Yesterday,Before I went to gym I happen to catch some of the Kiefer/Karlovic match.This is kinda like a follow on from the Beset Serve Thread.Karlovic is definetly one of those players who have one weapon and nothing else.

The mans serve is scary and all he needs to do is get to the net for more often than not relatively simple volleys to put away.The catch however is when he is receiving.His groundstrokes arent of the best and he really doesnt have anything else.Whilst he is on the improve in his late age its kinda sad that players build their game around one weapon.

Another who springs to mind is Andy Roddick.Big serve and nothing else.One from the past,Alberto Berasatuigi(mind the spelling) :P .He had a huge forehand so much that he could run around his backhand all the time and hit it.Really ddnt have anything else.The amazing thing about him though is that he used to use one side of the racquet :blink:

Can you guys think of any other players?There are many.What are your views on this?Is one dimensional?

I think in Karlo's case, his weapon is also his downfall. Moving a 6'7" frame around the court at today's pace is simply extremely difficult. Most likely as difficult as returning his serve. If he were more mobile, his groundstrokes would be much better as well but bending his knees, twisting his upper body from R-L and L-R is really a different exercise for him than it is for let's say Bagdhatis.

With Roddick, I agree, but in a way, it is a similar problem. His weapons are the serve, his athletism and consistency. he developed a "burst of energy" type of tennis where he believes that if he puts the pace (with sheer power) then his opponent will be in trouble. It can work, this is also the style of Berdych or the former SVers players. The problem for them comes when th eopponent can handle this power or serve ....then they become weaponless (typical case when Rod's playing Fed).

The multidimentional players are those who actually can adapt to different games, and mainly can improvise without falling into their weapon routine.

The best example of that is again Federer v Nadal Wimbledon where in my view Fed was slightly dominated from the baseline yet ended up winning without playing at his best. If you are a one-dimensional player and your weapons don't fire, you are in trouble. A multi -D player can find a way out.

Mark Philippoussis is another plyaer of this type, just serve and nothing else. But Roddick is much better than Karlovic and Philippoussis as he can get the balls back to a certain extend. He moves around the court well.

Another that springs to mind is Gonzo.HUGE forearm but not much else.The amazing thing is that it good enough to get you to slam finals and keep you in the top 10 :blink:

I cant understand this!

Though Mark had a huge forearm and some great volleys behind that serve.I actually wouldnt put him in this category,coz then you would have to box Pete in here and we all know that he definetly isnt a 1 Weapon Wonder!

Probably due to the fact that the rest of his game is not bad..more like average.. so even when the forehand is failing he can always limber through games..just doing enough...

IT might be more telling if your most powerful weapon is a serve and it starts to fail... cause the serve is probably one of the mst crucial weapons..at least on the ATP tour...

But certainly being multidimensional=longevity.... I suppose..

Thats the thing with these 1 Weapon wonders,if they cant use that weapon its the end of them in any match.Gonzo is hapless when he cant hit that forearm.Look at his results this year after the Aussie Open :blink:

Same goes for Roddick,when he doesnthave a serve or when its getting read he is toast!

Gonzo has a good serve and a great forehand. Consistency is also a weapon. One of the best weapons to have. He has that too.
Philippoussis could hit huge shots from all over the court, but lacked consistency. When it all came together it was stunning to watch, but it didn't come together often enough. Not great examples for one weapon wonders. Roddick's forehand is also pretty big and he is a good athlete.
Karlovic is far more dependent on his serve than Roddick.

I dont think Gonzo Is consistent enough.He is like how you describe Mark,when its together its good,when that forearm is gone he is bad.

Mark is also very unlucky to have been injured so much and then the knee in 98.I watched him in hus early days.He was best buds with Tommy and he was good.I suppose his large frame is the same symptoms as Ivo.But Ivo is a one weapon wonder.I mean when you hear his name automatically you associate serve with him and nothing else.

This is a daring choice but Michael Chang is another.Without his speed what did he have? He didnt have a big serve or big groundies.

