Aussie Open 2014: Ball and Courts faster...

[Luxilon Borg]

Why isn't that believable? Hewitt is a counter-puncher who prefers faster surfaces to feed off his opponent's pace...

I would say the vast majority of counter punchers prefer slower courts. And the number prove it.

What numbers would those be? C'mon…there's no stat for that. Even if it's true.

How many indoor titles did Wilander, Muster, Coretja , Brugerra, Chang, Hewitt, Murray, Nadal win?

Nadal has 1 indoor title to my knowledge. Look. Up the other records on the ATP website. They speak volumes.

As I suspected, your idea of a "counter-puncher" is off. Many of the players you mentioned play nothing alike.

Really????? Except for Nadal, who can be very offensive, I cannot understand your comment.

Nadal's true nature is still reactive when under pressure...btw.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Also, being a counter-puncher and having the ability to counter-punch are two different things. Djokovic for example, is not a counter-puncher, yet he handles pace better than most players in history. Guys like Nalbandian, Davydenko and even Federer are awesome at counter-punching, yet none of them would qualify as counter-punchers.

 

[brokenshoelace]

I would say the vast majority of counter punchers prefer slower courts. And the number prove it.

What numbers would those be? C'mon…there's no stat for that. Even if it's true.

How many indoor titles did Wilander, Muster, Coretja , Brugerra, Chang, Hewitt, Murray, Nadal win?

Nadal has 1 indoor title to my knowledge. Look. Up the other records on the ATP website. They speak volumes.

As I suspected, your idea of a "counter-puncher" is off. Many of the players you mentioned play nothing alike.

Really????? Except for Nadal, who can be very offensive, I cannot understand your comment.

Nadal's true nature is still reactive when under pressure...btw.

How is Muster's game similar to Hewitt? How is Chang's game similar to Nadal? How is Bruguera's game similar to Murray?

 

[Moxie]

A counter-puncher is a player that feeds off his opponent's pace instead of generating his own (this is a very narrow definition, but bear with me). The two obvious examples in recent memory are Hewitt and Murray. And what two slams has Hewitt won? Wimbledon and the US Open. What 2 slams has Murray won? Wimbledon and the US Open. Counter-punchers prefer faster courts. It's one of the biggest misconception that they prefer slower courts. Slower courts produce balls that are more "dead," so the counter-puncher has very little to actually deal feed off.

I understand your definition, Broken, and accept it. Question here: I understand that counter-punchers feed off of pace, but is it really right to say that slow courts produce "dead" balls, because some types of HCs do, as well. And a clay-courter's spin produces quite a lively ball off of a slow court. Perhaps you meant to say that counter-punchers can't produce pace when they're not given it, and so they subsequently produce a rather 'dead' ball. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the notion of a 'dead ball.'

 

[Luxilon Borg]

What numbers would those be? C'mon…there's no stat for that. Even if it's true.

How many indoor titles did Wilander, Muster, Coretja , Brugerra, Chang, Hewitt, Murray, Nadal win?

Nadal has 1 indoor title to my knowledge. Look. Up the other records on the ATP website. They speak volumes.

As I suspected, your idea of a "counter-puncher" is off. Many of the players you mentioned play nothing alike.

Really????? Except for Nadal, who can be very offensive, I cannot understand your comment.

Nadal's true nature is still reactive when under pressure...btw.

How is Muster's game similar to Hewitt? How is Chang's game similar to Nadal? How is Bruguera's game similar to Murray?

You are asking silly questions. Of course they all have unique stroke production.

Bruguera, Muster, Murray, Nadal and others position themselves 10 to 15 feet behind the baseline.

Hewitt and Chang would constantly change the pace, and they ALL use heavy top aside from Hewitt, who only looped when it was called for.

 

[Luxilon Borg]

Agreed with Fed, ATP has slowed down everything and anything and that's not fair for a lot of players who like it faster (Fed, Hewitt, Delpo, Roddick etc etc).

A quote from Fed in Brisbane:
“I like it a bit faster, to be honest. It’s just nice when the slider drags a bit or the slice stays a bit lower and guys don’t just eat it up, even though it's a decent slice. So I think it's a good thing that it’s a bit faster here.”

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/sport/tennis/roger-federer-enjoys-pace-of-brisbane-international-surface-20140102-306i6.html#ixzz2pOCZkJKb

This is why players don't chip and charge no more, when advantage has gone towards those who hit passing shots. Too much time for them to pick where they want to pass, so volleyers are at a great disadvantage to start with. Sure grass is still grass and hardcourt is hardcourt which are still faster than clay, but they are too slow compared to years ago. Fed had a lot of potential to play S&V and improve on that part like he did in the early 2000s, but he also knew the advantage got skewed towards baseliners so he kind of became one of those 'grinders' himself, camping at the baseline.... although he was still very aggressive with it.

