Intelligence - Offensive player vs Defensive player [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Intelligence - Offensive player vs Defensive player

Rafa = Fed Killa
10-27-2010, 03:09 AM
Which type of player is more intelligent

Defensive tactital play

or

Offensive ballstriking

Ie. Setting someone up like in chess or closing your eyes and swinging away

Johnny Groove
10-27-2010, 03:11 AM
As an offensive player, I've got to engage the defensive player in a rally and look for an opening to maneuver him out of position and draw a short ball.

Then, I've got to decide whether to hit to the open court or hit back behind him. Usually I make him run. Then I, the offensive player, must close the net QUICKLY at a good angle, depending on how good the opponent's passing shot is.

I then must execute most likely a tough volley and possibly another volley or over head to finish the point.

Offensive play is not just swinging away.

selyoink
10-27-2010, 03:16 AM
So a defensive player is a chess master but an offensive player just closes his eyes and relies on dumb luck?

You sir are an idiot.

Blaze speaks wisdom.

Rafa = Fed Killa
10-27-2010, 03:20 AM
So a defensive player is a chess master but an offensive player just closes his eyes and relies on dumb luck?

You sir are an idiot.

Blaze speaks wisdom.

Blake sure was a chess master with his tennis genius...oh

leng jai
10-27-2010, 03:21 AM
Defence is only intelligent if theres some thought process to it. Mindlessly running down and moonballing back every shot doesn't take intelligence.

Who even cares? Tennis is a sport not rocket science. The vast majority of points won is decided by who gets the first decent strike in the rally.

shiaben
10-27-2010, 03:36 AM
Another silly thread. Honestly speaking, if you're not offensive in tennis, you will rarely win a grandslam. All or most of the wins, are because players take it to the opponent, drive them left and right on their feet, and get winners or forehands to the nets this way. You have to be offensive.

The closest loss that seemed to be from an opponent's defense, was Nadal when he played Soderling at the French Open last year. He didn't need to use too many forehand winners, or move him around too much, Soderling just kept hitting unforced errors after game after game, and beat himself for the most part that way. So if talk about it in that regards, I think there are a few times, where players win from defense/accuracy.

But for the most part, defense/accuracy, works best in early rounds, but against attacking players like Federer, Verdasco, Gonzalez, Djokovic, or Nadal, you probably won't win from defense/accuracy, you need to attack them. I think Andy Murray has learned his lesson from this.

Clay Death
10-27-2010, 04:08 AM
another translation:





spirit overcomes force vast majority of the time.


next.

Topspindoctor
10-27-2010, 04:33 AM
Offense > Defense

Nadal would not win a single slam, even RG with defense alone. Even in 2005 as a grinder, he attempted to use topspin as a weapon. The primary reason why Mugray is slamless is because he is a pusher. To be a champion you need to rip the grand slam out of the other guy's hands not wait for him to gift it with errors.

DorianGray7
10-27-2010, 04:35 AM
Why is Federer considered an offensive player?

He's finished guys he will never win another grand slam.

hicdick
10-27-2010, 06:06 AM
Why is Federer considered an offensive player?

He's finished guys he will never win another grand slam.

:lol:
Yes, i have no idea. you know, fed is THE pusher in the tour. nadal, simon and murray are true attacking players :worship:

HKz
10-27-2010, 06:08 AM
Not enough Federer/Nadal in this thread.

bleu_cheese
10-27-2010, 06:09 AM
Intelligence has nothing to do with style of play. You could be extremely smart and realize that aggression pays off if done right. Or, you could bash away without a plan. Smart guys play defense smart, not so smart guys just get the ball back without regard to positioning. Chess values offense as much as defense, if not more.

So...basically, the question should be which style do you prefer. I'm a defensive minded player myself, but I'm not good enough to move people around. Does this make me unintelligent? No, just a mediocre tennis player.

hicdick
10-27-2010, 06:15 AM
Not enough Federer/Nadal in this thread.


well, mtf is all about nadal, nadal, nadal, rafa and nadal at the moment. some of these threads are ridiculous, other are bullshit.

Johnny_Bravo
10-27-2010, 06:15 AM
You cannot generalize like this.There are some dumb and intelligent players either way.

And offensive play doesn't mean just blind ball bashing.

hicdick
10-27-2010, 06:19 AM
Intelligence has nothing to do with style of play. You could be extremely smart and realize that aggression pays off if done right. Or, you could bash away without a plan. Smart guys play defense smart, not so smart guys just get the ball back without regard to positioning. Chess values offense as much as defense, if not more.

So...basically, the question should be which style do you prefer. I'm a defensive minded player myself, but I'm not good enough to move people around. Does this make me unintelligent? No, just a mediocre tennis player.


good post :yeah:
i'm just afraid that the oposter wasn't expecting this kind of responses. this is all about federer being tactically inept and nadal, the ultimate clay warrior, being a tactical genius.

Fiberlight1
10-27-2010, 06:22 AM
well, mtf is all about nadal, nadal, nadal, rafa and nadal at the moment. some of these threads are ridiculous, other are bullshit.

Federer's mate and No Life keep it diverse enough for all of us.

n8
10-27-2010, 06:32 AM
I believe that you have played an intelligent match if you have used a technique that has given you the best chance to win the match. Against Nadal you pretty much have to be aggressive (ball bash if you prefer) as you are almost certainly not going to out grind him. Against Federer (in recent times) you may have more success playing defensive. Look at Murray's style of play against these two players and you'll see my point.

However, it is not that simple. You should also play to your strengths. Del Potro, for example, probably wouldn't fare too well when playing defensive versus Federer as he is much better when playing aggressive. Bottom line is, an intelligent player uses a combination of tactics and his strengths to give himself the best chance at winning a match.

HKz
10-27-2010, 08:33 AM
I believe that you have played an intelligent match if you have used a technique that has given you the best chance to win the match. Against Nadal you pretty much have to be aggressive (ball bash if you prefer) as you are almost certainly not going to out grind him. Against Federer (in recent times) you may have more success playing defensive. Look at Murray's style of play against these two players and you'll see my point.

