Cowardly & Brave Tennis

by summerblues Thu Sep 20, 2012 4:01 am

Quite a few of you here use the words like "gutsy" and "brave" in association with attacking tennis and words like "cowardly" in association with defensive tennis.

Why is that? I normally do not think of it that way, but even if I try, it just does not strike me as a correct description. I expect tennis players to try to maximize their chances to win. If they assess that, given all the variables, the most likely way to win is to play defensive tennis, then that is what they should do.

If a player assesses that the most likely way to succeed is to play patient defensive tennis, yet in the match they go for aggressive shotmaking, that does not strike me as "brave" or "gutsy". The words that come to mind are more like "reckless" or even "stupid". Similarly, I do not see why the choice to go the defensive route would be "cowardly" - I just do not see where cowardice comes into it.

So, I have a few questions for those of you who like to employ these adjectives:

First, do you really mean "gutsy", "brave", "cowardly", etc, or is it just a colorful way to say things like "attacking", "defensive", "dull", etc.

Second, if you do actually mean "gutsy", etc, then can you explain why?

by Larry Ellison Thu Sep 20, 2012 8:44 am

Fantastic, and thought provoking article SB Thumbs Up

Will respond when get onto a computer (iPod writing is annoying!)

by noleisthebest Thu Sep 20, 2012 9:10 am

SB comes out of hybernation!!!!

good question and worthy of a meaty discussion!

I'm just on my first espresso, so may come across as tamer than usual....which is not all that bad for the opening gambit!

Well, gutsy....I do like it, very much! Going forward in tennis esp when playing ins infinitely more thrilling and enjoyable then pacing the base-line, although with the playing conditions that have enabled a less risky ball-striking, players actually have a choice now to stay back and be moderately aggressive from the centre of baseline.
I am only human so I can't do it.

So, I won't beat about the bush and will take my favourite player, Novak Djokovic as a prime example.
I actually do think that he often chooses not to attack when he could and that could be a show of "cowardice" as he knows it will be safer to throw an extra 2-3 shots and set up for a winner. why rush forward and be passed!
He definitely has the skills to play a more attacking game, his serve is back, and I know his team and him are working on that transition in his game, more like he used to play when he started the pro tour.

As you say, other players don't have the option to go forward as their serve or forehand don't allow them the confidence to be gutsy and attack. After all, they are in it for the money, not fun like when we play.

Other players may not have good enough groundstrokes or fitness to be able to be comfortable rallying consistently, esp those from American school of tennis. Their emphasis is on the serve rather than footwork.

Anyway, I'll come up with more stuff as the caffeine takes effect, this is enough for now tennis - Cowardly & Brave Tennis 1071211947

tennis - Cowardly & Brave Tennis 1071211947

by noleisthebest Thu Sep 20, 2012 11:47 am

summerblues wrote:

If a player assesses that the most likely way to succeed is to play patient defensive tennis, yet in the match they go for aggressive shotmaking, that does not strike me as "brave" or "gutsy". The words that come to mind are more like "reckless" or even "stupid".

The word Federer uses is "crazy" for his own shots, or "lucky" for Nole's. Bottom line is, they are the shots someone who is a coward does not play.
You can dress it up any way you like it, but ....

To call them "stupid" to me is a lot more offensive than to call them "cowardly", just like in ordinary life, people (and those are in a very very tiny minority) do take risks.
Players do it quite often, but we only remember the ones that have worked.

The nature of tennis, and just about any ball sport, is to attack. Those who chose to sit back and wait on the opponents mistake to win can't be seen as brave, can they?

You now what good old Delboy says, don't you tennis - Cowardly & Brave Tennis 1071211947

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L89sftCIqoM

by Tenez Thu Sep 20, 2012 2:06 pm

Interesting thread but I suspect SB knows the answers to his questions at least why the words gutsy or gutless come into effect and almost always, appropriately so.

No time for my reply now....hopefully later....

by Larry Ellison Thu Sep 20, 2012 2:30 pm

This is a very difficult topic to discuss, as there could be many interpretations.

Here's my take:

I think to examine this we have to look at this example (not based on any particular player):

1/ Let's say a guy is 6"6.

His movement is poor, so he can get exposed in longer rallies.

He has the power in his arms, but he doesn't have the precision to be able to build a point up.

So what does he do?

He blasts it, that's what he does. Every ball he hits he tries to hit for a winner, he has no other option. He doesn't trust himself in a rally, he can't construct a point, so he just goes for it each time.

Luckily for him he has the height to be able to take the ball on the rise and give it a good thump.

Nearly all matches will end up with him having it more winners than his opponent, but also more unforced errors.

Is he really brave? Is trying to end the point as soon as possible that courageous?