Interesting enough though,is a 1 weapon wonder a 1 dimensional player? That is something that bugs me.Also could we associate a surface as a weapon and if so then we would bring Muster and Nadal into the equation coz they are Metal Slugs on clay.

:ok:
Agree about Karlovic, although I'd heard about him being a serving machine and when I finally got to see him (beating Hewitt in the first round of Wimbledon) I was pleased to see that he could still rally off the ground with Hewitt an wasn't bad technically.
Who do you think is the worst all-round player to make a name for themselves in tennis? At least Karlo isn't made to look foolish when drawn into rallies.....

Greg Rusedki without a doubt!
Another serving machine with no groundstrokes.
He made tennis look so ugly it looked like a different sport.
Definetly a 1 weapon Wonder :ok:

Ivanisevic was the player I least enjoyed watching, but he and Rusedski both made GS finals and were top 5 players. Wayne Arthurs never had much backing up his serve, but all of the above had good days/weeks when it all came together and they could beat almost anybody.
There must be some stinkin' players out there that somehow appeared on the tennis radar. Slobodan Zivojinovic had some good runs without much aside from serve. There must be better one weapon wonders than that.....

But think of the time they played TM.The game was owned by a big serve and solid volleys and thats what they were serving and volleying machines.If you watch Greg,he is sort of robotic and brainless.He would chip and charge of almost anything.It looked weird but he was like amoth to a flame with how he was drawn to that net!

Goran though I would say isnt so much a 1 Weapon Wonder.He had great solid groundies.His forehand was also big.I dont think Superbrat will take kindly to you saying that about Goran :P

:yep: :ok:

neither will I ;)

Goran could outplay anybody from the baseline. I have seen him putting the ball 5 meters away from Agassi for a a set and a half. His 4th set win at his 5 sets Wimbledon Final versus Sampras was also great striking from the baseline with beautiful striking. And his serve was simply poetry in motion. No hard hitting, swif timed and well placed. The sound was different from other hard hitting servers.

You guys havent answered my question,Could we call surface a weapon?

Yeah, I was interested in what response that would get. I know that Goran could play, but he rarely had to with THAT serve. I found it mind numbing except for the odd occasion (and Wimby 2001 was one such occasion), but that's personal preference. I was never taken by his personality as much as most people and saw the 'which Goran will turn up' nonsense as another frustration, because I wanted to see the awesome Goran all the time. I got irked by him because I thought that if he had been more professional and trained harder and relied less on his serve, he would have had more good days and been more enjoyable to watch more of the time. :argh:
Rant over.
I like your view on Greg, DN. Interesting without a pro-British bias. He also frustrated me because he would follow in the wrong serves and was sometimes crazily kamikaze. It's like he copied Rafter but had nowhere near the athletic ability or touch..... But I still quite like Greg and he's a nice guy, so no rant there :yep:
I'll await SB's defence of Goran :hide:

:ok:

The difference is that Rafter never had huge Groundies.He played with lots of placement and spin,moving the ball around,however he had a innate sense when to approach of returns of serve or in a rally and I loved his serve and volley style.He had flare and charisma.Definetly had weapons.

Oh TM,Im not British BTW :P Greg is an awesome guy,his tennis just wasnt as awesome :rolleyes:

Trust me Superbrat probably has a Goran manual. :P

That's what I meant - usually the views I hear about Greg are from Brits with a bit of bias, so it's good to hear views without that aspect.

Agree about Rafter, but sometimes he would serve volley regardless of how good the serve was. Interestingly though, I think he just backed himself. A friend played with him a couple of weeks ago and said that once he establishes himself at the net, the point is as good as over. Even good passing attempts don't do the trick. His tactic was often to get to the net at all costs, knowing that if he made the first volley, he could win the point from there. Must be nice to always rate your chances like that!

:ok:

A friend played with him?Lucky devil.Thats pretty true though about him establishing himself there.Its I would assume the same with Pete as well as Karlovic.I suppose Karlovic is well aware of his limitations so what else can he do.

When he was on form Goran certainly wasn't a once weapon wonder....his groundstrokes were good, but when his form was poor he was a one weaon wonder, but his usual form was between the two....