However, it is not that simple. You should also play to your strengths. Del Potro, for example, probably wouldn't fare too well when playing defensive versus Federer as he is much better when playing aggressive. Bottom line is, an intelligent player uses a combination of tactics and his strengths to give himself the best chance at winning a match.

Yes

borracho
10-27-2010, 08:48 AM
Why is Federer considered an offensive player?

He's finished guys he will never win another grand slam.

speechless :lol:, how do sentence 1 and 2 relate to eachother genius?

HKz
10-27-2010, 08:48 AM
speechless :lol:, how do sentence 1 and 2 relate to eachother genius?

They involve Federer, duh

finishingmove
10-27-2010, 08:50 AM
running everything down like devvarman and not having the power to hit a winner, or going for the spray & pray style like chardy...

both can look stupid at first, but everyone plays to their advantage and ability..

if a player is pretty well backed up in all aspects, then the key for him is the transition from defense to offense and vice versa.

General Suburbia
10-27-2010, 08:54 AM
It's about how well you use your strengths. Monfils is a defensive player but he doesn't use his brain much on court. The same with Blake, an offensive player.

acionescu
10-27-2010, 09:10 AM
I knew that the Blake vs Nadal discussion from the other thread will bring this upon us :sobbing:

cataflic
10-27-2010, 09:48 AM
put the worth in your mind "hit the ball inside the lines, no matter how it is" and you made the defensive!
the offensive player must watch through the wall of ball of his opponent to find a break to attach...i think this is smarter!:p


but this is an old version of the opposites

now defending is a more skilled game, trying to play the worst shot for your opponent,the worst schemes, playing percentage tennis on the right points, so i can declare that today we can divide the players in two new categories
THE PLAYERS and
THE EMBEDDED

Timariot
10-27-2010, 10:29 AM
All tennis is playing percentages. The guy who invented the term "percentage tennis" - Jack Kramer - played attacking tennis. He would come in behind 1st and 2nd serves, chip & charged, etc. Sometimes he was passed, sometimes he was lobbed. But more often he won the point. He played the odds.

Fujee
10-27-2010, 11:39 AM
Playing Offensive means you have to plan ahead for your approach or next move etc, it requires foresight and structure. Offensive play generally proposes the challenge of knowing how the point will play out.

While defense has structure and needs intelligence, most people can return the ball into play for a long time, until the offensive player makes them move from their baseline.

Orka_n
10-27-2010, 12:33 PM
OP is an acknowledged troll, and obviously this thread's only purpose is to insult offensive players. Why are people responding seriously here?

dodo
10-27-2010, 12:36 PM
Why is Federer considered an offensive player?

He's finished guys he will never win another grand slam.
Also, he probably was never really that great.

hicdick
10-27-2010, 12:38 PM
OP is an acknowledged troll, and obviously this thread's only purpose is to insult offensive players. Why are people responding seriously here?

This.

Blackbriar
10-27-2010, 12:41 PM
It's about how well you use your strengths. Monfils is a defensive player but he doesn't use his brain much on court. The same with Blake, an offensive player.

Monfils doesn't use his brain offcourt either.

San Rosso
10-27-2010, 01:58 PM
Offense play requires more brains. Running around court returning the ball with top spin doesn't.

rocketassist
10-27-2010, 02:12 PM
Getting the ball back into play isn't intelligent, it's simplistic. Doesn't take much skill unless you can use slice and angles in the process to take the opponent out of a comfort zone.

Clay Death
10-27-2010, 03:25 PM
so who is the most offensive / assault-minded player on the planet? here i will help you with the answer. his name is fed. it is not enough that you are all about offense. you have to be consistent as well and a multiple slam winner. fed is that man.

second question: and who owns him?


case closed.

defense rests.

next.


**clay warrior is not that defensive if you are watching the same sport. he just happens to have the best defense.

i understand it is hard to have much of a vantage point if you stay low in a city sewer. in other words, you have to know and understand the sport.

nadal not only has world class defense when he is healthy and fit, he is also one of the most aggressive players to have ever played the game.

just ask the players if you lack the insight.

MalwareDie
10-27-2010, 03:39 PM
so who is the most offensive / assault-minded player on the planet? his name is fed.

:spit:

he is one of the most aggressive players to have ever played the game.

No.

bluefork
10-27-2010, 03:42 PM
Defense may keep you from losing matches, but it never wins you matches.

A totally offensive player (like Blake) is just as bad as a player who only plays defense (like Monfils often does).

Clearly the best players are the ones who can find a balance between the two strategies (i.e. the current top 3).

rocketassist
10-27-2010, 03:43 PM
so who is the most offensive / assault-minded player on the planet? here i will help you with the answer. his name is fed. it is not enough that you are all about offense. you have to be consistent as well and a multiple slam winner. fed is that man.

second question: and who owns him?

case closed.

defense rests.

next.


**clay warrior is not that defensive if you are watching the same sport. he just happens to have the best defense.
i understand it is hard to have much of a vantage point if you stay low in a city sewer. in other words, you have to know and understand the sport.

nadal not only has world class defense when he is healthy and fit, he is also one of the most aggressive players to have ever played the game.
just ask the players if you lack the insight.

1 Nowhere near, Soderling, Berdych, for a start, Fed's a lot more conservative than he once was, then again the tour is all about defence nowadays.

2 Er, since Fed's declined, a few players have owned him, even Gilles fucking Simon.

3 Agreed, probably the defence GOAT, but I'm not a fan of that type of tennis.

4 :haha: :haha: :haha:

StevoTG
10-27-2010, 03:48 PM
There is no straight forward answer to this.
'Pushing' and 'ball bashing' don't require intelligence but counter-punching and point constructing defensive play requires intelligence as does calculated and constructive offensive play.

Dougie
10-27-2010, 04:16 PM
Offense play requires more brains. Running around court returning the ball with top spin doesn't.