Don't know who made the decision to slow it down so much, but he is simply not fit for his job.

Would you believe rat face...errr Hewitt complained bitterly to Australian officials when slowed it down about 10 years ago?

Why isn't that believable? Hewitt is a counter-puncher who prefers faster surfaces to feed off his opponent's pace...

I would say the vast majority of counter punchers prefer slower courts. And the number prove it.

I would say, with all due respect, you don't really know what a counter-puncher is, especially if you think Nadal is a counter-puncher.

A counter-puncher is a player that feeds off his opponent's pace instead of generating his own (this is a very narrow definition, but bear with me). The two obvious examples in recent memory are Hewitt and Murray. And what two slams has Hewitt won? Wimbledon and the US Open. What 2 slams has Murray won? Wimbledon and the US Open. Counter-punchers prefer faster courts. It's one of the biggest misconception that they prefer slower courts. Slower courts produce balls that are more "dead," so the counter-puncher has very little to actually deal feed off.

Nadal ABSOLUTELY is a counter puncher, but a very, VERY modern one. How many French Opens...oh, about EIGHT of them?

The definition of a counter puncher is FAR broader then just a player who feeds off pace.

Hewitt has very linear strokes and he has a great return of serve. He won Wimbledon the first year they slowed it down. And lets not forget he GREW UP on grass courts. C'mon Mate.

He won one US Open with his quickness. What did Federer do to him in that US Open final.....l TWO BAGELS. How did the fast courts work out for him then?

Murray's won the US Open the year after they SLOWED IT DOWN!

Of the others in the top 5, he has the most trouble hitting through the court. His forehand is the least proficient in the top five. You cannot win a French Open without a forehand, period.

Sorry, I am not buying your premise.

 

[Moxie]

Nadal ABSOLUTELY is a counter puncher, but a very, VERY modern one. How many French Opens...oh, about EIGHT of them?

The definition of a counter puncher is FAR broader then just a player who feeds off pace.

Hewitt has very linear strokes and he has a great return of serve. He won Wimbledon the first year they slowed it down. And lets not forget he GREW UP on grass courts. C'mon Mate.

He won one US Open with his quickness. What did Federer do to him in that US Open final.....l TWO BAGELS. How did the fast courts work out for him then?

Murray's won the US Open the year after they SLOWED IT DOWN!

Of the others in the top 5, he has the most trouble hitting through the court. His forehand is the least proficient in the top five. You cannot win a French Open without a forehand, period.

Sorry, I am not buying your premise.

Nadal is a 'modern counter-puncher?' What does that mean? And you juxtapose that with 8 FO wins. Does that mean you think only a counter-puncher can win one?

And Murray won the USO the 'year after' they slowed down the courts? By others' reckoning, they'd slowed them down earlier so that Nadal could win it. It's hard to keep up with the excuses for how the likes of Murray and Nadal win certain tournaments.

 

[Luxilon Borg]

Nadal ABSOLUTELY is a counter puncher, but a very, VERY modern one. How many French Opens...oh, about EIGHT of them?

The definition of a counter puncher is FAR broader then just a player who feeds off pace.

Hewitt has very linear strokes and he has a great return of serve. He won Wimbledon the first year they slowed it down. And lets not forget he GREW UP on grass courts. C'mon Mate.

He won one US Open with his quickness. What did Federer do to him in that US Open final.....l TWO BAGELS. How did the fast courts work out for him then?

Murray's won the US Open the year after they SLOWED IT DOWN!

Of the others in the top 5, he has the most trouble hitting through the court. His forehand is the least proficient in the top five. You cannot win a French Open without a forehand, period.

Sorry, I am not buying your premise.

Nadal is a 'modern counter-puncher?' What does that mean? And you juxtapose that with 8 FO wins. Does that mean you think only a counter-puncher can win one?

And Murray won the USO the 'year after' they slowed down the courts? By others' reckoning, they'd slowed them down earlier so that Nadal could win it. It's hard to keep up with the excuses for how the likes of Murray and Nadal win certain tournaments.

We could go on forever....but I will ask this...how many attacking players have own RG in the past 35 years??? I can think of TWO...Noah and Fed. I might be tempted to throw in Guga because of his forehand...