Now I am not comparing him to anyone in the tennis circuit, making this into a player vs player debate is futile and not the point. But I don't think he's that brave at all.

by Larry Ellison Thu Sep 20, 2012 2:39 pm

Now this is a parralel which is a bit similar to the topic, but a different aspect:

1/ 20/20 cricket vs test cricket

In 20/20 cricket there is a possible quote of 20 overs, while so such quote is present in test cricket. Let's take two people:

A 20/20 batting specialist, and a test cricket specialist.

As 20/20 batting specialists will be all about 'taking risks.' He will normally will be a powerful guy, who can hit the ball a few 100 yards on a regular occasion. Such is 2020 cricket that boundaries are crucial, and wickets are not as valuable as in tests.

So a batsmen specialising in 20/20 will, from the start, try to smash the ball. Clear out and heave it. Doesn't matter if you get out, runs are more important than wickets. So it's very risky, trying to slog the ball can leave you vulnerable to being bowled out, or being caught. But it doesn't matter if you get out, the next guy will come in and do the same thing. Even if you get a few boundaries and get out it's not the end of the world for your team.

So, a care-free risk taking style. Is that brave?

Compare this to a test specialist, like Rahul Dravid. He has a sensational defence, and will put away any bad deliveries. He has tremendous focus and determination, and will do everything he can to make sure he stays in. He puts a price on his wicket, and believes in himself to stay for long periods and gradually accumulate runs.

Who is braver? the 20/20 specialist, or the test specialist?

by noleisthebest Thu Sep 20, 2012 3:28 pm

Amri,

I don't follow cricket at all, and don't have a clue what you are talking about, can't you find an example in tennis?

by Larry Ellison Thu Sep 20, 2012 4:01 pm

I did, with the 6'6 guy!

Check my post at 2:30 PM.

by Tenez Thu Sep 20, 2012 4:15 pm

In short the answer is: Either one is gutsier/talented/has weapons/unfit or is (more) corward/less-talented/weaponless/fit.

That is the abrupt truth.

If you have weapons or you are eye/hand-coord talented but you do not use either then you are a coward.

If you re not relatively talented and have no weapon then you may not be a coward and use what you have (essentially fitness) at best as SB suggests.

There woudl be many examples to explain this but the best way in my view is to take a shot and decline it with examples. Let's take the serve and for clarity purpose let's not distinguish betwen 1st and 2nd serve though both would work as well.

I cannot imagine that someone able to pull an ace at will on his serve would not want to try to go for it. So why are some pulling more aces than others?

1 - talent/technique: allowing for great timing, precision, etc..

2 - weapons : power, heighth for instance.

Though it;s often a combination of both, it's fair to say that some are helped more by their talent and others by their physique.

Those having neither are usually less good at serving (less talented), take less risk and prefer to engage in rallies cause this is where their real strength is. Can we call this coward ? no but then we can say they have less weapon or less talent.

Nadal for instance has power but he uses his power to spin the ball and maximises his chance to put the serve in but he doesn;t use his power to pull aces cause he has not the talent get a good timing and precision. Sure he has his good patches but they are very erratic compared to a Federer or a Roddick.

Though I chose the serve, it applies for all shots in fact. Let's take teh FH for instance, Nadal is said to have a very good FH but his ratio winners per FHs must be one of the lowest. He as the power certainly but do not use his power to pull a winner though we know he can. Either he is not confident enough in his skills to pull more FH winners, which coudl be seen as either not talented or cowardly or he simply prefers to use his fitness to make the difference as the match progresses but that to me is cowardly cause it means he doesn;t want to take the risk to win the match quicker, which of course woudl be in his interest. He probably coudl finish teh match quicker but there is a risk element in it (down to form of the day/execution) that scares him.

I am of course using Federer and Nadal here as they are 2 good extremes to explain the points.

by Larry Ellison Thu Sep 20, 2012 5:11 pm

Players play how they like, with an aim to win. It's a professional sport.
Anyway, without making this a full scale Fedal debate, Tenez have you seen my 2 examples I used earlier (cricket and the 6'6 guy).

What did you think as an answer to my questions?
I would have used Fedal as an example, but I don't want to as I know people will get their emotions into it, and then things get sidetracked (i.e. I am a Nadal fan, and there are many Federer fans here Winking

)

by Tenez Thu Sep 20, 2012 5:28 pm

Yes. Your example fits in my generalisation. The tall guy has no choice but to finish the point rapidly and uses his power for that. He cannot affoard to be moved around and therefore has to take a risk. Depending on the surface and on who he plays that risk is either "stupid" on slow surfaces (though not a choice really) or gutsy.