So wrong. Just the fact that you think defense is the same as hitting with topspin shows you have no idea what youīre talking about. You can play offensively with or without brains, and you can do the same with defense.

tennishero
10-27-2010, 04:30 PM
offense > defense.

out_here_grindin
10-27-2010, 04:36 PM
As an offensive player, I've got to engage the defensive player in a rally and look for an opening to maneuver him out of position and draw a short ball.

Then, I've got to decide whether to hit to the open court or hit back behind him. Usually I make him run. Then I, the offensive player, must close the net QUICKLY at a good angle, depending on how good the opponent's passing shot is.

I then must execute most likely a tough volley and possibly another volley or over head to finish the point.

Offensive play is not just swinging away.

Excellent post. This is why defensive play is more effective than offense at the lower levels. It's why Somdev Devvarman was able to dominate in college tennis, even more so that Isner. Then when they both hit the pro tour, the one with offense is winning.

Clay Death
10-27-2010, 04:37 PM
There is no straight forward answer to this.
'Pushing' and 'ball bashing' don't require intelligence but counter-punching and point constructing defensive play requires intelligence as does calculated and constructive offensive play.



actually there is an answer:

and you just stated it for the masses.

only problem is that the masses are either children (12-15 years old) here or clueless sewer rats living in city sewers never being able to see above the sewer wall.

and nadal is no counter puncher. he constructs/builds points with a purpose: a purpose to go on an offense at exactly the right time.

that is smart, tactical, and aggressive tennis. call it engineered aggression (a term just invented by clay death the destroyer).

being a heavy topspin artist, he tends to drop balls short from time to time which allow players to attack easily. he just happens to be one of the best at defense also.

when at his best, he not only is a master of aggression but he also takes away your own ability to attack. now that is smart, tactical, engineered agrgression that works.

his numbers are living proof that it works. also just ask the players who have go up against him.

Dougie
10-27-2010, 04:37 PM
This whole question is much more complicated than it would seem. Firstly, offensive or defensive play does not take the form of any certain shots, such as topspin groundstrokes, cannon ball serve, slice backhand etc. Tennis is game of matchups. Even hitting pure slice can be offensive, if you know your opponent has the most problems with responding to a slice, in that case hitting slice is an offensive tactic. But if you use the slice just because youīre always out of position and donīt have time for anything else, then youīre on the defensive side.

My point is, it would be wrong to say that any certain player is offensive or defensive just by looking at the shots he hits. Itīs about how you use those shots to serve your tactic, that is supposed to win you the match. Anyone who thinks of Nadal strictly as a defensive player, doesnīt have a clue about tactics or matchups.

San Rosso
10-27-2010, 04:44 PM
So wrong. Just the fact that you think defense is the same as hitting with topspin shows you have no idea what youīre talking about. You can play offensively with or without brains, and you can do the same with defense.

I was just being sarcasted reffering to Nadull. I know both take certain amount of brains. The best players can do both when required.

Jaz
10-27-2010, 05:07 PM
It's really about execution. You use a defensive shot to ensure that you get time to move into a more promising position during the rally.

That said there are a few players who get it all wrong.About 5 years ago everybody was super aggressive and leaking errors. Now most people are very defensive, people like Murray who refuse to attack/ hit a clean winner until it's a guarantee.

Both Nadal and Federer are very good at taking the opponent on, and defensive play. This is why they are good on all surfaces, against all players.

rocketassist
10-27-2010, 05:39 PM
It's really about execution. You use a defensive shot to ensure that you get time to move into a more promising position during the rally.

That said there are a few players who get it all wrong.About 5 years ago everybody was super aggressive and leaking errors. Now most people are very defensive, people like Murray who refuse to attack/ hit a clean winner until it's a guarantee.

Both Nadal and Federer are very good at taking the opponent on, and defensive play. This is why they are good on all surfaces, against all players.

Nadal is not an attacking player. He's not Simon, but he's primarily defensive (with offensive power on the forehand if he gets a short ball)

Sapeod
10-27-2010, 06:02 PM
Nadull isn't a defensive player, he's a moonball player, he attacks but with defensive shots.....it's a very ugly thing to watch and can't be classed in defense or offense.

Defensive players are smarter because they don't just blast everything around the court....ballbashers aren't stupid, but they don't have a plan b......which makes for some hilarious matches.

That's why Murray is such a genius.....he attacks occasionaly with great accuracy and power....but he uses variety and defends amazingly well. Andy Murray is a tennis genius and a brilliant tactician.

Jaz
10-27-2010, 06:04 PM
Nadal is not an attacking player. He's not Simon, but he's primarily defensive (with offensive power on the forehand if he gets a short ball)

Well he's not super aggressive, but if he really wants his forehand and backhand is very very lethal.

Point is, the topspin forehand is deceptive, Nadal puts ALOT of power and spin on all his balls, it's not just a deep return. So you might consider it defensive, but frankly it's too much for many many players and could be considered offensive. He's also extremely good at short ball punishment as you said. But he's not a super-defensive player, especially on tiebreaks and breakpoints, he seems to judge attack/defense really really well.

Federer on the other hand goes for his shots. Heck, he's not often, if ever out "winnered". The problem is, his legendary "defence" was all based on him getting to the ball early enough and taking time away. However, his movement is definitely slower, and so his defensive play is near useless against some of the top players because he can't get enough on it to get him into promising positions in the rally.

Clay Death
10-27-2010, 06:04 PM
that is horse shit rocket man.

clay warrior is more offensive than anybody alive other than fed of course.

his every shot---other than his poor slice of course-- is designed to bring about the well-timed and well engineered aggression. he is just not about pulling the trigger mindlessly.

he uses his slice for a little variation and for defense which is what that shot is good for. its just that he is not that good at it yet. at least he is trying to develop that shot.

Dougie
10-27-2010, 06:35 PM
Whatīs obvious is that aggression tends to get confused with offensiveness, but in reality they are totally different. Aggressiveness itself is quite useless, unless it can be channelled constructively. Offensiveness can be executed in many different ways; itīs not about power, itīs about using your strenghts to play into your opponents weaknesses and offset his balance, and to be the dominant player.

