on that day. There is less room for error. A blend is probably the best.

I think that Henin provides this, and it doesn't hurt that she was once a baseliner and can fall back to that. I also think that Venus, and to some extent Serena, could add some years to their careers if they would focus on that aspect of their games. They are both capable, but just not entirely comfortable.

Ultimately, the ability to hit a variety of shots and have those options should win out. It's just mighty tough to do, and very tough to do consistently. But oh so fun to watch!!!!!

Trust me, that is not true.
Otherwise, Santoro would be a multiple grandslam champion.
Your next sentence betrays the falsity of the statement in bold. It is "mighty tough" to
consistently beat power (and of course placement) with variety because power is
inherently much easier to dominate with. (this is of course assuming equal footing in terms
of athletiscm and speed)

Again, the example of mauresmo vs. henin is relevant:
Both are all-court players - but why the disparity in acheivements?
Because henin is much more powerful from the baseline.

Lunaris
Mar 11th, 2008, 02:03 AM
Hingis had a very good record against the Williamsx2, actually. This "Hingis is beaten by power" myth is just that: a myth. Almost all of Hingis' opponents at the top level had a significant power advantage so saying that she lost to more powerful girls tells us nothing at all. Historically Hingis struggled more with Graf, Clijsters, Mauresmo, Capriati -- all players whose game was characterized as much by their versatile defense as their offense :shrug:
Okay, maybe I shouldn't have used the line that power was "killing" her, that's a strong word. Let's leave it that she had difficulties when facing powerful players who used that power (for example Mauresmo is powerful but her shots have not nearly as much pace as for example Davenport's shots), which along with injuries eventually led to her demise from the tour last year. Even after her last AO title her results started to deteriorate as more and more girls started to play aggressive baseline tennis, also her H2H's against her main rivals worsened as they were developing their respective games. :shrug:

I don't agree. Federer is to me an all-rounder but his forehand is an
absolute weapon. So is his serve when he's on.
Similarly, henin's backhand is a big weapon (so is her forehand actually).
Federer is one of the greatest players of all times, he is not your ordinary player and can't be used as a random example imo.
Anyway he and Justine are hybrids between all-rounders and power players. Fed's weakness is his backhand and netplay (both these things still better than those of an average ATP player), Henin's one is her serve. A perfect example of an all-rounder is Hingis who was pretty much equal in all areas of her game and comfortable everywhere on the court.

Matt01
Mar 11th, 2008, 02:04 AM
Again, the example of mauresmo vs. henin is relevant:
Both are all-court players - but why the disparity in acheivements?
Because henin is much more powerful from the baseline.


Henin being mentally stronger than Momo is the other (more eminent IMO) reason.

theDreamer
Mar 11th, 2008, 02:10 AM
The only reason that power baseline play is dominant right now is because that is how the vast majority of young girls are trained from a very young age. But power basline play is easily the most exploitable style of play in the poll

Well there must be a reason why they are being trained that way - maybe the coaches think it is important and effective?
Powerful play from the baseline is an essential part of any gamestyle -
baseliners, all-court players, counter-punchers etc need to be able to do it.
Even defenders need it or they will have to rely completely on their opponents errors.

theDreamer
Mar 11th, 2008, 02:24 AM
Henin being mentally stronger than Momo is the other (more eminent IMO) reason.

That is a factor yes, but I disagree that it is more eminent.
e.g. Henin has never yet lost against Ivanovic, even when she's been playing quite badly
and double faulting a lot.
On the other hand, all mauresmo's matches against ivanovic have been tough with ivanovic
winning many of them (and outplaying her). Mauresmo has lost to ivanovic & vaidisova quite a lot.

There's obviously something in their games that means mauresmo is way more vulnerable
to big hitters than henin is - i believe that difference is that henin can hang much
better with the power players and is able to exploit the slowness of ivanovic (for example)
because she has more pop on her groundstrokes.

