(:>Who are the Top-5 Greatest pure COUNTER PUNCHERS of the Open Era??*** [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

(:>Who are the Top-5 Greatest pure COUNTER PUNCHERS of the Open Era??***

CmonAussie
03-07-2007, 06:07 AM
:wavey:
So who are the greatest pure counterpunchers of all time:confused:

>>
My vote goes to:

1. Jimmy Connors
2. Mats Wilander
3. Lleyton Hewitt
4. Rafael Nadal
5. Michael Chang

[Obviously Hewitt & Nadal still have time to improve on their records:cool: ]..


BTW,~i don`t consider Borg to be a pure counter puncher, since he was able to dictate play most of the time, what do you guys/gals think:confused:



Jimmy Connors: 105 (Queens, Columbus, Cincinnati, Albany, Jacksonville 72; Baltimore, Roanoke, Salt Lake City, Salisbury, Hampton, Paramus,, Boston, Columbus, L.A., Quebec, Johannesburg 73; Australian Open, Roanoke, Little Rock, Birmingham, Salisbury, Hampton, Salt Lake City, Tempe, Wimbledon, Indianapolis, US Open, L.A., London, Johannesburg 74; Bahamas, Birmingham, Salisbury, Boca Raton, Hampton, Denver WCT, North Conway, Bermuda, Maui 75; Birmingham, Philadelphia WCT, Hampton, Palm Springs, Denver WCT, Las Vegas, Washington, North Conway, Indianapolis, US Open, Cologne, Wembley 76; Birmingham WCT, St. Louis WCT, Las Vegas, Dallas WCT, Maui, Sydney Indoor, Masters 77; Philadelphia WCT, Denver, Memphis, Rotterdam WTC, Birmingham, Washington, Indianapolis, Stowe, US Open, Sydney Indoor 78; Birmingham, Philadelphia, Memphis, Tulsa, Indianapolis, Stowe, Hong Kong 79; Birmingham, Philadelphia, Dallas WCT, North Conway, Republic Of China, Tokyo Indoor 80; La Quinta, Brussels, Rotterdam, Wembley 81; Monterrey, L.A., Las Vegas, Queens, Wimbledon, Columbus, US Open 82; Memphis, Las Vegas, Queens, US Open 83; Memphis, La Quinta, Boca West, L.A., Tokyo Indoor 84; Washington, Toulouse 88; Toulouse, Tel Aviv 89)


Mats Wilander: 33 (Roland Garros, Bastad, Geneva, Barcelona 82; Monte Carlo, Lisbon, Aix-en-Provence, Bastad, Cincinnati, Geneva, Barcelona, Stockholm, Australian Open 83; Cincinnati, Barcelona, Australian Open 84; Roland Garros, Boston, Bastad 85; Brussels, Cincinnati 86; Brussels, Monte Carlo, Rome, Boston, Indianapolis 87; Australian Open, Key Biscayne, Roland Garros, Cincinnati, US Open, Palermo 88; Itaparica 90)


Lleyton Hewitt: 26 (Adelaide 98; Delray Beach 99; Adelaide, Sydney, Scottsdale, Queens 00; Sydney, Queens, 's-Hertogenbosch, US Open, Tokyo, Tennis Masters Cup 01; San Jose, TMS Indian Wells, Queens, Wimbledon, Tennis Masters Cup 02; Scottsdale, TMS Indian Wells 03; Sydney, Rotterdam, Washington, Long Island 04; Sydney 05; Queens 06; Las Vegas 07)


Rafael Nadal: 17 (Sopot 04; Costa do Sauipe, Acapulco, TMS Monte Carlo, Barcelona, TMS Rome, Roland Garros, Bastad, Stuttgart, TMS Montreal, Beijing, TMS Madrid 05; Dubai, TMS Monte Carlo, Barcelona, TMS Rome, Roland Garros 06)


Michael Chang: 34 (San Francisco 88; Roland Garros, Wembley 89; Toronto 90; Birmingham 91; San Francisco, Indian Wells, Key Biscayne 92; Jakarta, Osaka, Cincinnati, Kuala Lumpur, Beijing 93; Jakarta, Philadelphia, Hong Kong, Atlanta, Cincinnati, Beijing 94; Hong Kong, Atlanta, Tokyo Indoor, Beijing 95; Indian Wells, Washington, L.A. 96; Memphis, Indian Wells, Hong Kong, Orlando, Washington 97; Boston, Shanghai 98; L.A. 00)

Action Jackson
03-07-2007, 06:08 AM
Just an excuse to talk about Hewitt again.

CmonAussie
03-07-2007, 06:12 AM
Just an excuse to talk about Hewitt again.