Pure aggression is something Blakeīs game is about, but itīs hardly constructive. Nadalīs game is constructively offensive, heīs constantly hitting heavy topspin to construct points and increase pressure on his opponent. The points usually end by Nadalīs opponent making an error when going for a winner when they run out of options. And then people think Nadalīs opponent was the offensive one and Nadal the moonballer, when in reality it was Nadal who attacked and controlled the whole point until the last shot.

Clay Death
10-27-2010, 06:37 PM
Whatīs obvious is that aggression tends to get confused with offensiveness, but in reality they are totally different. Aggressiveness itself is quite useless, unless it can be channelled constructively. Offensiveness can be executed in many different ways; itīs not about power, itīs about using your strenghts to play into your opponents weaknesses and offset his balance, and to be the dominant player.

Pure aggression is something Blakeīs game is about, but itīs hardly constructive. Nadalīs game is constructively offensive, heīs constantly hitting heavy topspin to construct points and increase pressure on his opponent. The points usually end by Nadalīs opponent making an error when going for a winner when they run out of options. And then people think Nadalīs opponent was the offensive one and Nadal the moonballer, when in reality it was Nadal who attacked and controlled the whole point until the last shot.

well said and stated.

great post.

Sapeod
10-27-2010, 06:57 PM
that is horse shit rocket man.

clay warrior is more offensive than anybody alive other than fed of course.

his every shot---other than his poor slice of course-- is designed to bring about the well-timed and well engineered aggression. he is just not about pulling the trigger mindlessly.

he uses his slice for a little variation and for defense which is what that shot is good for. its just that he is not that good at it yet. at least he is trying to develop that shot.
I seriously doubt that Nadal is more offensive than Soderling, Berdych or Del Potro.

MalwareDie
10-27-2010, 07:00 PM
Offensiveness can be executed in many different ways; itīs not about power, itīs about using your strenghts to play into your opponents weaknesses and offset his balance, and to be the dominant player.

Going by your definition, pretty much everybody on tour is considered an offensive player.

oranges
10-27-2010, 07:07 PM
Offensive and agressive player is interchangeable in my vocabulary. While it's not strictly about power (see Davydenko as one example), it's not about strength vs weaknes either. Nadal is not an offensive player. Making it difficult for the opponent to effectively attack is not being offensive.

As for intelligence, both can obviously be brainless, but offense relies more on it and consequently exposes the lack of it more.

Dougie
10-27-2010, 07:31 PM
Going by your definition, pretty much everybody on tour is considered an offensive player.

Obviously there are players who are more offensive by nature than others, but there are not that many players nowadays who just sit back and wait for errors and not do anything with the ball. It might seem that way, but then you have to take closer look of the dynamics of the game. Offensive game plan can be excuted in many ways, and not all of them are always obvious to the eye.

finishingmove
10-27-2010, 08:28 PM
nadal is...















...mentioned too many times in this thread.

pray-for-palestine-and-israel
10-27-2010, 08:28 PM
nadal-tards dont even know their man

in this discussion you forgot one point

counter punching, which is both offensive and defensive- which by its nature is defensive but has to be agressive enough to hit a winner from

nadal is a defensive counter puncher, he sets up agressive finishes but mainly relies on his superior consistency and speed

he's hardly all defense though.

take his forehand

usually defensive

however, its offensive due to its inbuilt heavy topspin

another point

federer has a HUGE defense, cant believe tards are calling him an all out attacker

even at federer's prime his forehand was NOWHERE near as big as gonzo's.
federer's superior footwork and court awareness meant he got to and returned better than almost anyone. he also could turn defense into attack in one shot.

you cant label federer, he was a true ALL ROUNDER
he even had potential in the volley
his court sense was second to none
he knew when to attack and defend
his forehand is the greatest of all times due to its versitility
his backhand back then was an asset not a liability
bh slice, drive, topspin- his bh was excellent
his footwork and energy saving meant he never had to retire because he was so economical with his energy levels- hence the joking rumors that he never sweated on court
his serve was "hit a dime a mile away" perfect

Pirao666
10-27-2010, 09:48 PM
So Nadal is a defensive player, oh, the things we learn in this thread :angel:

hicdick
10-28-2010, 07:40 AM
So Nadal is a defensive player, oh, the things we learn in this thread :angel:

well, till 2008 he definetely was a defensive player and i still think he's defenceminded counter-puncher eventhough he's far more aggresive than he used to be.

Beat
10-28-2010, 07:46 AM
so offensive players can't play smart tennis? right ... what a clueless thread.

Pirao666
10-28-2010, 07:55 AM
well, till 2008 he definetely was a defensive player and i still think he's defenceminded counter-puncher eventhough he's far more aggresive than he used to be.

You said it, till 2008. Nadal is not a defensive player anymore. You think nadal won his 2 Wimbledons, AO and USO playing defensive?

Crazy Girl
10-28-2010, 09:05 AM
Why is Federer considered an offensive player?

He's finished guys he will never win another grand slam.:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
:smash::smash::smash:
:drink::drink::drink:
:banghead::banghead::banghead:
:spit::spit::spit:
:bigwave::bigwave::bigwave:

Crazy Girl
10-28-2010, 09:25 AM
Intelligence has nothing to do with style of play. You could be extremely smart and realize that aggression pays off if done right. Or, you could bash away without a plan. Smart guys play defense smart, not so smart guys just get the ball back without regard to positioning. Chess values offense as much as defense, if not more.

So...basically, the question should be which style do you prefer.
Yes, I don't know about "intelligence". Maybe a balance between two things. However to be aggressive pays more points, 'cause to be always in defense get more risk.
I'm sure on a spot: I don't like defensive players. Make me:zzz::zzz:
An aggressive game is too much beautiful for my eyes.


I'm a defensive minded player myself, but I'm not good enough to move people around. Does this make me unintelligent? No, just a mediocre tennis player.:worship::worship:Beautiful, beautiful, beautiful statement. Learn, people, learn.:bowdown::bowdown:

Crazy Girl
10-28-2010, 09:34 AM
good post :yeah:
i'm just afraid that the oposter wasn't expecting this kind of responses. this is all about federer being tactically inept and nadal, the ultimate clay warrior, being a tactical genius.Yes, true... hicdick.
I was thinking the same.
Post of **blue cheese** is really an intelligent good post. So rare in this shit of forum, nowadays.
I've read it with so much interest.
:wavey::wavey:

Crazy Girl
10-28-2010, 09:46 AM
Also, he probably was never really that great.dodo...,dodo..., I'm losing my usual calm...