Lunaris
Mar 11th, 2008, 02:39 AM
There's obviously something in their games that means mauresmo is way more vulnerable
to big hitters than henin is - i believe that difference is that henin can hang much
better with the power players and is able to exploit the slowness of ivanovic (for example)
because she has more pop on her groundstrokes.
As I wrote Henin is a hybrid, she hits much flatter than Mauresmo with more pace and can make Ivanovic or Vaidisova run which is not their biggest strength, as you pointed out. She's also a better mover and can counterpunch better than Mauresmo. Their games are not that similar as some may think, even their backhands differ a lot. Mauresmo hits it with a lot of topspin and tries to disrupt rhythm of her opponent and force an error while Henin is much more straightforward, playing like a powerful baseliner who goes for winners. Add to that what Matt01 wrote and you find the difference.

theDreamer
Mar 11th, 2008, 02:41 AM
Federer is one of the greatest players of all times, he is not your ordinary player and can't be used as a random example imo.
Anyway he and Justine are hybrids between all-rounders and power players. Fed's weakness is his backhand and netplay (both these things still better than those of an average ATP player), Henin's one is her serve. A perfect example of an all-rounder is Hingis who was pretty much equal in all areas of her game and comfortable everywhere on the court.

Fed's netplay is not a weakness!:o
(lol, I dont imagine anybody who plays him says:
"Well, his netplay is a weakness, so I'll keep drawing him in to the net, and then..."):p

And actually, I could say hingis's serve is a weakness.
And using your reasoning, I would say hingis is a hybrid between counterpuncher and all-rounder.

The truth is everybody is a hybrid, and the most dominant players (both now and in the past)
have had a strong element of power in their playing.

Also, I think the OP and many posters in this thread are confusing the terms "all-round" and
"all-court" player - the latter is more a description of style while the former is more
a description of the relative strengths of a player's different strokes.

AcesHigh
Mar 11th, 2008, 02:47 AM
Henin being mentally stronger than Momo is the other (more eminent IMO) reason.

i think thats the main if not only reason

Lunaris
Mar 11th, 2008, 02:52 AM
Fed's netplay is not a weakness!:o
(lol, I dont imagine anybody who plays him says:
"Well, his netplay is a weakness, so I'll keep drawing him in to the net, and then..."):p

And actually, I could say hingis's serve is a weakness.
And using your reasoning, I would say hingis is a hybrid between counterpuncher and all-rounder.

The truth is everybody is a hybrid, and the most dominant players (both now and in the past)
have had a strong element of power in their playing.

Also, I think the OP and many posters in this thread are confusing the terms "all-round" and
"all-court" player - the latter is more a description of style while the former is more
a description of the relative strengths of a player's different strokes.
Some are bigger hybrids than others, but I agree that in general everyone is a hybrid to a certain extent.
Fed's netplay was better when he was younger imo, but during years it worsened a bit due to a lack of practice, which he doesn't need to win Wimbledon anymore because of the slow grass. I don't think he feels as comfortable at the net as he feels on the baseline, that's why I listed it as his weakness, I also wrote it's still considerably better than netplay of an average player. There is no need for the ":o".

kiwifan
Mar 11th, 2008, 03:00 AM
If I had a kid and the kid could only be one of these types of players AND be a pro, that kid would be a power baseliner.

If the kid was never going to play pro...

..."Gallic Flair"

DefyingGravity
Mar 11th, 2008, 03:02 AM
I said exactly what I wanted to say. All-Around describes Justine more in the sense that she can encompass everything when necessary. All-Court goes more towards Gallic Flair.

WIMBLY2004
Mar 11th, 2008, 03:05 AM
Sorry, but you're wrong :hug:

No sorry, but I am right.

When I watched their matches, Ivanovic relys mostly on her forehand to blast the ball away to win match, yes, she slices and drop shots sometimes, but she doesn't win matches with these shots. Her forehand is very explosive, has a lot of pace, when it's on, it a big weapon. However as her game relys so much on her forehand, so when it's not working, she usually lost.