Andy Roddick also has a great forehand too! But not much else....but that is two weapons!

Greg for me definitely was a good example of a one weapon wonder who was easily not in the same league as Goran and Andy. Those two could have had multiple slams if not for Sampras and Federer.

The funny thing here Gav is that with Andy,once the serve is out of the equation so goes the forearm with it.So its kind of like they are linked making it theoretically 1 weapon! :P

And really doesnt have much after that serve.I think thats why he adding volleying to his game and thats not working to well either!

Your perception of Goran is entirely different to mine.
You give an example of his ability from the ground, but i've seen his groundstrokes look mediocre over and over and over again.
This is not something we can have a useful discussion about, it's not amenable to deductive reasoning, it's about perception.
Goran had a huge serve, and a bit more-but not much more-he's pretty close to being a one trick pony-perhaps he just lacked the tricks.

Which is quite weird coz I have seen him play some great matches off the ground.Its amazing though how we all see different things.Thats what makes us unique.Its true though BT,there have been times when he was so mediocre I couldnt fathom how he was World Number 2 :blink:

I have some footage of Goran somewhere, i'll have a look sometime maybe i was wrong.
i don't tend to bother with YouTube, as it usually shows the exceptional rather than the usual.

roflmao

Goran weakness was not the ground shots, it was when he was dragged in the middle of the court. There he looked very uneasy, I agree. But from the back of the court he was brilliant but not the most consistent for sure.

Hewitt also seems to look like a 1 weapon wonder.He had the mental strenght in his early days and was able to beat people in their mind.Once Federer came and took that away he fell by the wayside.I mean his speed came from the belief that he could get there.Once his mind was destroyed he looks so slow and sub par its not funny!

:blink:

Not sure I agree with that. Hewitt had speed and stamina in spades at his peak. He was one of the fittest guys out there and his fitness levels set the bar for the Nadals and Djokos. His consistency and lack of weakness could almost be called a weapon but his counterpunching was his real asset. If you tried coming forward on Hewitt he would pull the trigger and (because of his speed) he was probably the best passer out there. His reliance on speed and grinding it our meant that even a slight blunting of his edges was going to affect his ability to stay at the top. (Watch out Nadal).

Which I think was all due to his mental strength.He believed he could get there,he believed he was fitter and he believed he could win.No he has no belief and along with that he doesnt win,he isnt that fast and his fitness is by the wayside due to all those injuries.

His 1 weapon was his mental strength,without that he is nothing,and thats just what he is now,a nothing!

Having seen him train at his peak and seen his fan drill times etc, I can assure you that he was fast, whether he believed it or not. Perhaps we'll have to agree to disagree about whether he got to balls because he believed in himself or whether he was genuinely quick. His game was never going to stay at the same level, because he needs not only speed, but intensity, no injuries etc. His mental strength was a huge weapon, but he still wants it - he just can't do it any more.
Oh, and as for being a 'nothing', I'd quite like to be a former world number 1, a grand slam winner, still top 20 material, lots of money etc etc etc. There are plenty of tennis pros that would love to make main draws for GSs, play Davis Cup for their country etc but don't have the abilities. It's a bit disrespectful to many many people to call Hewitt a 'nobody'. :shrug:

he was quick no doubt,I suspect he still is now but he really doesnt show it.He is damaged goods if you ask me.His game was always going to be dependant on his mental strength and belief.He lacks a major weapon of sorts.

I suppose I have to agree with you that he is better of being realised for the former,but I dont agree that calling him anobody now is unfair,coz quite frankly he is a nobody now.I mean when he gets onto the court alone everybody knows they stand a chance against him.Theres no element of fear!

:ok:

I believe Mr. Hewitt gave a certain Mr. Federer a run for his money in a recent ATP Event.

For me his counterpunching and his excellent court speed and covereage were major weapons and he can't be called a 1 weapon wonder, but that is just my opinion.

I think he falls into the Safin category; once a real threat, but has lost focus and form. Now and again on form either can be a real threat to the top guys.