It's very simple but it almost always come done to talent/weapons/guts v stamina/gutless. Like a football match with defensive v attacking teams.

by Larry Ellison Thu Sep 20, 2012 5:30 pm

So is that tall guy 'brave' for doing that?
Edit: The guy is either brave or cowardly for that game-plan and strategy. In my eyes success rate does make him 'more brave' or 'less brave.'

by Tenez Thu Sep 20, 2012 5:41 pm

Success rate makes him more or less talented but not brave or less brave. Though if he is composed (braver) his execution and success will improve.

But in any case, he is not a banker waiting for the end of month secure rvenue on interest rates like someone banking on stamina would do.

by Larry Ellison Thu Sep 20, 2012 5:44 pm

So is he brave or not?
Je ne peux pas comprendre Winking

First you say success rate doesn't affect whether he is brave, but then you say if he is braver then his execution and success will improve??

by Tenez Thu Sep 20, 2012 5:47 pm

The tall guy has no choice but to be brave and try his luck.

Yes cause everything is linked to some extend as you noted yourself in your thread.

But what is important to outline here is that some are more so than others.

by Larry Ellison Thu Sep 20, 2012 6:18 pm

See, that's where we differ Tenez.
I don't think the guy is brave. Not at all in-fact.

It may be risky play, but that doesn't necessarily mean it takes courage to do that.

by noleisthebest Thu Sep 20, 2012 6:24 pm

Amritia3ee wrote:See, that's where we differ Tenez.
I don't think the guy is brave. Not at all in-fact.

It may be risky play, but that doesn't necessarily mean it takes courage to do that.

Next time you serve, try and go for an ace. And then again. And again. And again. Even after you've been given 11 foot faults. And after the guy returns it at your feet.

by Larry Ellison Thu Sep 20, 2012 6:27 pm

noleisthebest wrote:
Amritia3ee wrote:See, that's where we differ Tenez.
I don't think the guy is brave. Not at all in-fact.

It may be risky play, but that doesn't necessarily mean it takes courage to do that.

Next time you serve, try and go for an ace. And then again. And again. And again. Even after you've been given 11 foot faults. And after the guy returns it at your feet.

I'm not talking about Karlovic.
He actually uses a slice etc. so my model doesn't fit with him exactly (although similar!).

My story was a hypothetical- not based on anyone in real life. Winking

Anyway we know Karlovic is very tall- so it's not very difficult for him to get many aces. How does that make him brave? Even going for aces (at his height and with his huge serve) I would put down to common sense rather than huge courage.

by noleisthebest Thu Sep 20, 2012 6:36 pm

Amritia3ee wrote:

Next time you serve, try and go for an ace. And then again. And again. And again. Even after you've been given 11 foot faults. And after the guy returns it at your feet.

Tune into Mahut Monfils match and tell me who's being gutsy and why there, you'll enjoy it!

by Larry Ellison Thu Sep 20, 2012 6:39 pm

NITB, your quoting has gone a bit weird! Yikes

OK I will watch Monfils Mahut now.

by raiders_of_the_lost_ark Thu Sep 20, 2012 6:50 pm

Hitting the lines, going for aces, coming to the nets ... all involve elements of risk which is far greater than staying back 4m running and retrieving and getting more and more balls in play. It can lead to loss of severe concentration, confidence and cause utter frustration due to its high risk involved which can back fire badly. But if one still goes for it, it definitely brave.

This will be clear to anyone who understands the meaning of risk.

by Larry Ellison Thu Sep 20, 2012 7:02 pm

Playing risky shots and 'going for it' in a care-free manner doesn't necessarily take courage.

by noleisthebest Thu Sep 20, 2012 7:06 pm

So what did you make of Monf Mahut match, then?

by Larry Ellison Thu Sep 20, 2012 7:12 pm

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:It can lead to loss of severe concentration, confidence and cause utter frustration due to its high risk involved which can back fire badly. But if one still goes for it, it definitely brave.

You could just keep on going for the lines in the hope that you get it in, whatever position you are in. It's not as demoralising as you know that match is still possible in your hands- if you continue to go it, you could hit a patch and then come back into the patch.
On the other hand if you play the ball without any depth and not close to the line, your opponent could start pulling you from side to side which would be truly demoralising.

Once again, risky play does not necessarily take courage. Look at my 20/20 vs Test example. A batsman could come in without a care in the world, and in 20/20 every time try to slog it for 6, knowing well it could be risky as he could get a leading edge or be bowled out. However in 20/20 getting out does not mean it is the end of the world as your team. He plays risky + carefree, but does it take courage?
Same as my example with Karlovic hitting aces. He is very tall and has a giant serve. He may go for aces on his serve, but is this brave? Surely it's just common sense that at his height he goes for aces.

by Larry Ellison Thu Sep 20, 2012 7:14 pm

noleisthebest wrote:So what did you make of Monf Mahut match, then?