Crazy Girl
10-28-2010, 09:48 AM
Monfils doesn't use his brain offcourt either.:rolleyes::rolleyes:
oh my...poor Monfy..;););)

Everko
10-28-2010, 01:45 PM
You said it, till 2008. Nadal is not a defensive player anymore. You think nadal won his 2 Wimbledons, AO and USO playing defensive?

True words friend. Nadal learned to adapt and worked hard to change his game. That's why he has the youngest ever career slam.

Start da Game
10-28-2010, 04:47 PM
clay d is right as usual.......blind love blinds you, so shed it for your good and start watching the game seriously.......

rafael is an aggressive hitter who steers his way to aggressive finishes through percentage tennis, unlike brainless attackers like soderling or blake.......besides that he happens to be the best defensive player the sport has ever witnessed.......his defensive skills shadow his offensive abilities just like how sampras' serve shadowed the rest of his relentless game.......

Orka_n
10-28-2010, 04:52 PM
clay d is right as usual.......blind love blinds you, so shed it for your good and start watching the game seriously.......What saddens me is that you will never realize the irony in this statement.

I wonder what you are like IRL.

Start da Game
10-28-2010, 04:58 PM
winning tennis, be it defensive or offensive, gets my vote any day.......one cannot win with defense all the time and similarly for offense.......but RFK is right when he said defense takes more intelligence than offense.......offense needs more natural talent but defense needs more brains(anticipation) for sure.......

i and clay death discussed something similar on some other forum and termed clay court tennis "physical chess" because it involves out-thinking the opponent two to three shots in advance in a rally.......

Filo V.
10-29-2010, 01:13 AM
There is no "more intelligent" style of play, it's how you play that style which makes it intelligent, not the style of play itself. And it's also if that style of play fits your attributes. Some players are naturally defensive, some are naturally offense, doesn't make them stupid or smart, it's just their personal games.

Clay Death
10-29-2010, 02:06 AM
clay d is right as usual.......blind love blinds you, so shed it for your good and start watching the game seriously.......

rafael is an aggressive hitter who steers his way to aggressive finishes through percentage tennis, unlike brainless attackers like soderling or blake.......besides that he happens to be the best defensive player the sport has ever witnessed.......his defensive skills shadow his offensive abilities just like how sampras' serve shadowed the rest of his relentless game.......


great post general shankar.

HKz
10-29-2010, 04:32 AM
clay d is right as usual.......blind love blinds you, so shed it for your good and start watching the game seriously.......

rafael is an aggressive hitter who steers his way to aggressive finishes through percentage tennis, unlike brainless attackers like soderling or blake.......besides that he happens to be the best defensive player the sport has ever witnessed.......his defensive skills shadow his offensive abilities just like how sampras' serve shadowed the rest of his relentless game.......

great post general failkar since you included my name "clay d" in there

lazybear
10-29-2010, 07:56 PM
Why is Federer considered an offensive player?


http://img.chan4chan.com/img/2009-03-22/1237757406481.jpg

Myrre
10-29-2010, 10:23 PM
You don't need intelligence to play defensive you just need patience. Patience that I personally never had. I have never understood why anyone wants to play defensive. It is so much more fun to hit winners than to win points on your opponent's errors. If I couldn't hit winners I would have given up tennis long ago.

rocketassist
10-30-2010, 01:37 AM
Exactly. The satisfaction when I play tennis and hit a winner, especially when I really go aggressive and take a proper risk, is so sweet.

Topspindoctor
10-30-2010, 03:21 AM
Nadull isn't a defensive player, he's a moonball player, he attacks but with defensive shots.....it's a very ugly thing to watch and can't be classed in defense or offense.

Defensive players are smarter because they don't just blast everything around the court....ballbashers aren't stupid, but they don't have a plan b......which makes for some hilarious matches.

That's why Murray is such a genius.....he attacks occasionaly with great accuracy and power....but he uses variety and defends amazingly well. Andy Murray is a tennis genius and a brilliant tactician.

No, Mugray is a junkballer with WTA forehand and second serve and a mental midget. That's why he's at 0 slams and Nadal is at 9.

Rafa = Fed Killa
11-24-2010, 03:13 AM
No, Mugray is a junkballer with WTA forehand and second serve and a mental midget. That's why he's at 0 slams and Nadal is at 9.

Dont insult the WTA ;)

tennis2tennis
11-24-2010, 04:22 AM
Which type of player is more intelligent

Defensive tactital play

or

Offensive ballstriking
Ie. Setting someone up like in chess or closing your eyes and swinging away
I love how you allude to the answer you want to hear in your question! describe defensive as tactical and offensive as ballstriking.....like offensive ball stricking requires 0 tactics....,

offensive player actually require more tactic because they're intiating the point not reacting to it (but sometimes that works against them because they can over-think or over-attack) and what about players like federer who possess both...you think they're on the backfoot and wham they find an imppossible angle or accelerate the tempo

Rafa = Fed Killa
11-23-2011, 05:56 AM
Offensive tennis - random results, a couple of lucky wins, a 6-0 set (very animalistic style of play)

Defensive tennis - consistently better results, superior h2h with a few bad losses (very intellectual style of play)

tripwires
11-23-2011, 07:16 AM
Which type of player is more intelligent

Defensive tactital play

or

Offensive ballstriking

Ie. Setting someone up like in chess or closing your eyes and swinging away

:haha: :haha: :haha: Shows how much you know about tennis.