 

[Moxie]

Nadal ABSOLUTELY is a counter puncher, but a very, VERY modern one. How many French Opens...oh, about EIGHT of them?

The definition of a counter puncher is FAR broader then just a player who feeds off pace.

Hewitt has very linear strokes and he has a great return of serve. He won Wimbledon the first year they slowed it down. And lets not forget he GREW UP on grass courts. C'mon Mate.

He won one US Open with his quickness. What did Federer do to him in that US Open final.....l TWO BAGELS. How did the fast courts work out for him then?

Murray's won the US Open the year after they SLOWED IT DOWN!

Of the others in the top 5, he has the most trouble hitting through the court. His forehand is the least proficient in the top five. You cannot win a French Open without a forehand, period.

Sorry, I am not buying your premise.

Nadal is a 'modern counter-puncher?' What does that mean? And you juxtapose that with 8 FO wins. Does that mean you think only a counter-puncher can win one?

And Murray won the USO the 'year after' they slowed down the courts? By others' reckoning, they'd slowed them down earlier so that Nadal could win it. It's hard to keep up with the excuses for how the likes of Murray and Nadal win certain tournaments.

We could go on forever....but I will ask this...how many attacking players have own RG in the past 35 years??? I can think of TWO...Noah and Fed. I might be tempted to throw in Guga because of his forehand...

Well, Nadal. You'd be really wrong to think that Nadal's clay game is purely predicated on waiting for other players to make mistakes, or just feeding on their pace. His genius on clay is all over the court, and attack is built into it.

 

[Luxilon Borg]

Nadal ABSOLUTELY is a counter puncher, but a very, VERY modern one. How many French Opens...oh, about EIGHT of them?

The definition of a counter puncher is FAR broader then just a player who feeds off pace.

Hewitt has very linear strokes and he has a great return of serve. He won Wimbledon the first year they slowed it down. And lets not forget he GREW UP on grass courts. C'mon Mate.

He won one US Open with his quickness. What did Federer do to him in that US Open final.....l TWO BAGELS. How did the fast courts work out for him then?

Murray's won the US Open the year after they SLOWED IT DOWN!

Of the others in the top 5, he has the most trouble hitting through the court. His forehand is the least proficient in the top five. You cannot win a French Open without a forehand, period.

Sorry, I am not buying your premise.

Nadal is a 'modern counter-puncher?' What does that mean? And you juxtapose that with 8 FO wins. Does that mean you think only a counter-puncher can win one?

And Murray won the USO the 'year after' they slowed down the courts? By others' reckoning, they'd slowed them down earlier so that Nadal could win it. It's hard to keep up with the excuses for how the likes of Murray and Nadal win certain tournaments.

We could go on forever....but I will ask this...how many attacking players have own RG in the past 35 years??? I can think of TWO...Noah and Fed. I might be tempted to throw in Guga because of his forehand...

Well, Nadal. You'd be really wrong to think that Nadal's clay game is purely predicated on waiting for other players to make mistakes, or just feeding on their pace. His genius on clay is all over the court, and attack is built into it.

I agree totally concerning Nadal on clay, his genius is multi faceted...however the cornerstone is defense, movement, and topspin.

 

[Moxie]

I agree totally concerning Nadal on clay, his genius is multi faceted...however the cornerstone is defense, movement, and topspin.

And what would be wrong with that? When combined with his touch at net, superior smashing skills and probably the best passing shot in the game? You don't find his game aggressive enough?

 

[GameSetAndMath]

There are lots of issues involved here, which certainly will make things confusing.
Let me bring in a different but related issue. Someone like Soderling was able to
hit penetrating shots in the clay courts of Rolland Garros. What helped him?
Because of the slowness of the balls, he gets lots of time to line up behind the
ball and take a huge cut at it. Soderling was never that good in hitting penetrating
shots in hard courts? Why, he does not get enough time to plan and hit his shot.

In other words, what I am trying to say here is that the slowness of claycourts
is a double edged sword.

a. It gives lots of time for the opponent to handle the ball. So, the opponent
can line up and hit penetrating shots.

b. On the otherside of the coin, the slowness of the courts, generally speaking,
makes it very difficult to hit penetrating shots; you need huge power to hit
through the other guy on clay courts.

So, this is acutally a paradox.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

A similar paradox in grass courts is whether height helps or not.

Generally speaking, if you are taller, you are able to serve huge and also
place the serve better and so it is an advantage in grass courts.

On the other hand, with low bounces of the balls, the tall players have
to bend often to even have a possibility of getting to it. This makes their
life difficult.