While for Maria, she uses a lot more angels, she hits hard, but she wins matches not just by hitting hard, she wins matches mostly because of her consistency and placement of the ball. She game is mostly about using the ball placement and angels to move her oponents away from the court and finishing with a swing volley or a winner in the open area. There are a lot more stretagies and thinking put into Maria's game than a lot of people want to believe.

theDreamer
Mar 11th, 2008, 03:12 AM
Some are bigger hybrids than others, but I agree that in general everyone is a hybrid to a certain extent.
Fed's netplay was better when he was younger imo, but during years it worsened a bit due to a lack of practice, which he doesn't need to win Wimbledon anymore because of the slow grass. I don't think he feels as comfortable at the net as he feels on the baseline, that's why I listed it as his weakness, I also wrote it's still considerably better than netplay of an average player. There is no need for the ":o".

I would still think of a weakness as something that can be (is being) successfully exploited by opponents (it's impossible to be equally comfortable in every situation) but fair enough. Sorry if the :o annoyed you - that wasn't my intention.

But your post is actually quite interesting - even an all-court player like fed
doesn't play at the net as much as in past years. this seemingly emphasises my feeling
that purely net-based play is becoming less effective/worth the risk (of course finishing points
at the net or using s&v as a surprise tactic are different matters).

theDreamer
Mar 11th, 2008, 03:14 AM
No sorry, but I am right.

When I watched their matches, Ivanovic relys mostly on her forehand to blast the ball away to win match, yes, she slices and drop shots sometimes, but she doesn't win matches with these shots. Her forehand is very explosive, has a lot of pace, when it's on, it a big weapon. However as her game relys so much on her forehand, so when it's not working, she usually lost.

While for Maria, she uses a lot more angels, she hits hard, but she wins matches not just by hitting hard, she wins matches mostly because of her consistency and placement of the ball. She game is mostly about using the ball placement and angels to move her oponents away from the court and finishing with a swing volley or a winner in the open area. There are a lot more stretagies and thinking put into Maria's game than a lot of people want to believe.

I agree with this.

theDreamer
Mar 11th, 2008, 03:21 AM
I said exactly what I wanted to say. All-Around describes Justine more in the sense that she can encompass everything when necessary. All-Court goes more towards Gallic Flair.

Your definitions are a bit confused and unusual though - just because you're an all-court player
doesn't mean you are mentally weak or a "topspin genius".

And since when does Schnyder hit flashy winners from anywhere on the court?

Lunaris
Mar 11th, 2008, 03:22 AM
I would still think of a weakness as something that can be (is being) successfully exploited by opponents (it's impossible to be equally comfortable in every situation) but fair enough. Sorry if the :o annoyed you - that wasn't my intention.

But your post is actually quite interesting - even an all-court player like fed
doesn't play at the net as much as in past years. this seemingly emphasises my feeling
that purely net-based play is becoming less effective/worth the risk (of course finishing points
at the net or using s&v as a surprise tactic are different matters).
No the :o didn't annoy me, I just wanted to finish my post somewhat vigorously. :p
As for your impression about netplay being less worth the risk, I agree. Passing shots and returns of top players are generally on a higher level (I think new racket technologies support this direction tennis is heading) and especially on current slower grass you have more time to prepare your shots than you had in days of Sampras or Edberg.

DefyingGravity
Mar 11th, 2008, 12:51 PM
Ha! The battle of styles continues, and several debates, as you can read.

Il Primo!
Mar 11th, 2008, 01:07 PM
No sorry, but I am right.

When I watched their matches, Ivanovic relys mostly on her forehand to blast the ball away to win match, yes, she slices and drop shots sometimes, but she doesn't win matches with these shots. Her forehand is very explosive, has a lot of pace, when it's on, it a big weapon. However as her game relys so much on her forehand, so when it's not working, she usually lost.

While for Maria, she uses a lot more angels, she hits hard, but she wins matches not just by hitting hard, she wins matches mostly because of her consistency and placement of the ball. She game is mostly about using the ball placement and angels to move her oponents away from the court and finishing with a swing volley or a winner in the open area. There are a lot more stretagies and thinking put into Maria's game than a lot of people want to believe.

That is a factor yes, but I disagree that it is more eminent.
e.g. Henin has never yet lost against Ivanovic, even when she's been playing quite badly
and double faulting a lot.
On the other hand, all mauresmo's matches against ivanovic have been tough with ivanovic
winning many of them (and outplaying her). Mauresmo has lost to ivanovic & vaidisova quite a lot.

