Mens Tennis Forums banner

Why are ballbashers more highly regarded than tacticians like Murray?

11K views 174 replies 70 participants last post by  Lestat 
#1 · (Edited)
This has always been the case as far as I can tell, even on the WTA. Players who can hit the ball hard are seen as superior to players who prefer to defend, work the ball around or use variety. Why is that?

Murray for example works the ball around, uses variety and can use power when needed. Most of the time, he's not hitting the ball very hard but is using his entire skill set. Players like Del Potro can only hit the ball hard. That's it, yet him and others are seen as better than Murray on here, in other forums and even by some commentators. Why is the that? Why is the ballbasher seen as a better player?

Players with variety and actual tactics on court are far better than powerful guys who just slam the shit out of the ball. It's ugly to watch a ball being destroyed all over the court, but it's great to watch tactics, variety and smart play. One is skill and actual intelligence, the other is power and nothing else. Skill will always triumph over power imo.

Opinions?
 
#2 ·
Re: Why are ballbashers seen more highly than defenders?

Because defending isn't tennis according to MTF. Ridiculous thought, mostly said by Fedtards/Nadal haters obviously.

Pushing like Murray though... :eek:
 
#5 ·
Re: Why are ballbashers seen more highly than defenders?

Because defending isn't tennis according to MTF. Ridiculous thought, mostly said by Fedtards/Nadal haters obviously.

Pushing like Murray though... :eek:
Pushing is for cowards who doesn't have the balls to take initiative and play first strike tennis. They belong in the WTA with the girls.
 
#3 ·
Re: Why are ballbashers seen more highly than defenders?

it's because Murry your lucky one slam wonder (who should gratefully thank to Nole for donating that slam btw) will never be as good or popular as Djokovic, so you'll keep crying and boring us to death with your silly posts and silly threads, lol. oops, did I just say this? so proud of myself.
 
#33 ·
Re: Why are ballbashers seen more highly than defenders?

it's because Murry your lucky one slam wonder (who should gratefully thank to Nole for donating that slam btw) will never be as good or popular as Djokovic, so you'll keep crying and boring us to death with your silly posts and silly threads, lol. oops, did I just say this? so proud of myself.
Murray may never be as good a Djokovic, but I dispute the popularity comment. Also hard to call a 5 times GS finalist (1 win and 4 RU) a lucky one slam winner.

Murray, as expected, is more popular at Wimbledon, but I note had far more of the support during the US Open final, and it will be interesting to see the support at the AO in January 2013.

If Murray was lucky to win US Open 2012, then that would certainly apply, even more, to Djokovic in 2011, when he survived being 2 match points down in a Federer serving game. Djokovic did very well to extend the match to 5 sets in the US Open final, but was spent in the 5th set. In fact, Murray came nearer to beating Djokovic at AO 2012, than Djokovic to beating Murray at US Open 2012.

Some of your comments in this post may come accross as silly.
 
#4 ·
Re: Why are ballbashers seen more highly than defenders?

You mean why are ballbashers regarded more highly than pushers? Not saying Murray is a pusher or anything but he does do an awful amount of retrieving. Personally I prefer the all rounder like the GOAT who can do both offense and defense equally well. Nadull is the worst breed. Just full on defensive pushing. Murray is much less of a pusher than Nadull anyway.
 
#6 ·
Re: Why are ballbashers seen more highly than defenders?

You mean why are ballbashers regarded more highly than pushers? Not saying Murray is a pusher or anything but he does do an awful amount of retrieving. Personally I prefer the all rounder like the GOAT who can do both offense and defense equally well. Nadull is the worst breed. Just full on defensive pushing. Murray is much less of a pusher than Nadull anyway.


mm, not so sure about that.
 
#48 ·
Re: Why are ballbashers seen more highly than defenders?

alex99
^butthurt detector explodes
:haha:

Murray is brilliant to watch. I suppose too many don't appreciate the nuances of the game to enjoy watching him... He can do it all, and he pulls off some orgasmic shots. The most frustrating thing was for us, the fans, when he used to regularly play too passively and lose big matches as a result. Lendl has gone a long way towards righting the balance now. It's not just Murray though, according to MTF everyone is either a pusher or a brainless ballbasher.

Can compare to other sports like boxing. Who would people rather watch? A tactician that spends round after round trying to avoid hits while countering getting points to win by decision, or someone who goes for a knockout even if it can cost him the match?
The casual fans would rather watch the aggressive headhunter. The hardcores would appreciate the counterpuncher.
 
#15 ·
Re: Why are ballbashers seen more highly than defenders?

Making things happen > waiting for errors.

Besides, in this slow court era, there's much more merit in succeeding with a big hitting style than with an all-out defending/grinding style, to which the conditions are perfectly suited.
 
#174 ·
Re: Why are ballbashers seen more highly than defenders?

Making things happen > waiting for errors.

Besides, in this slow court era, there's much more merit in succeeding with a big hitting style than with an all-out defending/grinding style, to which the conditions are perfectly suited.
This.