I could only watch the last bit, sorry, did not get to watch much. Watched Monfils from 5-5 in the 2nd set, his groundstrokes (from what I saw) are still much higher quality then Mahut, and he looks surprisingly good for someone who has come back from months out with injury.

by laverfan Thu Sep 20, 2012 10:16 pm

Defense and offense are equal and neither is less gutsy. It takes the same courage and effort and mental strength to defend as it does to attack.

Beauty and grace are fairly subjective. Top echelons, despite different styles, all construct a point very well.

Finishing a point with a well placed shot which elicits a forced error or the inability to return a well placed shot (aka a winner) require the same effort.

A rally or not, a well constructed point is just that. It can take 3 shots or 30.

There is no such thing as 'cowardly' tennis in my books. Winking

The word 'cowardly' is used by fans who see their favourite losing because the player across the net can play and defend their territory, whether on the baseline, the net or 3 meters behind the baseline.

There are many examples, but any example leads to my-player-is-bigger-than-yours discussions and I will refrain from naming any specific player.

by noleisthebest Thu Sep 20, 2012 10:30 pm

laverfan wrote:
Beauty and grace are fairly subjective. .

no they are not. It's just that some people aren't gutsy enough to call ugly- ugly! Just when they line up all those obese women and they kid each other how beautiful they are....

by Larry Ellison Thu Sep 20, 2012 10:51 pm

noleisthebest wrote:
laverfan wrote:
Beauty and grace are fairly subjective. .
no they are not. It's just that some people aren't gutsy enough to call ugly- ugly! Just when they line up all those obese women and they kid each other how beautiful they are....

That's possibly the most ridiculous thing i've ever heard.
Wasn't it you the other day who was talking about different people may have different opinions on tennis, on your poem corner thread...

So if Tenez or me were to say Djokovic's game is ugly, then would you say you are in the category of people who aren't 'gutsy enough to call ugly-ugly.'
Or would you comment that different people have different opinions, and thus contradict what you have just said here.

by noleisthebest Thu Sep 20, 2012 10:53 pm

Amri,

I don't even know where to start with you, so I'll just leave it. I have no political interest here.

I'll leave it to Tenez to digest it all for you.

by Larry Ellison Thu Sep 20, 2012 10:58 pm

I don't understand what you are saying. Nothing to do with politics.
You just said 'beauty and grace' is not subjective, but there are two categories of people: a) people who are gutsy enough to say the truth b) people who aren't.

This philosophy is so so flawed on so many different levels, unless there is a world where everyone agrees with each other on everything.

This is what you said to Gallery Play yesterday:

noleisthebest wrote:
gallery play wrote: There's hardly any talk about the beauty, artistry or uniqueness of Djoko's game. It actually seems that is what's bothering you: he doesn't get the credits or attention you think he deserves. So apparently you're viewpoint is different. But then again: so what?

Exactly!

Either you have changed your mind on this topic within a day, or you are completely contradicting yourself.

by laverfan Thu Sep 20, 2012 11:01 pm

noleisthebest wrote:
laverfan wrote:
Beauty and grace are fairly subjective. .
no they are not. It's just that some people aren't gutsy enough to call ugly- ugly! Just when they line up all those obese women and they kid each other how beautiful they are....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0TR2eujqk4U&feature=related

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1vf_aOHoBg

by Tenez Thu Sep 20, 2012 11:53 pm

laverfan wrote:Defense and offense are equal and neither is less gutsy.

I am afraid that's the kind of cliche phrase that sounds good but are simply a myth and false. It's like saying defending and attacking requires equal fitness or equal eye hand coordination. No it doesn't!!!

by summerblues Fri Sep 21, 2012 2:53 am

A lot if interesting comments calling for a response and so little time Sad

. So will somewhat randomly pick a few.

noleisthebest wrote:will take my favourite player, Novak Djokovic as a prime example.
I actually do think that he often chooses not to attack when he could and that could be a show of "cowardice"

Yes, but is it "cowardice" or cowardice? To me, Novak is perhaps the best example to demonstrate that playing defensive tennis does not have to have anything to do with true personal cowardice or bravery. In his early years, Novak used to play relatively more aggressive tennis. That got him one slam and a solid top 3-4 ranking. He then retooled his game, focused more on defense, and got to #1 with four slams in just over one year.

It is abundantly clear that he did not start playing more defensively because he all of a sudden became scared to play aggressively but rather because he consciously decided that this was likely to bring him more success.