Mountaindewslave
11-23-2011, 07:33 AM
i put defensive naturally because i think often a player with a defensive style has to calculate and determine when is the right time/point to make a move, while an offensive player just naturally goes for it all the time and whenever they get a shot at any short balls.

defensive players appear to be thinking more than offensive ones, for example when I watch Murray play Berdych, I get the idea that Murray is intelligent and planning what to do and Berdych is just going for whatever is available spur of the moment.

granted then you find the problem that an offensive player like Federer clearly is very intelligent, and a defensive player like Nadal is.... well questionable in brains.

so my honest opinion would be that in general defensive players are more intelligent, but the answer could be both. certainly it makes sense why 'offensive' players are winning the poll at the moment, given they plan '1-2 punches' and ways to slip past there opponent as fast as possible

Mountaindewslave
11-23-2011, 07:34 AM
Offensive tennis - random results, a couple of lucky wins, a 6-0 set (very animalistic style of play)

Defensive tennis - consistently better results, superior h2h with a few bad losses (very intellectual style of play)

hahahha you are the best troll ever regarding Nadal's loss the other day :worship: :worship: :worship:

Start da Game
11-23-2011, 11:28 AM
Offensive tennis - random results, a couple of lucky wins, a 6-0 set (very animalistic style of play)

Defensive tennis - consistently better results, superior h2h with a few bad losses (very intellectual style of play)

offensive tennis attracts kiddish thinkers, virgins and blind lovers as those kinds lack the ability to understand the nuances of the game......

defensive tennis attracts intellectuals, thoughtful personalities and non-virgins......

Saberq
11-23-2011, 11:35 AM
only a fool prefers defense to offense....I for example hate when Novak plays defensive ....it is boring and stupid when he is capable to beat anyone playing attacking tennis .......

samanosuke
11-23-2011, 11:35 AM
defensive tennis attracts intellectuals, thoughtful personalities and non-virgins......

and what all these above characteristics have in common with you ?

sexybeast
11-23-2011, 11:41 AM
offensive tennis attracts kiddish thinkers, virgins and blind lovers as those kinds lack the ability to understand the nuances of the game......

defensive tennis attracts intellectuals, thoughtful personalities and non-virgins......

Sorry SdG, you cant compete with RFK on ACC. Good try, but he is a better troll and this will always be the case.

mark73
11-23-2011, 11:51 AM
offensive tennis attracts kiddish thinkers, virgins and blind lovers as those kinds lack the ability to understand the nuances of the game......

defensive tennis attracts intellectuals, thoughtful personalities and non-virgins......

Yes players like Nadal who despite travelling the world for several years still can't speak fluent english. Nadal is no intellectual you dumbass.

On the other hand federer is probably more articulate in 4 languages than nadal is in Spanish.

Start da Game
11-23-2011, 11:57 AM
Yes players like Nadal who despite travelling the world for several years still can't speak fluent english. Nadal is no intellectual you dumbass.

On the other hand federer is probably more articulate in 4 languages than nadal is in Spanish.

i am speaking about tennis fans, bozo......even samanupuke got it......and what has being a multilingual got to do with intellect?

mark73
11-23-2011, 12:07 PM
i am speaking about tennis fans, bozo......even samanupuke got it......and what has being a multilingual got to do with intellect?

you are saying defensive players are more intellectual. The ability to speak several languages is a sign of being intellectual. So your prime example of nadal, who does not appear intellectual in any way is also a great defensive player. Playing chess requires intellect playing tennis of any style does not. It's a fucking sport.

mark73
11-23-2011, 12:09 PM
you need an iq of maybe 90 to be number 1. That will suffice.

Raferminator
11-23-2011, 12:31 PM
offensive tennis attracts kiddish thinkers, virgins and blind lovers as those kinds lack the ability to understand the nuances of the game......

This sounds like "the Blind Breed" you so exquisitely describe in your posts, Shankar. I personally believe the Fedtards are a lower subspecies of the Blind Breed.

defensive tennis attracts intellectuals, thoughtful personalities and non-virgins......

This. :worship:

I was angry and irrational yesterday after Rafa lost this match, mostly due to Fedtard gloating...but now I can see how trite and pathetic their boasting of the "What the Frigg" tournament really is. Thanks to you and RFK for putting the wretched display from the Blind Breed in the proper perspective.

I still want revenge, but maybe it is more practical that Rafa start focusing on the Davis Cup Final played on a REAL surface. This event sucks! :mad: They need to move it to somewhere warm and outdoors.

nalbyfan
11-23-2011, 12:35 PM
Another silly thread. Honestly speaking, if you're not offensive in tennis, you will rarely win a grandslam. All or most of the wins, are because players take it to the opponent, drive them left and right on their feet, and get winners or forehands to the nets this way. You have to be offensive.

The closest loss that seemed to be from an opponent's defense, was Nadal when he played Soderling at the French Open last year. He didn't need to use too many forehand winners, or move him around too much, Soderling just kept hitting unforced errors after game after game, and beat himself for the most part that way. So if talk about it in that regards, I think there are a few times, where players win from defense/accuracy.

But for the most part, defense/accuracy, works best in early rounds, but against attacking players like Federer, Verdasco, Gonzalez, Djokovic, or Nadal, you probably won't win from defense/accuracy, you need to attack them. I think Andy Murray has learned his lesson from this.

Wilander had no offensive tennis and he won GS as well as Borg and Vilas

tripwires
11-23-2011, 12:58 PM
offensive tennis attracts kiddish thinkers, virgins and blind lovers as those kinds lack the ability to understand the nuances of the game......

defensive tennis attracts intellectuals, thoughtful personalities and non-virgins......

:haha: :haha: :haha: :worship: :worship: :worship: :hearts: :hearts: :hearts:

I don't think there's much of a point in answering this thread seriously but since I'm bored - offensive tennis is way more interesting to watch. For fans of defensive tennis, I recommend buying DVDs of matches between Murray and Simon. You can't get more defensive than these 2.


only a fool prefers defense to offense....I for example hate when Novak plays defensive ....it is boring and stupid when he is capable to beat anyone playing attacking tennis .......