I also don't think Andy is A pusher, just an all around fella who's at his most confortable playing defensive tennis, I see that a lot whenever the opponent starts turning the tables, his natural reaction has been of switching to that pushing style. I do think that he's got quite the offensive game, a very fine one.
 
#18 ·
Re: Why are ballbashers seen more highly than defenders?

Players with variety and actual tactics on court are far better than powerful guys who just slam the shit out of the ball. It's ugly to watch a ball being destroyed all over the court, but it's great to watch tactics, variety and smart play. One is skill and actual intelligence, the other is power and nothing else.
yes you shouldn't have used the word "defenders" in the title, although it fits your Murray-guy.

On this site for a few months ballbashers have been more loved than players who have variety but little power.
 
#22 ·
Re: Why are ballbashers more highly regarded than defenders?

yes you shouldn't have used the word "defenders" in the title, although it fits your Murray-guy.
Yeah, I'll change it. Murray is a tactical baseliner, not a pusher or a defender.[/QUOTE]

If Nadal didn't have the best FH of 'em all, he would be such a pusher and wouldn't be able to finish a point :eek:
But he doesn't have the best forehand. Nowhere near.
Defense? Regards?

That's the worst match I've ever seen Roger play. Healthy Nadal defeated a 1% Roger badly. Congratulations :stupid:
 
#23 ·
Re: Why are ballbashers more highly regarded than defenders?

This has always been the case as far as I can tell, even on the WTA. Players who can hit the ball hard are seen as superior to players who prefer to defend, work the ball around or use variety. Why is that?
Bear in mind that these are two different things, and your cross-referencing them in the OP makes the question a bit difficult to address concisely.

In general, offensive play is more highly rated than defensive play because initiative is generally more tasteful than responsiveness.

But talking about someone who uses variety is a different matter altogether. The ability to command points through variable play is not restricted to any one style or archetype, and I don't think people generally prefer mindless ball-bashing to that.

When it comes down to it, pushing, or getting the ball in play with no other intent, is what people really look down upon. Unfortunately, most defensive or tactical players can revert to this on occasion, so people don't bother to gauge them as anything more. Worse, for these type of players, is that their play can be made to look like mere pushing when their tactics are working too well or not working at all, paradoxically. Thus, again, they're sort of unfairly pigeonholed as pushers.
 
#25 ·
Re: Why are ballbashers more highly regarded than tacticians/defenders?

For anyone confused about the title (if you are then you're not very smart) what I mean by tacticians is players who don't use power but use brilliant defense, tactics, variety and brains to win their matches.

I put Andy in the title because he's a good example of a tactician.
 
#28 ·
Re: Why are ballbashers more highly regarded than tacticians/defenders?

For anyone confused about the title (if you are then you're not very smart) what I mean by tacticians is players who don't use power but use brilliant defense, tactics, variety and brains to win their matches.

I put Andy in the title because he's a good example of a tactician.
You said this after my post, so I'm not sure if this is some roundabout snipe at my comment, but I'll clarify my original post. It's not a matter of being confused about the title, or the topic itself, it's a matter of addressing differences between defenders and tacticians.

A "brilliant" defender does not necessarily make for a formidable tactician, and the reverse is true as well. Likewise, I don't think people treat either style the same, so they really make for different conversations. You should probably stop grouping them together.
 
#27 ·
It's the same thing in all sports. In football for example, people prefer attacking football to defensive football.

People like players or teams that 'go for it' if you get what i mean.

I'm not that fussed personally. Different styles of play make it more interesting
 
#30 ·
Sapeod, why on Earth did you have to make this thread when I already gave you the correct answer in some other thread recently.

If you play tennis yourself you can immediately recognise that it takes more skills and balls to play offensive than playing defensively.
Murray may be resourceful, but not necessarily more skilled or talented than those who play aggressive and/or offensive tennis.

To add, Murray's game is not commanding. A commanding gamestyle is more pleasing than one that is responsive.
 
#32 ·
I actually think Murray is one of the most talented guys out there. The guy can do everything with a tennisball. This is why his defensive attitudes puzzles me. It really costs him matches. At Wimbledon he seemed to have altered his strategy abit more towards the offensive. His success has improved ever since he started playing more offensively.

As for the question in the topic. Pretty much what Lenders said.
 
#36 ·
Murray himself used to be more of a pusher, as he has said countless times, where he would just back away from the baseline and get the ball back in play, I think a pusher is more akin to what querrey does with his backhand, where he just guides it back without putting much if any weight behind the shot, a reason why nishikori had so much trouble with him last night.
A pusher doesn't win when his opponent is having a good day most of the time, and Murray has to get rid of his reputation of doing that, instead of his new more aggressive style of play. Federer, the tactition is much more highly regarded than Tsonga for example, so in Murrays case its simply his reputation which leads him to be more lowly regarded
 
#116 ·
Entertainment? There is nothing entertaining about watching a player try and hit the ball as hard as possibly over and over again, unless you get some sort of enjoyment out of watching balls getting bashed of course.
Mandy tactician?LOL......worst pusher in top 50......disgusting player
Incorrect.
I have a more relevant question: if the OP really believes in what he is writing here about smart tennis being entertaining, why does he hate Simon and call him a pusher when he has a game similar to Murray's?
Simug's tennis is not the same as Andy's. It's inferior. Andy uses tactics to work his opponents around. He uses power, defense, volleys, slice, different shots and good tactical tennis. Simug is the epitome of a pusher. Andy is not.
ball bashers are the backbone of tennis
No, they are not.
Because he is disgusting pushing ugly looking swearing brat.
As opposed to a certain faking, cheating classless Serbian/Spaniard, right?