I certainly find his tennis less exciting now but I am not blaming him for it - he did the right thing. And I am certainly not going to start calling his game cowardly because of that.

noleisthebest wrote:To call them "stupid" to me is a lot more offensive than to call them "cowardly"

To me this is not about being offensive or polite. I would be happy to call players "cowardly" if I felt that the word correctly described them.

by summerblues Fri Sep 21, 2012 2:56 am

Tenez wrote:Interesting thread but I suspect SB knows the answers to his questions

Well I certainly have my opinion - and I was not hiding that - but no I did not quite know what responses to expect. I like debates, but not debates for debates' sake, and would not have started this thread if I had not expected interesting responses. smiley

by summerblues Fri Sep 21, 2012 3:01 am

Amritia3ee wrote:Who is braver? the 20/20 specialist, or the test specialist?

I like both your examples but especially love your cricket comparison. It is good on so many levels and that example alone could serve as a basis for an interesting discussion.

by summerblues Fri Sep 21, 2012 3:15 am

Tenez wrote:In short the answer is: Either one is gutsier/talented/has weapons/unfit or is (more) corward/less-talented/weaponless/fit.

That is the abrupt truth.

I do not understand this. My best interpretation is something like that: if you play aggressively, it is due to (some combination of) gutsiness/talent/weapons/lack of fitness. That strikes me as reasonable, and that also seems to suggest that you would not take the view that defensive tennis is always gutless (because there may be other reasons leading one to play defensively).

Tenez wrote:If you have weapons or you are eye/hand-coord talented but you do not use either then you are a coward.

I think I may agree, but again not quite certain what you mean. Are you saying that talented player should use their talents even if playing conditions mean it will have negative consequences for their results? If so, then I do not agree. Or are you saying that if a player has physical talent to be more succesfull via attacking tennis but are too scared to play that way then I agree. The word "cowardly" makes sense to me for a player who would be more successful if they were more aggressive but who is scared to try.

However, I think that is quite rare at the very top. Out of the current top 4, I think Murray is the only one that might qualify, and even there I am far from certain.

by summerblues Fri Sep 21, 2012 3:19 am

Tenez wrote:The tall guy has no choice but to be brave and try his luck.

This is the terminology I do not agree with. To me the term "brave" does not apply here. Just like you say, the tall guy in Amri's example has no choice - he will have to try his luck. But he may be a coward trying his luck, he just has no choice.

by summerblues Fri Sep 21, 2012 3:48 am

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:Hitting the lines, going for aces, coming to the nets ... all involve elements of risk which is far greater than staying back 4m running and retrieving and getting more and more balls in play. It can lead to loss of severe concentration, confidence and cause utter frustration due to its high risk involved which can back fire badly. But if one still goes for it, it definitely brave.

This will be clear to anyone who understands the meaning of risk.

I disagree. But I think this post provides a good description why we may naturally be inclined to view attacking tennis as more "gutsy".

The reason why I disagree is exactly because I disagree wth your view of "meaning of risk". In real life, there is usually a continuum of possible outcomes. Often, one can "play it safe" (be it with work, love, what have you) and be reasonably certain to end up with a sort of "average" outcome. Or, one can take risks, and gain a chance of a much better outcome, but at the risk of more disastrous consequences if things do not work out. In this context, "going for it" or taking risks can indeed be viewed as more gutsy.

However, "taking risks" alone is not gutsy. The element of possibly superiour outcome coupled with possibly disastrous consequences is an important ingredient. That element is missing in a tennis match. Tennis match results in either a win or a loss - it does not matter whether you play attacking or defensive tennis. Defensive tennis does not provide you with a "safe" option - you will still either win or lose. Similarly, aggressive plays do not extend the range of possible outcomes - that range is still constrained to either a "win" or a "loss". In this context, it is not even quite fair to say that aggressive tennis is more risky. It either provides you with a higher chance to win - in which case it is in some sense less risky - or it provides you with a lower chance to win - in which case a tennis pro just should not play that way.

As I said, I think this post suggests well why we are inclined to think of attacking tennis as more gutsy. It is because in real life taking chances is often more gutsy than playing it safe. In tennis it is not so, but we are so used to seeing it that way that we are inclined to think of it that way in tennis too.

by summerblues Fri Sep 21, 2012 3:53 am

laverfan wrote:The word 'cowardly' is used by fans who see their favourite losing

Yes, often that is what happens. However, I do think that even outside of this people genuinly tend to view attacking tennis as more couragous. I do not think it is just in the context of "my player vs your player" debates. I think it is fairly natural, I just think that in the case of tennis it does not describe reality correctly.

by raiders_of_the_lost_ark Fri Sep 21, 2012 8:11 am

summerblues wrote:
I disagree. But I think this post provides a good description why we may naturally be inclined to view attacking tennis as more "gutsy".

The reason why I disagree is exactly because I disagree wth your view of "meaning of risk". In real life, there is usually a continuum of possible outcomes. Often, one can "play it safe" (be it with work, love, what have you) and be reasonably certain to end up with a sort of "average" outcome. Or, one can take risks, and gain a chance of a much better outcome, but at the risk of more disastrous consequences if things do not work out. In this context, "going for it" or taking risks can indeed be viewed as more gutsy.

