PDA

View Full Version : Spoiler - Nadal vs Mahut at Queens quarterfinal


laurie
06-15-2007, 11:04 AM
I don't usually post results on this forum but Nadal just lost to a guy ranked 106 in the world. His name is Nicholas Mahut. He lost 7:5 7:6 losing the tiebreak to love.

Nicholas Mahut is French and won junior Wimbledon in 2000. However, what's fascinating is that this guy served and volleyed on both 1st and 2nd serves throughout the match with a few exceptions. He reminded me of Nicholas Escude. This is interesting because Mahut served extremely well, taking big chances on second serve as well. Nadal didn't get many looks at passes. Mahut's touch volleys around the net were excellent.

This is a simple question - if guys are talented enough to pull it off, is the serve and volley still a viable tactic on grass after all?

The commentator said in the 1st set he wished Henman was wtaching (in other words, play to your strengths and stop playing like a scaredy cat).

tintin
06-15-2007, 11:06 AM
well Nico played a great match against Federer last year and he's always played great on grass like his contrymen and women,so no surprise there.

anointedone
06-15-2007, 11:06 AM
Well this shows it must be effective. Nadal is the best player in the World today on all surfaces so to beat him you must have an unbelievable strategy and perfectly executed.

8PAQ
06-15-2007, 11:13 AM
Well this shows it must be effective. Nadal is the best player in the World today on all surfaces so to beat him you must have an unbelievable strategy and perfectly executed.

Yeah his 7 loses this year to 7 different people, 6 of them not on clay, clearly show that he is the best on all surfaces.

TacoBellBorderBowl1946
06-15-2007, 11:13 AM
yes, s&v is an effective strategy if executed. The problem is that people get sucked up into all this " slowdown of surfaces" and " new racquet technology" garbage that they stop attacking. If you stick with the serve and volley throughout a match, it will work.

We don't see it any more because the good serve and volleyers have retired. Goran, Rafter, Sampras, all were winning matches just 5-6 years ago by serve and volleying. We havn't seen any good, aggressive serve and volleyers since then ( Henman seems to be playing more of a baseline game nowdays).

anointedone
06-15-2007, 11:14 AM
Yeah his 7 loses this year to 7 different people, 6 of them not on clay, clearly show that he is the best on all surfaces.

Federer has lost 5 of his 8 tournaments this year. He lost 3 of them before the quarters. Nadal is way ahead of Federer in the ATP race.

Kim
06-15-2007, 11:15 AM
Nadal is the best player on all surfaces..uhmm...are you an idiot or just ignorant of tennis, or just want to get a rise out of people here? **** off troll.

8PAQ
06-15-2007, 11:15 AM
Federer has lost 5 of his 8 tournaments this year. He lost 3 of them before the quarters. Nadal is way ahead of Federer in the ATP race.

Just like he was in 2005 ahead of Wimbledon.

tintin
06-15-2007, 11:30 AM
Well this shows it must be effective. Nadal is the best player in the World today on all surfaces so to beat him you must have an unbelievable strategy and perfectly executed.

you better get your head out of your arse or you will drown from the smell of your own filth when writing things like that but hey thanks for the :lol: Anoi ;)

WhiteSox05CA
06-15-2007, 11:31 AM
Sampras was right. The serve and volley would beat Nadal. I like Roddick to win Queen's, and Baghdatis to win Halle.

Moose Malloy
06-15-2007, 11:40 AM
You can still S&V on grass, but you need a big serve(rules out Henman) & have to be reasonably decent up there(rules out Roddick) Mahut has both.

People seem to forget Philippoussis made the final at W in '03 , S&Ving 1st & 2nd serve, & the grass was already slowed down by then.

Guy was basically retired last year, showed up at W as a wildcard & beat a seed in the 1st round by playing that way.

and kendrick almost beat nadal 1st round as well, s&ving.

problem just isn't surface, but the fact that academy style tennis basically killed s&v in the 1980s. I bet Nick B probably yelled at any kid at the academy who dared come to net(or who wouldn't hit the swing volley instead)

S&V was dead before sampras even won his 1st wimbledon, most juniors were taught to be baseliners since the mid 80s, & it wasn't because conditions were slow or racquet technology made it hard to s&v, its because it was a harder game to develop & no junior wants to lose shorterm, even if it helps their game longterm.

even if the atp makes every surface fast overnight, I doubt S&V will become common, the coaching mentality is just too safe these days & junior results are weighed too highly.

TennezSport
06-15-2007, 12:46 PM
You can still S&V on grass, but you need a big serve(rules out Henman) & have to be reasonably decent up there(rules out Roddick) Mahut has both.

People seem to forget Philippoussis made the final at W in '03 , S&Ving 1st & 2nd serve, & the grass was already slowed down by then.

Guy was basically retired last year, showed up at W as a wildcard & beat a seed in the 1st round by playing that way.

and kendrick almost beat nadal 1st round as well, s&ving.

problem just isn't surface, but the fact that academy style tennis basically killed s&v in the 1980s. I bet Nick B probably yelled at any kid at the academy who dared come to net(or who wouldn't hit the swing volley instead)

S&V was dead before sampras even won his 1st wimbledon, most juniors were taught to be baseliners since the mid 80s, & it wasn't because conditions were slow or racquet technology made it hard to s&v, its because it was a harder game to develop & no junior wants to lose shorterm, even if it helps their game longterm.

even if the atp makes every surface fast overnight, I doubt S&V will become common, the coaching mentality is just too safe these days & junior results are weighed too highly.

