PDA

View Full Version : What are the weapons in tennis?


Lunaris
Feb 27th, 2008, 03:18 AM
Many times on this board I read about players who have big weapons or a big game, then about players who lack any significant weapon, yet I don't remember anyone clarifying what exactly they mean by this term.
For example some say Cibulkova doesn't have any weapons, so I assume great movement, good return of serve and "fight till the last point" mentality aren't weapons, or are they? Some posters have gone so far as to say that even certain top 10 players don't have any weapons. How they made the top 10 in the first place is a mystery for me then. Must be pure luck.
So I just wanna know what people think when they're talking about weapons. Anyone cares to explain?

Serve_volley
Feb 27th, 2008, 03:28 AM
forehand, backhand, speed, serve, defense, return game (kind of defense but different i.e. Jelena can make defense in any case offense), serve and volley (sigh..), regular volleying, a great doubles player, slicing the ball..

Players can be in the top 100 without having too much to hurt the better players with. But once you get top 40 I'd say everyone there has something that packs a punch when need be.

Wiggly
Feb 27th, 2008, 03:31 AM
Everything can be a weapon. Some have biggers guns than others. That's it. :lol:

Cakeisgood
Feb 27th, 2008, 03:35 AM
For me, the top ten player without a huge weapon is Hantuchova, but she is very balanced, mainly offsetting this fact.

random fan
Feb 27th, 2008, 03:39 AM
Weapons are reliable shots that often score winners allowing you to play more offensive game instead of retrieving everything and hoping that your opponent will make a mistake

Serve_volley
Feb 27th, 2008, 03:42 AM
Bartoli shouldn't really be in the top 10 (top 25 of course but she had a good Wimbledon run for the record books so that's her career highlight) so not counting her, you've got the Williams serve, Henin's backhand, Jelena's defense, Chakvetadze's return game I think? And unfortunately, Kuznetsova's power game and doubles experience.

Ana and Daniela are all-around greats, with a few setbacks but also with their own star factors. Yay all-court tennis!

So Disrespectful
Feb 27th, 2008, 03:43 AM
For me, the top ten player without a huge weapon is Hantuchova, but she is very balanced, mainly offsetting this fact.

I'd say her forehand is a weapon. If we're calling Anna's speed a weapon, then she's basically Justine minus the power.

AcesHigh
Feb 27th, 2008, 03:44 AM
They are offensive tools that can either be used for winners, forcing your opponent into errors, or anything IMO that can win you the point on your terms.

Defense can be a weapon because it can force your opponent into errors..but only if that defense is top-notch IMO in the form of speed, quickness, court coverage.

Consistency I dont consider a weapon. Chakvetadze is someone who strikes me a player with very little weapons.

LudwigDvorak
Feb 27th, 2008, 03:44 AM
For example some say Cibulkova doesn't have any weapons, so I assume great movement, good return of serve and "fight till the last point" mentality aren't weapons, or are they?

In defense of myself, my point was that these aren't put away weapons that Dominika possesses.

Derek.
Feb 27th, 2008, 03:47 AM
In defense of myself, my point was that these aren't put away weapons that Dominika possesses.

You give her a short ball to her forehand and it will be put away.
Maybe not with as much authority as someone like Sharapova, but most of the time the ball won't come back.

Sexysova
Feb 27th, 2008, 03:58 AM
I think every TOP 20 player has own weapon.. I don't think so that's just offensive thing which allow you to hit winners.. e.g. DEFENCE can be a great weapon (Peer, Cibulkova, Jankovic etc..), I think backhand & movement are weapons of Cibulkova, forehand and serve are weapons of Vaidisova, backhand and movement are weapons of Henin, defence, movement and backhand are weapons of Jankovic etc... I don't agree that Hantuchova or Chakvetadze have no weapons.. they're very all-round players so I think that's why you can't see any weapons in their game.. and Bartoli has a really strong deep strokes so that's make you troubles..(I think mainly on grass)..

even every player in TOP 100 has own weapon and weakness(or maybe better.. when you play against other player.. she has perfect backhand and you not so people can think it's your weakness)..

that's my opinion :)

Mightymirza
Feb 27th, 2008, 04:01 AM
They are offensive tools that can either be used for winners, forcing your opponent into errors, or anything IMO that can win you the point on your terms.

Defense can be a weapon because it can force your opponent into errors..but only if that defense is top-notch IMO in the form of speed, quickness, court coverage.

Consistency I dont consider a weapon. Chakvetadze is someone who strikes me a player with very little weapons.

The BH?? :silly: Chakvetadze is actually very agressive..Paints lines! :lol: she had 45+ winners against aga today to agas 15+ :lol: so where do these winners come from if she doesnt have any weapons? :weirdo:

Cp6uja
Feb 27th, 2008, 04:10 AM
Ana and Daniela are all-around greats, with a few setbacks but also with their own star factors. Yay all-court tennis!Ana is actualy good example of "girl with weapons". Her forehand is realy big or for example she is (with W sisters) only player in WTA tennis history which served at some slam faster serve than 200km/h. So her FH and 1st serve is good example of dangerous "weapons" in womans tennis. On other hand she dont have some huge "headcase" problems which ruin her weapons in important moments.

Sir Stefwhit
Feb 27th, 2008, 04:16 AM
In simplistic terms, a weapon is anything that you can do that will give you the advantage to win a point. So by definition almost any shot has the potential to be a weapon.

Certain weapons work better against certain players. An offensive weapon, however, is good against anyone that's why there's more attention given to offensive weapons than there is to defensive ones.

Renalicious
Feb 27th, 2008, 04:17 AM
A weapon is a shot that a player has that is clearly the best shot he or she uses, and is better than most shots of the same kind on the tour. Serena has many brilliant shots but her weapon is her serve because it is much, much better than those of other players.

Slutati
Feb 27th, 2008, 04:18 AM
Obviously the biggest weapon out there is Pin's serve:rocker:

Lunaris
Feb 27th, 2008, 04:23 AM
Consistency I dont consider a weapon. Chakvetadze is someone who strikes me a player with very little weapons.
So how come she is in the top 10? I disagree it's only consistency, that alone won't get you into top 10. In fact Chakvetadze's game is far from being consistent. She has flattened her shots lately (especially backhand), she hits more winners but is also more error prone. Against Kirilenko at AO or yesterday against Aga, the only two matches of Anna I have seen this year so far, Chakvetadze was not a perfect model of consistency. I heard Anna's team wanted to implement some Sharapova-like shots into her game and that's what they did it seems. I liked Chakvetadze's game more before these changes tbh.

Lunaris
Feb 27th, 2008, 04:34 AM
A weapon is a shot that a player has that is clearly the best shot he or she uses, and is better than most shots of the same kind on the tour. Serena has many brilliant shots but her weapon is her serve because it is much, much better than those of other players.
So in your opinion only shots are weapons? Why not movement, physical durability or anything else than just shots? That's what I fail to understand.