:confused:
George,~if you`re going to take the time to respond to my thread why don`t you atleast give an opinion???
...
So if you don`t mind Sir;)
>>
Who are the greatest pure counter punchers of the Open Era:confused:


PS. I thought you would be happy with this thread since I put your man Wilander at #2 on the all-time list:devil:

Action Jackson
03-07-2007, 06:22 AM
:confused:
George,~if you`re going to take the time to respond to my thread why don`t you atleast give an opinion???
...
So if you don`t mind Sir;)
>>
Who are the greatest pure counter punchers of the Open Era:confused:


PS. I thought you would be happy with this thread since I put your man Wilander at #2 on the all-time list:devil:

Everything you post is somehow related to Hewitt, hence the comment. Actually Borg was a mixture of both, so he'd be at 1 and while Connors won more titles, Wilander won more Slams on differing surfaces.

R.Federer
03-07-2007, 06:26 AM
^^>> & COME ON, AUSSIE. ~!!!!**><


I am your fan, but you are teetering on the brink now. Hewitt is a great player, yes we know and we agree. This is becoming a thread a day!

CmonAussie
03-07-2007, 06:34 AM
^^>> & COME ON, AUSSIE. ~!!!!**><


I am your fan, but you are teetering on the brink now. Hewitt is a great player, yes we know and we agree. This is becoming a thread a day!


:wavey:
Option A:-> post my thoughts on MTF:cool:
Option B:-> end up in the nut house with Britney Spears:eek:
...
I chose option A;)

CmonAussie
03-07-2007, 06:36 AM
Everything you post is somehow related to Hewitt, hence the comment. Actually Borg was a mixture of both, so he'd be at 1 and while Connors won more titles, Wilander won more Slams on differing surfaces.


Exactly what I was trying to say;) ~that Borg`s a "mixture of both", therefore by definition he can`t be a `pure counter puncher`!!!

That`s why I put Connors at #1..

Do you agree with the other guys on my list:confused:

Kolya
03-07-2007, 06:43 AM
Would Kolya be classified as a counter puncher? I'm not sure...

Just a question.

Mimi
03-07-2007, 06:44 AM
its unbelievable that connors won more than 100 titiles :eek: :worship:

Action Jackson
03-07-2007, 06:50 AM
Would Kolya be classified as a counter puncher? I'm not sure...

Just a question.

No, he wouldn't be. Look at the way he times the ball when he is playing well, that's not counterpunching.

Rosa Luxembourg
03-07-2007, 06:52 AM
Kafelnikov definitely should be higher than Chang imo.

Action Jackson
03-07-2007, 06:52 AM
Exactly what I was trying to say;) ~that Borg`s a "mixture of both", therefore by definition he can`t be a `pure counter puncher`!!!

That`s why I put Connors at #1..

Do you agree with the other guys on my list:confused:

I'd actually have Wilander higher than Connors, but he developed a lot more variation in his game than Connors could ever dream of, but Jimbo had other strengths.

There are too many grey areas in the term counterpuncher, at least you are not calling Canas a journeyman this time around.

stebs
03-07-2007, 07:54 AM
No, he wouldn't be. Look at the way he times the ball when he is playing well, that's not counterpunching.

Interesting, I actually disagree. I would certainly say that Kolya is a counterpuncher. Of course he controls some rallies, there isn't any player who doesn't. The one thing that sticks out about Kolya are those points where he is pushed around and then strikes a winner out of nowhere. I agree that he is less of a counterpuncher than some on cmonaussie's list.

Dougie
03-07-2007, 08:13 AM
Agassi, maybe..? But what the hell is Chang doing on that list!?:confused:

Merton
03-07-2007, 08:18 AM
There can be no such thing as pure counter punchers at this level.

Kolya
03-07-2007, 08:31 AM
^^ I agree with Merton aka GM Lasker

But, those players mention predominantly use the counter puncher style in their game plan though.

CmonAussie
03-07-2007, 09:54 AM
There can be no such thing as pure counter punchers at this level.


:wavey:
No such thing as a "pure counter puncher":confused:

>>> Well I`ve heard plenty of renowned tennis commentators [McEnroe, Newcombe, Stolle, Barret...etc.] use the term `pure counter puncher`;) ~> so why can`t i use it:confused:

...To my mind a `pure counter puncher` is simply a player who very rarely takes control of rallies from the outset, of course they might get the better of their opponent at the end of a rally but this is usually achieved by superior speed & wrong footing their opponent, rather than hitting a clean winner with power;)

Therefore players like Agassi & Borg~ who indeed have many counter punching qualities, are not `pure counter punchers`, because they are able to control the rally from the outset. Especially in Agassi`s case he is often able to control the rally with a return ace, or his 2nd shot following the serve, also he takes the ball much earlier than the PURE guys like Chang/Hewitt/Nadal..;)

Kolya
03-07-2007, 10:05 AM
Mecir.

Action Jackson
03-07-2007, 10:13 AM
Mecir.

No, he's not one either.

Jaap
03-07-2007, 10:17 AM
1) Wes Moodie.
2) Chris Guccione.
3) Greg Rusedski
4) Arvind Parmar.
5) Ivo Karlovic.