Andy isn't a pusher.
His looks don't have anything to do with his tennis.

Get a clue.
The better question is why are mindless pushers being branded as 'tacticians' these days :eek:?
Andy isn't a mindless pusher and neither is Ferrer. Get that into your head.

There's hardly anything tactical about a gameplan based on retrieving as many balls as possible especially in this slow court era.
Andy is all tactics. Of course he does sometimes just wait for errors but more often than not, he uses tactics, slice, different shots and smart tennis.
Ballbashers are more interesting to watch.
They really aren't. The only "ballbasher" that's interesting to watch is Soderling and that's because he can actually do other things apart from hit the ball hard.
because murray waits for the UE's... happy?
Wrong.
and i still cant believe murray's luck this summer. murray uso champ? LOL
You must be bitter than Andy is now officially better than Del Potro.
And they are boring to watch.
As opposed to players who hit the ball the same way over and over again as hard as possible?
Mandy a tactician :superlol: more like a weaponless pushing clown.
Wrong, as usual.
Not even Murray himself believes he won a slam, judging by how he acted in Tokyo.
Remember when Djokovic lost to Kevin Anderson shortly after winning the Australian Open?
Crapeod starting a thread :superlol:
Problem?
No one. I just found it hilarious, and I felt that my opinion would be valued among real tennis fans. Problem?
:spit:
Sapeod isn't even a tennis fan
Wrong again.
just a clueless fangirl whose career goal is to be Mandy's personal maid.
Yet again, wrong. I am 100% a tennis fan. I know what's best for tennis and what's bad for it.
You know damn well why this is Sapeod, so don't play naive. Murray's game style is so boring sometimes that I find my self looking in the crowd for someone picking his nose just to justify watching the game (it's worse with Nadal BTW).
Incorrect. Andy's tennis is 100 times better than Nadal/Djokovic's. Along with superior talent, he can just do far more than they can and it shows. His variety shits on theirs.
Delpo's matches in comparison are a party to the eyes.
Pretty? I've heard a lot of words that descrive his tennis and that's probably the most idiotic. Pretty? There is nothing pretty about a 6'6" clown who can't move on the court bashing the ball the same way every single point.
People like watching Delpo much more and people tend to go with what they like.

/thread
Their problem then if they prefer that sort of tennis.
"Nadal the greatest forehand in tennis"

:haha:
It's a complete joke that people are still saying that. Utter nonsense.
 
#43 ·
Tempo and power decides a lot. It`s very hard to do the best shots with really little time, big speed. Do you really think that Murray wouldn`t like to hit like Delpo? It`s not that simple. You must be really good not only to hit forehand, bit make it deep, sometimes with no time for preparation, accurate.

One of the reasons why Dimitrov who has a lot of similar shots in technique with GOAT can`t win many matches - instead of Rogie he needs more time to prepare them, in rallies he makes mistakes quicker, can`t handle the offered tempo and so on.

I mean if you think you will see that it`s not that easy to "ballbash" as someone thinks.
 
#45 ·
Because ball-bashing done right is more impressive and harder to achieve a high level in. Need perfect timing or it's UE-galore. Pushing and moonballing is all about having margins and low amount of UEs.

Even at amateur level it's kinda lame with the more extreme pushers. But if someone did a few Del Potro-like shots a crowd would quickly gather.


Can compare to other sports like boxing. Who would people rather watch? A tactician that spends round after round trying to avoid hits while countering getting points to win by decision, or someone who goes for a knockout even if it can cost him the match?
 
#100 ·
Can compare to other sports like boxing. Who would people rather watch? A tactician that spends round after round trying to avoid hits while countering getting points to win by decision, or someone who goes for a knockout even if it can cost him the match?
Real boxing fans wouldn't care. Only casual fans care about knockouts, the real fans are more interested in technique. Its not the same on MTF here, people have a very immature mindset towards tennis.
 
#47 ·
Because it's more difficult being a successful attacking player in this shit-slow court era than having a defensive game. Case closed.

I have a more relevant question: if the OP really believes in what he is writing here about smart tennis being entertaining, why does he hate Simon and call him a pusher when he has a game similar to Murray's?
 
#53 · (Edited)
The better question is why are mindless pushers being branded as 'tacticians' these days :eek:?

There's hardly anything tactical about a gameplan based on retrieving as many balls as possible especially in this slow court era.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GOATsol
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top