However, "taking risks" alone is not gutsy. The element of possibly superiour outcome coupled with possibly disastrous consequences is an important ingredient. That element is missing in a tennis match. Tennis match results in either a win or a loss - it does not matter whether you play attacking or defensive tennis. Defensive tennis does not provide you with a "safe" option - you will still either win or lose. Similarly, aggressive plays do not extend the range of possible outcomes - that range is still constrained to either a "win" or a "loss". In this context, it is not even quite fair to say that aggressive tennis is more risky. It either provides you with a higher chance to win - in which case it is in some sense less risky - or it provides you with a lower chance to win - in which case a tennis pro just should not play that way.

SB we are both talking different things. You are talking the result and the ultimate aim for a tennis player which is to win the point and ultimately the match. I absolutely agree that is what is the aim of a tennis player. But what route he takes to it defines if his act was gutsy or safer [ I don't use the word cowardly for this ].

Imagine 2 boys reach a cliff edge of a waterfall and they want to get to the bottom. Now both have the same aim i.e. to reach the base. One can try to run around, finding a longer but safer path to reach the bottom. Or one can manage up all courage to take a plunge into the water pool downwards. Now which act is more gutsy? Who will take what path depends on what their skills and guts.

An act is not called "safe" because it extend any outcomes. An act is safe because the risk involved is low. In our example, jumping off the cliff didn't extent outcomes, but the risk involved was much higher. Running around finding a longer route down was definitely safer.

Tennis can be defined just like that. Winning the point is the aim. We all know that. But what a player does to win the point decides his act was gutsy or not.

by raiders_of_the_lost_ark Fri Sep 21, 2012 8:21 am

laverfan wrote:Defense and offense are equal and neither is less gutsy. It takes the same courage and effort and mental strength to defend as it does to attack.

Beauty and grace are fairly subjective. Top echelons, despite different styles, all construct a point very well.

If both were equally gutsy, why no one would want to be a defensive player. Yes. Given a choice no one would want to be a defensive player.

Go to your local club and ask young kids learning the game what they would like to become:

1. a player with great agility, stamina and amazing retrieval skills and great ability to win drawing errors from opponents
2. An aggressive and brilliant shot-maker who is able to hit stunning winners

IMVHO I think most will chose 2. because this is what is always a far more highly valued skill. It also takes more courage to be aggressive in tennis and courage is a highly valued skill not only in tennis but in life.

The thrill is so much, its impossible anyone can like anything else.

But as a player learns about his limitations and his ultimate aim in tennis ( which is to win anyway) he moulds his game to the direction which can maximize his chances to win. And that may not be the gutsy route. He may not enjoy the game, but can enjoy the success.

by raiders_of_the_lost_ark Fri Sep 21, 2012 8:26 am

[quote="raiders_of_the_lost_ark"]

laverfan wrote:Defense and offense are equal and neither is less gutsy. It takes the same courage and effort and mental strength to defend as it does to attack.

Beauty and grace are fairly subjective. Top echelons, despite different styles, all construct a point very well.

If both were equally gutsy, why no one would want to be a defensive player. Yes. Given a choice no one would want to be a defensive player.

Go to your local club and ask young kids learning the game what they would like to become:

1. a player with great agility, stamina and amazing retrieval skills and great ability to win drawing errors from opponents
2. An aggressive and brilliant shot-maker who is able to hit stunning winners

IMVHO I think most will chose 2. because this is what is always a far more highly valued skill. It also takes more courage to be aggressive in tennis and courage is a highly valued skill not only in tennis but in life.

The thrill is so much, its impossible anyone can like anything else.

But as a player learns about his limitations and his ultimate aim in tennis ( which is to win anyway) he moulds his game to the direction which can maximize his chances to win. And that may not be the gutsy route. He may not enjoy the game, but can enjoy the success. The thrill of a super winner is far too much that forcing a mistake from the opponent

by Tenez Fri Sep 21, 2012 8:44 am

summerblues wrote:
Tenez wrote:The tall guy has no choice but to be brave and try his luck.

This is the terminology I do not agree with. To me the term "brave" does not apply here. Just like you say, the tall guy in Amri's example has no choice - he will have to try his luck. But he may be a coward trying his luck, he just has no choice.

The tall guy has in theroy the match in his racquet. He has the possibility to win a point at every stroke (in theory again). Though he has in fact no choice is almost irrelevant cause he has to take risk. In fact on fast grass his shots would almost be riskless and woudl develop aggressivity, risk taking and confidence. It's like Nadal has no choice to take the ball late and be a defending player cause he has not the talent required to take it earlier (That is what could save Nadal from being a "gutless" player).