There's obviously something in their games that means mauresmo is way more vulnerable
to big hitters than henin is - i believe that difference is that henin can hang much
better with the power players and is able to exploit the slowness of ivanovic (for example)
because she has more pop on her groundstrokes.

You can't play tennis and hope for errors by doing dinks, moonballs, and angles.

Too many girls close their eyes and hope it goes in, and one day it just might.

Plus, against top players they don't really control the match. They mostly chase and that can work if the opponent having an off day. You're really depending on a lot of circumstances. Let alone if they're having an off day as well.

Look at the upsets that happen to Mauresmo and Schnyder.


:worship:

shell
Mar 11th, 2008, 01:32 PM
Trust me, that is not true.
Otherwise, Santoro would be a multiple grandslam champion.
Your next sentence betrays the falsity of the statement in bold. It is "mighty tough" to
consistently beat power (and of course placement) with variety because power is
inherently much easier to dominate with. (this is of course assuming equal footing in terms
of athletiscm and speed)

Again, the example of mauresmo vs. henin is relevant:
Both are all-court players - but why the disparity in acheivements?
Because henin is much more powerful from the baseline.

We are saying the same thing...maybe I was not clear. That is why I indicated Henin can "fall back" to a baseline game - because she has the power in her strokes to do so. But a pure, power baseliner could use some additional variety to their favor and finish some points off much easier if they developed a few new weapons.

slamchamp
Mar 11th, 2008, 02:05 PM
No sorry, but I am right.

When I watched their matches, Ivanovic relys mostly on her forehand to blast the ball away to win match, yes, she slices and drop shots sometimes, but she doesn't win matches with these shots. Her forehand is very explosive, has a lot of pace, when it's on, it a big weapon. However as her game relys so much on her forehand, so when it's not working, she usually lost.

While for Maria, she uses a lot more angels, she hits hard, but she wins matches not just by hitting hard, she wins matches mostly because of her consistency and placement of the ball. She game is mostly about using the ball placement and angels to move her oponents away from the court and finishing with a swing volley or a winner in the open area. There are a lot more stretagies and thinking put into Maria's game than a lot of people want to believe. Yes you are, just look at the AO final..anyway matt are u gonna :wavey::wavey: again?

Aryman3
Mar 11th, 2008, 05:26 PM
I prefer Radwanska's style: varied shots and all-round play adapted to the actual opponent's abilities

theDreamer
Mar 11th, 2008, 06:48 PM
We are saying the same thing...maybe I was not clear. That is why I indicated Henin can "fall back" to a baseline game - because she has the power in her strokes to do so. But a pure, power baseliner could use some additional variety to their favor and finish some points off much easier if they developed a few new weapons.

ok, i didn't realise that's what you were saying.:cool:

Barrie_Dude
Mar 11th, 2008, 06:58 PM
I think one needs an all around game if only because it gives you more tools/options

justine schnyder
Mar 11th, 2008, 07:42 PM
I think all, but it depends who plays it.
Look at the top 5:
1. Henin- all around
2. Ana- Baseline
3. Sveta- All around
4. Jelena-Counter pouncer
5. Sharapova- Baseline

So they're all effective, it's just how good you are.
Oh, and it's a matter of match-ups as well, each players that play in certain style has troubles with another style.. Like Peer and Jankovic eho are counter punchers, have problems against Anna C, Henin..

Wayn77
Mar 11th, 2008, 09:06 PM
Would Patty be classed as "Gaulic" .... dunno, if she is from the French-speaking, German-speaking part of Switzerland.

Anyway "Gaulic Flair" as in Amelie's case I would class as the mid-court game - at her peak she has no peers. Coming forward off the baseline, the options, firepower and technique on both wings to change it up and kill the point stone dead.

goldenlox
Mar 11th, 2008, 09:15 PM
It's easier to get a young player to the tour if they can bash from the baseline.
A complete game is harder to master, and it's a risk to teach it to a player whose family is broke.

theDreamer
Mar 11th, 2008, 11:43 PM
It's easier to get a young player to the tour if they can bash from the baseline.
A complete game is harder to master, and it's a risk to teach it to a player whose family is broke.

lol. so true.