Fair enough :ok:
His form has been scratchy, but I still think that players see him on the draw as a first round opponent and sigh, knowing that even if he is beatable, he will get a lot of balls into play and be a real test. I think that calling him a nobody is a bit harsh, but agree that he is past his best and lacks a couple of the ingredients that made him formidable. He needs to adopt a more punishing game (as I think some former player commented publicly recently) and use his considerable talents at the net a little more. He's still not old, but the opportunity to get frightening again are running out.....

Thats the thing buddy,Im saying all that was due to his mental strength.He believed and that for me was his only weapon.Now he cant even get there regardless of his counterpunching.Yes he did worry Federer but Federer was also indeed tired after the previous week and if memory serves me correct he got handled swiftly in Montreal by Federer.

I dont think you can label or group him with Safin.Safin has strength and power and an enormous backhand.However what he had in strength he failed in mental fortitude,but he still has more weapons thn Hewitt!

I am being a bit harsh on him :( But based on what he has been presenting us with,am i really being that harsh? :shrug:

He just doesnt have any big weapons.He is the type that waits for mistakes and that just doesnt cut it today.The guys are hitting harder,faster and deeper.I just cant see him running the green mile as a strength anymore. :(

So in ernest he is former champ lingering in the middle nowhere.We cant even consider him a dangerous floater.I most certainly dont.He is basically a nobody as harsh as it sounds TM and I really dont mean that in a bad way!

:)

I can guarantee you chaps that Karlovic is not 6ft 7, he's 6 ft 10.

When I saw him play Myrni, Myrni is 6 ft 6 and Karlovic was considerably taller, like a giant (albeit a very slim one).

I'm amazed how well Ivo has done this year, winning on clay in Houston, on grass in Nottingham and on indoor hardcourt in Sweden. I heard he's the only other player besides Federer this year to win on such varied surfaces. At 6ft 10 his groundstrokes will never be good because its hard to move quick but I'm very impressed. He's also hit well over 1000 aces.

:ok:

Views on who you think are 1 weapon wonders Laurie and your view on Hewitt please!

:ok:

I'm not sure that's in question. Must've been a typo or a good honest mistake. When I saw him at Wimbledon playing Hewitt, some nasty giants came after him and Hewitt sat behind his ear and they went to see the Queen together. Or am I getting my stories mixed up? :)

1 weapon wonders and views on Hewitt?

Well, Hewitt first - I saw him play Goran at 2004 Wimbledon and I think Hewitt is one of the quickest players I have ever seen on a Tennis court. Hewitt is similar to Chang. The only thing I can say about Hewitt is that he came through way too early. Players of his size and height who come through as teenagers tend to do well extremely well and burn out extremely quick. Wilander, Chang, Hingis all come to mind - all virtually finished by the age of 25. But I think Hewitt is a very good all round player and his Australian commentators always mention how good his volleys are and that he should come to net more often.

One weapon wonders?

Well, most players have a best shot. But yes, I think Roddick springs to mind. They talked about his forehand but I think that has now been proven that his forehand is not a weapon at all. Then there was that strange period two years ago when he was playing well behind the baseline, constantly hitting short groundstokes and vulnerable to been attacked. As for his volleyings, that's proof that you need to learn these things as a youngster and not when you get on tour as a 20 year old. His volleying and positional sense is as poor as I've seen from anyone and surprisingly, he's not very athletic either compared to other players.

Besides Roddick in todays game I can't really think of anyone else. Having said that I don't like the games of players like David Ferrer or Igor Andreev - to me they look like production line players, nothing out of the ordinary or distinctive. There are not that many different styles of play in the top 25 today, so the game as a whole is a bit more one dimensional than in the past.

Which is why it's good to see that the last two female number ones of 2006 and 2007 (Justine Henin and Amelie Mauresmo pre appendix problems in 2006) and the male number one have very nice all round games with a one hand backhand, athleticism and good volleying skills. In fact, watching Henin chip and charge opponents on their second serve makes me laugh :ok: , that's the height of aggression.