However, those are extremes cases but gutless and gutsy tennis applies to all players in a more subtle way. On almost every shot, a player can choose to go more or less closer to the lines and just by watching a tennis match feelings of gutless and gutsy simply come naturally. It's impossible to watch Nadal and Murray pulling excessive safe shots one after the other (called "teasers" by Federer) without labelling it gutless. Those teasers are in effect a clear invitation to teh opponent to take a risk, something they are not prepared to do themselves. Though they may not have the natural attacking ability of a Federer, they purposedly play well within themselves and are just hoping to get more points thanks to their outstanding ability to put the ball back in court.

Gutless and gutsy are simply words that come to mind when watching a match...not words we had planned to use regardless.

And finally my first post says clearly you belong to one of the 2 categories:

1 - Talented, powerful (explosive), unfit, gutsy,

2 - less talented, less/weak weapons, fit and gutless

I am not saying that a player has to be all 4 of ~1 or #2 but he belongs to one of the categories. And it is important to note that most of the time a player is #1 or #2 in relation to another player.

by noleisthebest Fri Sep 21, 2012 8:57 am

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:
laverfan wrote:Defense and offense are equal and neither is less gutsy. It takes the same courage and effort and mental strength to defend as it does to attack.

Beauty and grace are fairly subjective. Top echelons, despite different styles, all construct a point very well.

If both were equally gutsy, why no one would want to be a defensive player. Yes. Given a choice no one would want to be a defensive player.

Go to your local club and ask young kids learning the game what they would like to become:

1. a player with great agility, stamina and amazing retrieval skills and great ability to win drawing errors from opponents
2. An aggressive and brilliant shot-maker who is able to hit stunning winners

IMVHO I think most will chose 2. because this is what is always a far more highly valued skill. It also takes more courage to be aggressive in tennis and courage is a highly valued skill not only in tennis but in life.

The thrill is so much, its impossible anyone can like anything else.

But as a player learns about his limitations and his ultimate aim in tennis ( which is to win anyway) he moulds his game to the direction which can maximize his chances to win. And that may not be the gutsy route. He may not enjoy the game, but can enjoy the success.

tennis - Cowardly & Brave Tennis 83870220

by noleisthebest Fri Sep 21, 2012 9:08 am

summerblues wrote:

Yes, but is it "cowardice" or cowardice? To me, Novak is perhaps the best example to demonstrate that playing defensive tennis does not have to have anything to do with true personal cowardice or bravery. In his early years, Novak used to play relatively more aggressive tennis. That got him one slam and a solid top 3-4 ranking. He then retooled his game, focused more on defense, and got to #1 with four slams in just over one year.

It is abundantly clear that he did not start playing more defensively because he all of a sudden became scared to play aggressively but rather because he consciously decided that this was likely to bring him more success.

I certainly find his tennis less exciting now but I am not blaming him for it - he did the right thing. And I am certainly not going to start calling his game cowardly because of that.

Wrong.
Nothing is abundantly clear at all (to me). Cowardice it is - no way around it: fear of being hurt.
I know people like to think of themselves as brave and brilliant, but this world would be a better place if we were all a bit more honest about ourselves. It's not the end of the world if you are a coward. It's a man's natural state to be a coward. That's why we love watching acts of bravery, they are out of the norm and beautiful, inspiring. We are only pots of clay.

I know media loves to brainwashe us all into good and marvelous to take the edge off reality, but I refuse to indulge in it.

by noleisthebest Fri Sep 21, 2012 9:20 am

summerblues wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:To call them "stupid" to me is a lot more offensive than to call them "cowardly"

To me this is not about being offensive or polite. I would be happy to call players "cowardly" if I felt that the word correctly described them.

I'm glad you've said it. Why are you happy to call them "stupid" then. What exactly do you mean?

I take it you don't mean the original meaning of the word: "less intelligent" but something else.

I think your original premise was based on taking the vocabulary used to describe tennis on the character level. It's not.
Although some players may play attacking tennis, they could be cowards outside the tennis court.

Attacking tennis requires a lot of tennis skill, but it can often hide the lack of it, too. The difference is easily seen by its consistency. Compare Federer and Mahut, Mahut probably plays gutsier tennis, but just does not have the same skill and talent as Fed to be consistent with it. Yet he does not change his style because his groundstrokes don't allow him to be comfortable in this modern baseline rallying playing style.

Everyone can play safe. That's the easy, safe option and nothing wrong with it. It just does not inspire and draw breaths of admiration.

So most players do what they can on the court in order to win. Some have the luxury of a choice, and tennis fans have the right to be upset a bit when they don't .