So, height is both an advantage and a disadvantage on grass courts.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Nadal ABSOLUTELY is a counter puncher, but a very, VERY modern one. How many French Opens...oh, about EIGHT of them?

The definition of a counter puncher is FAR broader then just a player who feeds off pace.

Hewitt has very linear strokes and he has a great return of serve. He won Wimbledon the first year they slowed it down. And lets not forget he GREW UP on grass courts. C'mon Mate.

He won one US Open with his quickness. What did Federer do to him in that US Open final.....l TWO BAGELS. How did the fast courts work out for him then?

Murray's won the US Open the year after they SLOWED IT DOWN!

Of the others in the top 5, he has the most trouble hitting through the court. His forehand is the least proficient in the top five. You cannot win a French Open without a forehand, period.

Sorry, I am not buying your premise.

Nadal is a 'modern counter-puncher?' What does that mean? And you juxtapose that with 8 FO wins. Does that mean you think only a counter-puncher can win one?

And Murray won the USO the 'year after' they slowed down the courts? By others' reckoning, they'd slowed them down earlier so that Nadal could win it. It's hard to keep up with the excuses for how the likes of Murray and Nadal win certain tournaments.

We could go on forever....but I will ask this...how many attacking players have own RG in the past 35 years??? I can think of TWO...Noah and Fed. I might be tempted to throw in Guga because of his forehand...

Well, Nadal. You'd be really wrong to think that Nadal's clay game is purely predicated on waiting for other players to make mistakes, or just feeding on their pace. His genius on clay is all over the court, and attack is built into it.

I agree totally concerning Nadal on clay, his genius is multi faceted...however the cornerstone is defense, movement, and topspin.

Luxilon, don't get bullied and agree to things you don't want to agree. It is ok to
disagree.

I think as you mentioned in another post, Nadal started primarily as a defensive
player. The attacking game was incorporated later. So, while we can no longer call
him as a purely defensive player, he for sure was a pure defensive player at the
start. In fact, I believe he won the first couple of French opens without any attacking
play. Basically, other players could not handle his top spin consistently and made
mistakes sooner or later.

 

[Moxie]

No, it's not a paradox. It's one kind of surface. It has benefits and down-sides. For all players. Same as every surface. I don't understand why people have to treat clay as some kind of "other." It's just another surface that they play tennis on. Some handle it better than others. Like fast HCs or indoors, or grass, etc. Yes, big hitters with a long wind-up like Soderling get the time they need on clay. That's not a surprise, or a paradox, it's a function of the surface and how it suited his game.

 

[Moxie]

Nadal is a 'modern counter-puncher?' What does that mean? And you juxtapose that with 8 FO wins. Does that mean you think only a counter-puncher can win one?

And Murray won the USO the 'year after' they slowed down the courts? By others' reckoning, they'd slowed them down earlier so that Nadal could win it. It's hard to keep up with the excuses for how the likes of Murray and Nadal win certain tournaments.

We could go on forever....but I will ask this...how many attacking players have own RG in the past 35 years??? I can think of TWO...Noah and Fed. I might be tempted to throw in Guga because of his forehand...

Well, Nadal. You'd be really wrong to think that Nadal's clay game is purely predicated on waiting for other players to make mistakes, or just feeding on their pace. His genius on clay is all over the court, and attack is built into it.

I agree totally concerning Nadal on clay, his genius is multi faceted...however the cornerstone is defense, movement, and topspin.

Luxilon, don't get bullied and agree to things you don't want to agree. It is ok to
disagree.

I think as you mentioned in another post, Nadal started primarily as a defensive
player. The attacking game was incorporated later. So, while we can no longer call
him as a purely defensive player, he for sure was a pure defensive player at the
start. In fact, I believe he won the first couple of French opens without any attacking
play. Basically, other players could not handle his top spin consistently and made
mistakes sooner or later.

Bullying? I think not. Luxilon can hold his own, I'm sure.

GSM, it may be the case that Nadal, at 16-19 yrs old was a defensive player. He's 27 now, and his game has evolved a lot. Are you always going to paint him with the same brush? If so, you really haven't been paying attention.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Broken, Wikipedia's definition of "counterpuncher" agrees with Luxilon's definition.
Moreover, the definition reads as though they are describing Nadal. The following
is an exact quote from wiki.