Totally agree, which is why I've always preferred Federer/Djokovic matches to Federer/Nadal ones.

dodo
11-23-2011, 01:01 PM
Offensive tennis - random results, a couple of lucky wins, a 6-0 set (very animalistic style of play)

Defensive tennis - consistently better results, superior h2h with a few bad losses (very intellectual style of play)

offensive tennis attracts kiddish thinkers, virgins and blind lovers as those kinds lack the ability to understand the nuances of the game......

defensive tennis attracts intellectuals, thoughtful personalities and non-virgins......

i have no words to describe the awesomeness and hilarity of this. you have outdone yourselves even by your already impressive mtf standards. you guys should start a show in Vegas. Sigfried and Roy? Meh. Penn and Teller? Whatever. SdG and RFK? Fuck yes! I would gladly pay to see that clowning.
Godspeed in your future endeavors.

dodo
11-23-2011, 01:07 PM
This sounds like "the Blind Breed" you so exquisitely describe in your posts, Shankar. I personally believe the Fedtards are a lower subspecies of the Blind Breed.

:worship:
i have often wondered about that. i would like to hear more and subscribe to your newsletter. The eloquence with which it is often alluded to is indeed striking. Shakespeare is high-fiving SdG from the grave.

I was angry and irrational yesterday after Rafa lost this match, mostly due to Fedtard gloating...but now I can see how trite and pathetic their boasting of the "What the Frigg" tournament really is. Thanks to you and RFK for putting the wretched display from the Blind Breed in the proper perspective.

It is "commonly" referred to as the "world toast finals." Get it right!

Shinoj
11-23-2011, 01:08 PM
Tennis is mainly about Offense. people come to watch offensive play, players taking their chances,going for the shots, hitting the more riskier shot, showing more courage.

And these defensive blokes just wait for an error from the opponent. Deep inside they know they are not good enough to win the play by their shots. And plug away on an opponent waiting for his mistakes

Thats why It kills me seeing an defensive player succeed right throughout. From the likes Sergi Bruguera,Thomas Muster,Lleyton Hewitt, and now Rafael Nadal. They drive me away from the game. I cant watch them succeed. I know i have a problem with that. But thats the way it is.

Even in my personal life i play with all my guts just to defeat a defensive guy in any game. I just hate that

Sophocles
11-23-2011, 01:38 PM
This has to be the most pointless & intellectually low-grade thread in the history of MTF.

V.H.
11-23-2011, 01:49 PM
I'd say that defensive players are more intelligent than offensive, it seems. But still it's more intelligent to choose an offensive play style.

Sunset of Age
11-23-2011, 02:19 PM
:spit: Some of the Notorious Tard Brigade are taking yesterday's loss pretty hard it appears. How about taking it like a MAN, like Rafa does himself?

Beat
11-23-2011, 02:48 PM
:spit: Some of the Notorious Tard Brigade are taking yesterday's loss pretty hard it appears. How about taking it like a MAN, like Rafa does himself?

this! the question of the very silly OP doesn't even make any sense.

Matt01
11-23-2011, 04:41 PM
This has to be the most pointless & intellectually low-grade thread in the history of MTF.


Oh no, trust me: This isn't even RFK's best work :bowdown:

Start da Game
11-23-2011, 04:46 PM
This sounds like "the Blind Breed" you so exquisitely describe in your posts, Shankar. I personally believe the Fedtards are a lower subspecies of the Blind Breed.



This. :worship:

I was angry and irrational yesterday after Rafa lost this match, mostly due to Fedtard gloating...but now I can see how trite and pathetic their boasting of the "What the Frigg" tournament really is. Thanks to you and RFK for putting the wretched display from the Blind Breed in the proper perspective.

I still want revenge, but maybe it is more practical that Rafa start focusing on the Davis Cup Final played on a REAL surface. This event sucks! :mad: They need to move it to somewhere warm and outdoors.

concurred line by line, word by word......great post......revenge comes against djokovic 2.0 in 2012......let the old man have a few wins at these indoor events which no one really cares in the longer run......

Roger the Dodger
11-23-2011, 04:54 PM
Tennis is mainly about Offense. people come to watch offensive play, players taking their chances,going for the shots, hitting the more riskier shot, showing more courage.

And these defensive blokes just wait for an error from the opponent. Deep inside they know they are not good enough to win the play by their shots. And plug away on an opponent waiting for his mistakes

Thats why It kills me seeing an defensive player succeed right throughout. From the likes Sergi Bruguera,Thomas Muster,Lleyton Hewitt, and now Rafael Nadal. They drive me away from the game. I cant watch them succeed. I know i have a problem with that. But thats the way it is.

Even in my personal life i play with all my guts just to defeat a defensive guy in any game. I just hate that

But Defence too, can be an art. But comparing Nadal to even Hewitt or Murray isn't right. Because Nadal is a step below defence. He's a moonballer. Hewitt and Murray for instance can hit the ball hard and choose to do so. Nadal moonballs because of lack of weapons.

Start da Game
11-23-2011, 05:03 PM
Wilander had no offensive tennis and he won GS as well as Borg and Vilas

exactly......wilander had almost zero offense, he could assert himself on the opponent a little when needed but that's about it......look what he has: 7 slams......borg too, just sheer endurance from the back with moderate amount of attacking ability......vilas used to attack on grass......

the only exception in the open era was sampras, he was one of a kind so let's leave him out of this discussion......

unless the surface is grass, offensive tennis does not beat defensive tennis......thoughtless blind offense never yielded anything productive......gonzalez ripped some of the fastest forehands in australian open 2007, but that was not what he needed that day against his cunning opponent......the situation that day begged for some defensive application from the back which gonzo clearly lacked......

those who base their game on defense and top it up with attack are the ones who take slams today......

Start da Game
11-23-2011, 05:08 PM
take a look at this video and marvel at these two chess players......

44EJZ-qUwgs

MaxPower
11-23-2011, 05:09 PM
Love that the thread has "Intelligence" in the title. This thread could be used to explain irony to kids.