Kolya
03-07-2007, 10:23 AM
1) Wes Moodie.
2) Chris Guccione.
3) Greg Rusedski
4) Arvind Parmar.
5) Ivo Karlovic.

Joke? lmao.

CmonAussie
03-07-2007, 10:36 AM
1) Wes Moodie.
2) Chris Guccione.
3) Greg Rusedski
4) Arvind Parmar.
5) Ivo Karlovic.


:devil:
You could start your own thread~> my suggestion for the title "The Antithesis of Pure Counter Punchers":p

CmonAussie
03-07-2007, 11:00 AM
#@@#.
...
>>> No wonder Hewitt became a pure counter puncher~~ his hero was Mats Wilander!!!...We tend to mimic our idols!

Check out Hewitt`s interview from mid-2006 [actually Wilander, Edberg & Cash were his favs, with Mats being his main inspiration]:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mz1qfy1GrNE

MisterQ
03-07-2007, 02:38 PM
:wavey:
No such thing as a "pure counter puncher":confused:

>>> Well I`ve heard plenty of renowned tennis commentators [McEnroe, Newcombe, Stolle, Barret...etc.] use the term `pure counter puncher`;) ~> so why can`t i use it:confused:

...To my mind a `pure counter puncher` is simply a player who very rarely takes control of rallies from the outset, of course they might get the better of their opponent at the end of a rally but this is usually achieved by superior speed & wrong footing their opponent, rather than hitting a clean winner with power;)

Therefore players like Agassi & Borg~ who indeed have many counter punching qualities, are not `pure counter punchers`, because they are able to control the rally from the outset. Especially in Agassi`s case he is often able to control the rally with a return ace, or his 2nd shot following the serve, also he takes the ball much earlier than the PURE guys like Chang/Hewitt/Nadal..;)

Connors was also known for his great aggressive returns; plus he was decent (though hardly McEnroe-level) at net and could construct points with approach shots. He counterpunched very well... but perhaps he wasn't purely a counterpuncher either.

I agree that pure counterpunchers are rare at the very highest level of tennis. Chang seems close to an example of this, though. :)

CmonAussie
03-07-2007, 03:22 PM
Connors was also known for his great aggressive returns; plus he was decent (though hardly McEnroe-level) at net and could construct points with approach shots. He counterpunched very well... but perhaps he wasn't purely a counterpuncher either.

I agree that pure counterpunchers are rare at the very highest level of tennis. Chang seems close to an example of this, though. :)


:wavey:
Fair point about Connors;)

>>To be honest with you I haven`t seen a lot of Connors play:eek: .. What I know about him is mostly just what i`ve read, from commentators & a few clips on youtube.com;)
...
I began watching tennis in the mid-1980s at Kooyong, & of course Connors couldn`t be bothered showing up to the AO in those days [even though he won it in 74].. The only matches I saw of Connors were during his run to the the SFs at the 1991 USO..

...
Anyway I think it`s fair to say that Chang & Hewitt both epitomise the word `pure counterpuncher`:cool:

Dancing Hero
03-07-2007, 04:14 PM
Aussie, I like your threads. :)

I don't know if I would class Connors as a 'pure counter puncher' either. He was an aggressive player, one of the best returners of serve ever and came to the net as well. An all court player. Borg and Connors are up there definitely, as players I think you mean. Wilander was a very good player, he would be more of a pure counter puncher to my way of thinking. He was better than Hewitt, sorry!

:D

Hendu
03-07-2007, 04:15 PM
Vilas at least deserves a mention.

yonexforever
03-07-2007, 04:46 PM
I guess for folks having problem with the concept of a counter-puncher.. think ghastly PUSHER!!!!
One who would frustrate the hell out of you with no pace, but beat yo brains out!

Myrre
03-07-2007, 05:17 PM
The thread should read; Who is the least boring? My vote goes to Connors, but that 's probably because he doesn't really belong in the counterpuncher category.

delsa
03-07-2007, 08:46 PM
Interesting, I actually disagree. I would certainly say that Kolya is a counterpuncher. Of course he controls some rallies, there isn't any player who doesn't. The one thing that sticks out about Kolya are those points where he is pushed around and then strikes a winner out of nowhere. I agree that he is less of a counterpuncher than some on cmonaussie's list.

For me, he's not a counter-puncher at all. He's a "percentage tennis" player.

Socket
03-07-2007, 08:59 PM
Everything you post is somehow related to Hewitt, hence the comment. Actually Borg was a mixture of both, so he'd be at 1 and while Connors won more titles, Wilander won more Slams on differing surfaces.

So what? Is there a quota he's violated?

TheBoiledEgg
03-07-2007, 09:16 PM
WCT arent even proper titles.

stebs
03-07-2007, 09:17 PM
For me, he's not a counter-puncher at all. He's a "percentage tennis" player.

Well, we must agree to disagree I suppose. He goes for winners on the run very often when he is being pushed from side to side and is very good at making them.

BlakeorHenman
03-08-2007, 06:53 AM
Hewitt's not that great. Seriously.