In Nole's case, he did what he had to do in order to overcome Nadal. He tailored it to beat him and succeeded. And that's great for me because he took the bull by his horns and prevailed.Extremely gutsy, I am yet to see anyone else do it, and don't even start going on about fitness, because there are plenty of fit players out there, Nole did not crush Nadal with fitness, but sheer character, helped by fitness.
However, it took toll on his body and he is now coming out of it gradually trying to revert to quicker points as he wants to last on the tour. It does not happen overnight, but it's clear he's working on it.
He has a phenomenal defending game and it would be stupid of him not to use it. Defending and counter-punching are not to be confused in his case.
I know some see it like that, I don't.

by laverfan Fri Sep 21, 2012 10:19 am

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:If both were equally gutsy, why no one would want to be a defensive player. Yes. Given a choice no one would want to be a defensive player.

The current crop of youngsters are baseliners and defenders to a large extent. For example the lack of SHBH in upcoming players is a clear sign of defenders and counterpunchers.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:
Go to your local club and ask young kids learning the game what they would like to become:

1. a player with great agility, stamina and amazing retrieval skills and great ability to win drawing errors from opponents
2. An aggressive and brilliant shot-maker who is able to hit stunning winners

IMVHO I think most will chose 2. because this is what is always a far more highly valued skill. It also takes more courage to be aggressive in tennis and courage is a highly valued skill not only in tennis but in life.

This is what I call extreme prejudice.

I have seen Laver and Borg combine both 1 and 2. There are many in the current top 100 who also do that.

You have clearly made a judgement that 1 and 2 are mutually exclusive which is incorrect. I can dig several examples of a player combining both in the current top 100. Winking

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:The thrill is so much, its impossible anyone can like anything else.

But as a player learns about his limitations and his ultimate aim in tennis ( which is to win anyway) he moulds his game to the direction which can maximize his chances to win. And that may not be the gutsy route. He may not enjoy the game, but can enjoy the success. The thrill of a super winner is far too much that forcing a mistake from the opponent

This is an argument which is again a personal choice. 1 and 2 both provide thrill. This is where subjectivity and personal abstractions come into play as I clearly state. Yet again, this notion that such aspects are mutually exclusive is where there is a basic choice that spectators make.

by laverfan Fri Sep 21, 2012 10:29 am

Tenez wrote:
laverfan wrote:Defense and offense are equal and neither is less gutsy.

I am afraid that's the kind of cliche phrase that sounds good but are simply a myth and false. It's like saying defending and attacking requires equal fitness or equal eye hand coordination. No it doesn't!!!

This is your world-view not every one elses. Defence and offence both require equal skills. Have you ever tried chasing a lob down at your club? Winking

by raiders_of_the_lost_ark Fri Sep 21, 2012 10:36 am

laverfan wrote:
raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:If both were equally gutsy, why no one would want to be a defensive player. Yes. Given a choice no one would want to be a defensive player.

The current crop of youngsters are baseliners and defenders to a large extent. For example the lack of SHBH in upcoming players is a clear sign of defenders and counterpunchers.

Clearly you didn't get my point. You are talking different things.

laverfan wrote:
raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:
Go to your local club and ask young kids learning the game what they would like to become:

1. a player with great agility, stamina and amazing retrieval skills and great ability to win drawing errors from opponents
2. An aggressive and brilliant shot-maker who is able to hit stunning winners

IMVHO I think most will chose 2. because this is what is always a far more highly valued skill. It also takes more courage to be aggressive in tennis and courage is a highly valued skill not only in tennis but in life.

This is what I call extreme prejudice.

I have seen Laver and Borg combine both 1 and 2. There are many in the current top 100 who also do that.

You have clearly made a judgement that 1 and 2 are mutually exclusive which is incorrect. I can dig several examples of a player combining both in the current top 100.

You didn't get my point again. Bringing Pros in this reply indicate that.

laverfan wrote:
raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:The thrill is so much, its impossible anyone can like anything else.

But as a player learns about his limitations and his ultimate aim in tennis ( which is to win anyway) he moulds his game to the direction which can maximize his chances to win. And that may not be the gutsy route. He may not enjoy the game, but can enjoy the success. The thrill of a super winner is far too much that forcing a mistake from the opponent

This is an argument which is again a personal choice. 1 and 2 both provide thrill. This is where subjectivity and personal abstractions come into play as I clearly state. Yet again, this notion that such aspects are mutually exclusive is where there is a basic choice that spectators make.

[/quote]

You again didn't get my point. I was not talking about a spectator's point of view.

So over all you didn't get my point. That's all.

by Sponsored content

Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat	Sun
		1	2	3	4	5
6	7	8	9	10	11	12
13	14	15	16	17	18	19
20	21	22	23	24	25	26
27	28	29	30	31