DrJules
11-23-2011, 05:33 PM
exactly......wilander had almost zero offense, he could assert himself on the opponent a little when needed but that's about it......look what he has: 7 slams......borg too, just sheer endurance from the back with moderate amount of attacking ability......vilas used to attack on grass......

the only exception in the open era was sampras, he was one of a kind so let's leave him out of this discussion......

unless the surface is grass, offensive tennis does not beat defensive tennis......thoughtless blind offense never yielded anything productive......gonzalez ripped some of the fastest forehands in australian open 2007, but that was not what he needed that day against his cunning opponent......the situation that day begged for some defensive application from the back which gonzo clearly lacked......

those who base their game on defense and top it up with attack are the ones who take slams today......

Wilander used serve and volley effectively to beat McEnroe and Lendl on grass to win the AO and to beat Lendl to win the US Open. His attack was effective enough to win a Wimbledon doubles title when serve and volley was necessary.

Borg used serve and volley on most first serve points in the Wimbledon 1980 and 1981 finals against McEnroe.

Both Wilander and Borg could effectively attack and could like Federer be considered all court players able to utilise attack and defense, and use both the backcourt and forecourt.

Start da Game
11-23-2011, 05:37 PM
Wilander used serve and volley effectively to beat McEnroe and Lendl on grass to win the AO and to beat Lendl to win the US Open. His attack was effective enough to win a Wimbledon doubles title when serve and volley was necessary.

Borg used serve and volley on most first serve points in the Wimbledon 1980 and 1981 finals against McEnroe.

Both Wilander and Borg could effectively attack and could like Federer be considered all court players able to utilise attack and defense, and use both the backcourt and forecourt.

wilander and borg were often ugly net closers but you are right, they could be effective sometimes in the fore court......their basic strength was defense though......

Shinoj
11-23-2011, 05:49 PM
But Defence too, can be an art. But comparing Nadal to even Hewitt or Murray isn't right. Because Nadal is a step below defence. He's a moonballer. Hewitt and Murray for instance can hit the ball hard and choose to do so. Nadal moonballs because of lack of weapons.

Defence can be an art But it becomes too tacky,too boring, to cumbersome after a point. You can appreciate it till a point but after that if you are really honest to yourself you will dilike it.

And Nadal is player made in Gym and is not a Natural tennis player but rather born out of desire of Uncle Toni. Toni noticed that being a leftie would be an advantage. He made him leftie. He saw hitting deep defensive topspins puts a lot of pressure on the opponent, he got it imbibed in Nadal, He saw nadal really doesnt have a Natural weapon of his own, he made him bulk up and made him a physical monster. Nadal is total effort and grit and not a ounce of Natual talent is there in Nadal.

And regarding Murray i agree with you, he can be a monster if he wants to.

Sonja1989
11-23-2011, 06:02 PM
Offensive or defensive... Weird angle of comparison. I don't think it would have anything to do with intelligence.

dodo
11-23-2011, 06:21 PM
the only exception in the open era was sampras, he was one of a kind so let's leave him out of this discussion......


so why exactly isnt sampras a blind breed virgin kid?

Fedex
11-23-2011, 08:38 PM
:spit: Some of the Notorious Tard Brigade are taking yesterday's loss pretty hard it appears. How about taking it like a MAN, like Rafa does himself?

Touche.

Forehander
11-23-2011, 09:19 PM
Monfils doesn't use his brain offcourt either.

:lol:

fast_clay
11-24-2011, 01:05 AM
This has to be the most pointless & intellectually low-grade thread in the history of MTF.

i started reading... was pretty bored after the first few pages... after the page 6 i could feel something touching my arm but it wasnt until i was thru page 7 that i realised that i was taking to my arm with a razor blade...

amazing how a few pages of mtf dumbs you down like a 24 hour session of fox news...

madmax
11-24-2011, 01:12 AM
Defence can be an art But it becomes too tacky,too boring, to cumbersome after a point. You can appreciate it till a point but after that if you are really honest to yourself you will dilike it.

And Nadal is player made in Gym and is not a Natural tennis player but rather born out of desire of Uncle Toni. Toni noticed that being a leftie would be an advantage. He made him leftie. He saw hitting deep defensive topspins puts a lot of pressure on the opponent, he got it imbibed in Nadal, He saw nadal really doesnt have a Natural weapon of his own, he made him bulk up and made him a physical monster. Nadal is total effort and grit and not a ounce of Natual talent is there in Nadal.

And regarding Murray i agree with you, he can be a monster if he wants to.

:worship:
You are the best damn poster here...preach dat ray of truth to the blind sheep of defensive dullness

Shinoj
11-24-2011, 07:11 AM
take a look at this video and marvel at these two chess players......

44EJZ-qUwgs


Even Simon was more aggresive in that match than Nadal. :wavey:

Start da Game
11-27-2011, 05:35 PM
Even Simon was more aggresive in that match than Nadal. :wavey:

and guess who won that match......it's not that nadal cannot be aggressive, it's just that defense wins you big titles, offense is only a utility tool in modern day tennis......you can get on the offense only after you have created the base with your defense......blind attack leads you nowhere......

for more details just watch the ongoing clownga show to know more about it......clownga's defense is just useless.......it does not matter even if you rip 20 winners and 10 aces in a best of 3 sets match, what matters ultimately is your defense......

Clay Death
11-27-2011, 05:49 PM
and what matters the most at the end of the day is the big W.

a win is all that matters. because a match by match, you accumulate slams.

they are all different. each his own unique style and they all--on the average---do the best they can.

Start da Game
11-27-2011, 06:25 PM
and what matters the most at the end of the day is the big W.

a win is all that matters. because a match by match, you accumulate slams.

they are all different. each his own unique style and they all--on the average---do the best they can.

concurred...

Clay Death
11-27-2011, 06:26 PM
affirmative.

Fedex
11-27-2011, 07:20 PM
In general, great offensive tennis beats great defensive tennis. All you need to look at is the top 10 players in the history of the sport. The vast majority of them played first strike, aggressive tennis. Nadal and Borg, I think, are the only guys in that group, to do it with primarily defense, and Borg did change it up at Wimbledon with a lot of aggressive, serve and volley tennis.

dodo
11-27-2011, 07:23 PM
still waiting for an explanation on why sampras in particular is exempt from the classification of a virgin and blind animal ballbasher.