Mens Tennis Forums banner

Being aggressive doesnt necessarily mean hitting more winners than your rival

2K views 35 replies 32 participants last post by  ogbg 
#1 · (Edited)
Many times I've seen on this forum people saying that player X was aggressive during a match because he hit more winners than player Y. I hold the view that this is a very simplistic logic, devoid of any real analysis, usually used by tards who don't understand the game.

Allow me to explain: While it is evidently usually the case that the more aggressive players make more winners, it's in some instances not the case at all. Especially not in today's era where the courts are slow allowing for long rallies. For example, let's imagine a defensive oriented player like Nadal or Djokovic. Both are able to sustain long rallies with consistency and both are able to counter-punch effectively. Thus, when they face a relatively offensive player, they are able to respond and cope well to a high amount of their offensive shots until they find a relative open place to pass him, especially if such "relatively offensive player" is aggressive enough to go to the net (in point of fact, adopting an aggressive stance like trying to volley a lot in today's conditions against those players could mean facing a lot of winners coming at you, in spite of your aggressive strategy!).

In conclusion, while the more aggressive player usually makes more winners, one can adopt a defensive stance (grind and counterpunch) and hit more winners than an offensive rival who likes to set the pace and aggression. It is for this reason that it is wrong to conclude that player X was more aggressive merely because he hit more winners.

Discuss.
 
See less See more
#2 ·
Bemusing thread really.
 
#5 ·
Federer could hit a forehand shot that would be a winner onany medium fast
Court

Nole runs it down on sandpaper slow hard court

Eventually all of Federers aggression causes an error from roger

Or fed follows in a clean shot. Nole passes him

In this way Federer has been 100% aggressive
Nole has pushed all match
But nole ends up with more winners
 
  • Like
Reactions: viruzzz
#9 ·
slow grass. slow hard court. all slow surface.

what great era.

.
 
#11 ·
i understand now why intifada failed .
 
#14 ·
I didn't read a damn thing, but I actually agree.

It amazes me when people immediately refer to the stats sheet as an attempt to say "x is not aggressive" or "does not play aggressively".

Playing with aggressive intent and actually acquiring winners are not inseparable. This is especially true in today's game, wherein many players employ a marginal offense. That is to say, they can hit heavier balls, advance their positioning, or proactively move the ball around the court to dictate play without actually redlining it.

Guys like Djokovic, Del Potro, Nadal, and Roddick (when he chose to play aggressively in recent years) come to mind for varying reasons.
 
#17 ·
No one can hope to be successful just attacking blindly, not preparing the "ground" properly before the attack.
Also, I believe that nobody in the right mind cannot say anymore that a return is not an aggressive shot (performed by a skillful player, of course).
 
#20 ·
Many times I've seen on this forum people saying that player X was aggressive during a match because he hit more winners than player Y. I hold the view that this is a very simplistic logic, devoid of any real analysis, usually used by tards who don't understand the game.
Gasquet is probably the best example for your point. He can post large winner counts, with winners 2x errors, while camped on the back fence all match.
 
#28 ·
yup, its like with trying to judge who's the better server purely on ace count

the amount of winners you get depend on who's on the other side of the court, if that player is a much better defender than you are, its obvious that they're going to have a much easier job getting a winner than you are
 
#30 ·
I mean no offense OP but this is just an obvious observation. not surprisingly there are plenty of matches where the defensive player ends up with more winners just based on their opponent being out of shape / less physical / not getting to balls. but the reality is that if we make a general 'to be expected' rule, the aggressive player will hit more winners AS WELL as more unforced errors. there are exceptions clearly but obviously if a fit aggressive player is moving around the court well he's going to be going for his shots and either hitting winners or unforced errors so generally they do hit more winners than the defender. the defender his likely to have a low # of BOTH UE's AND winners because they're really leaving it to the aggressive opponent to dictate play, with the hope and objective that the aggressive opponent will be forced to hit errors rather than winners

it's certainly an observation OP, and not a surprising one that this happens sometimes. I will mention that sometimes players surprise me, for example last night Federer Vs. Murray, typically we think of Roger as more of an agressive player yet Andy was indeed playing much more attacking tennis than he typically does
 
#32 ·
TL;DR version:

Nadal, Djokovic, and their ilk are disgusting defensive pieces of shit and anyone who has ever had the gall to suggest otherwise by pointing to the stat sheet are drooling simpletons who know nothing about tennis or logic.

TL;DR version II:

My butt hurts.
 
#33 ·
is this another thread devoted to somehow giving fed fans a false sense of entitlement that their god is still the best player in the world, just because they think he is the most aggressive player? i feel like it is..
 
#34 ·
I think it's important to take forced errors into account.

In my opinion, they are just as valid to count as winners.

If you have a player who lacks firepower, but can still force errors, he should be though of as offensive.
A player who forces 50 forced errors in a match should be viewed as more offensive than somebody who makes 25 winners.

I also agree with the OP. You see this especially when a match has a serve&volley player on one side of the net. He is by definition the more offensive player, but will end up with less winners as he is passed numerous times. I imagine a match like Stepanek vs. Djokovic would result in many more winners for Djokovic despite him being the far more defensive player.
 
#35 ·
Fed fans have to accept that winning
17 slams with a bunch of brainwashed, weak or injured pigeons that drool at your feet is not the same as punishing these same pigeons and crushing 3 of the best 20 players of all time. Not just 15-20 average matches, but 30+ wins per opponent in 15 years.
 
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