"A defensive baseliner, or counter-puncher or retriever, tries to return every ball and relies on the opponent making mistakes. He/she has consistent shots, makes few errors of his own while making it difficult for opponents to hit winners. The game of the defensive counter-puncher has more to do with physical endurance and determination to retrieve balls as well as mental determination to keep from getting bored or trying for too much. They tend to make relatively few errors because they don't attempt the complicated and ambitious shots of the aggressive baseliner, but the effective counterpuncher must be able to periodically execute an aggressive shot. Speed and agility are key for the counterpuncher, as well as a willingness to patiently chase down every ball to frustrate opponents. Returning every aggressive shot that the opponent provides is often the cause of further errors due to the effort required in trying increasingly harder and better shots. However, it is noted that for some faster players, including Gaël Monfils and Andy Murray, standing too deep behind the court can hinder their attacking abilities.

At lower levels, the defensive counter-puncher often frustrates their opponent so much that they may try to change their style of play due to ineffective baseline results. At higher levels, the all-court player or aggressive baseliner is usually able to execute winners with higher velocity and better placement, taking the counterpuncher out of the point as early as possible.

Counter-punchers often excel on slow courts, such as clay. The court gives them extra time to chase down shots and it is harder for opponents to create winners. Counter-punchers are often particularly strong players at low-level play, where opponents cannot make winners with regularity."

 

[Tennis Miller]

Counter puncher: player who generally wins most of their points with defense, movement, and reacts to their opponents aggressive play the majority of the time.

Murray, Hewitt, Borg, Wilander, Change. Etc

As pointed out...stats by surface are all available on the ATP website.

Are you talking about Michael Change or Hope N. Change?

Cheers and Happy New Year!

TM

 

[Tennis Miller]

Broken, Wikipedia's definition of "counterpuncher" agrees with Luxilon's definition.
Moreover, the definition reads as though they are describing Nadal. The following
is an exact quote from wiki.

"A defensive baseliner, or counter-puncher or retriever, tries to return every ball and relies on the opponent making mistakes. He/she has consistent shots, makes few errors of his own while making it difficult for opponents to hit winners. The game of the defensive counter-puncher has more to do with physical endurance and determination to retrieve balls as well as mental determination to keep from getting bored or trying for too much. They tend to make relatively few errors because they don't attempt the complicated and ambitious shots of the aggressive baseliner, but the effective counterpuncher must be able to periodically execute an aggressive shot. Speed and agility are key for the counterpuncher, as well as a willingness to patiently chase down every ball to frustrate opponents. Returning every aggressive shot that the opponent provides is often the cause of further errors due to the effort required in trying increasingly harder and better shots. However, it is noted that for some faster players, including Gaël Monfils and Andy Murray, standing too deep behind the court can hinder their attacking abilities.

At lower levels, the defensive counter-puncher often frustrates their opponent so much that they may try to change their style of play due to ineffective baseline results. At higher levels, the all-court player or aggressive baseliner is usually able to execute winners with higher velocity and better placement, taking the counterpuncher out of the point as early as possible.

Counter-punchers often excel on slow courts, such as clay. The court gives them extra time to chase down shots and it is harder for opponents to create winners. Counter-punchers are often particularly strong players at low-level play, where opponents cannot make winners with regularity."

It sounds like wikipedia is describing a "pusher", not a counterpuncher. I disagree with the wiki definition.

Cheers

TM

 

[Kieran]

Interesting discussion. I wouldn't classify Rafa as a counterpuncher because his main strength is gaining control of the centre and lassoing the enemy out of sight with the whipped forehand. It's a basic, well-worn manouevre and essentially, he constructs rallies so precisely to give him the edge off his forehand.

That's not counter-punching. But like all players, he's forced into the counterpunchers role fairly often and from this I believe he's the best at turning defence into offence - which is what counter-punching is really about. Absorbing the blows then sucker punching your way into the superior, winning position. Novak excels at this too, but this is because they're great defensive players. I wouldn't classify them first and foremost as defensive players, though.

Murray used to be primarily seen as cautious to the extent that he'd wait for the other to lose control, before taking control himself, but Lendl has given him a more aggressive mentality. Counter-punchers wait in the hole, then turn their opponent's strength against them. It's a difficult art.

I'm not totally disagreeing with Lux or GS&M, but the top players games are too big to be confined by that definition, even on clay, or even on fast surfaces. The great players win by taking control, even in a Borg-esque way, but pinning the opponent back with such large and safe looping topspin that his opponent knew he'd never miss. Sometimes Borg's opponent's fell asleep waiting for him to miss one.

Rafa didn't beat Nole in Montreal and Flushing Meadows by laying back and counter-punching. Had he tried that, he'd have lost...