WoW! Yes! Moose you are the man. The one thing you do not want to give baseline players is rhythm. S&V tennis is perfect for this but harder to develop. Also you do not need a really big serve, but a very well placed serve with lots of variety in placement, pace and spin (ala Rafter, McEnroe, Edberg, Murray). Mahut did that VERY well today and Rafa had nothing to adjust to.

TennezSport :cool:

CyBorg
06-15-2007, 12:49 PM
You can still S&V on grass, but you need a big serve(rules out Henman) & have to be reasonably decent up there(rules out Roddick) Mahut has both.

People seem to forget Philippoussis made the final at W in '03 , S&Ving 1st & 2nd serve, & the grass was already slowed down by then.

Guy was basically retired last year, showed up at W as a wildcard & beat a seed in the 1st round by playing that way.

and kendrick almost beat nadal 1st round as well, s&ving.

problem just isn't surface, but the fact that academy style tennis basically killed s&v in the 1980s. I bet Nick B probably yelled at any kid at the academy who dared come to net(or who wouldn't hit the swing volley instead)

S&V was dead before sampras even won his 1st wimbledon, most juniors were taught to be baseliners since the mid 80s, & it wasn't because conditions were slow or racquet technology made it hard to s&v, its because it was a harder game to develop & no junior wants to lose shorterm, even if it helps their game longterm.

even if the atp makes every surface fast overnight, I doubt S&V will become common, the coaching mentality is just too safe these days & junior results are weighed too highly.

As always, an informative post from you, Moose.

Lefty Spin
06-15-2007, 12:51 PM
I agree that S & V is still an effective match strategy. It is important to note that many players have stated that the courts at Wimbledon are much slower than the courts for the Queen's club tournament. Henman himself has said that the courts at the Queen's club are the best grass courts in the world because of this fact.

I think Nadal still could make the finals at Wimbledon, but it should be interesting.

laurie
06-15-2007, 01:06 PM
Then why the hell is Henman staying back?!

I've been to both Queens and Wimbledon over the years and I've always thought Queens plays quicker.

One of the reasons could be that its usually hotter in early June than late June here in London.

Eviscerator
06-15-2007, 01:26 PM
.

This is a simple question - if guys are talented enough to pull it off, is the serve and volley still a viable tactic on grass after all?



I didn't see the match so I have no idea how well Nadal played. But in general S&V is tough to play on a slow grass court, though it is the 2nd best surface to try it on other than a fast and skidding indoor carpet. The problem is you don't have many true S&V left to be able to execute it even if the conditions are favorable.
It takes many years and skill to be a dedicated S&V and most parents are not allowing coaches the time to develop their kids in that direction.

laurie
06-15-2007, 02:54 PM
I didn't see the match so I have no idea how well Nadal played. But in general S&V is tough to play on a slow grass court, though it is the 2nd best surface to try it on other than a fast and skidding indoor carpet. The problem is you don't have many true S&V left to be able to execute it even if the conditions are favorable.
It takes many years and skill to be a dedicated S&V and most parents are not allowing coaches the time to develop their kids in that direction.

I have to say I've never seen a slow grass court - ever.

The Gorilla
06-15-2007, 03:06 PM
if you have a huge serve you can, mahut was hitting 138mph.

pow
06-15-2007, 03:44 PM
Mahut has a pretty nice type of game for grass because he volleys relatively well and that seems to be Nadal's weakness on grass as Kendrick has showed.

J-man
06-15-2007, 03:45 PM
Mahut has lots of talent and was a good junior. But he hasn't been able to captlize on it in the pro's

Nadal_Freak
06-15-2007, 03:47 PM
Mahut has a pretty nice type of game for grass because he volleys relatively well and that seems to be Nadal's weakness on grass as Kendrick has showed.
I would say it's the majority of players weaknesses on grass. :D

150mph
06-15-2007, 04:03 PM
I wish Nadal had lost at Roland G. so Roger would have slammed.
There's always next year...

arnz
06-15-2007, 04:21 PM
Prime Pete Sampras would love a shot at Nadal in Wimby, I would imagine

kingdaddy41788
06-15-2007, 04:22 PM
Well this shows it must be effective. Nadal is the best player in the World today on all surfaces so to beat him you must have an unbelievable strategy and perfectly executed.

If he's the best then why is he ranked #2?

WhiteSox05CA
06-15-2007, 04:29 PM
Prime Pete Sampras would love a shot at Nadal in Wimby, I would imagine

I've actually heard Pete say he'd like a shot at Nadal. Pete is still playing amazingly well for his age. Go get 'em!

pow
06-15-2007, 04:43 PM
I would say it's the majority of players weaknesses on grass. :D

Yeah I suppose that would be the tactic of choice for grass anyways. However, Mahut couldn't make it happen against Federer at Wimbledon last year though.

Following the Attila the Bum's mentality:
Nadal needs to develop a one handed backhand to beat Mahut on grass. ;)

kingdaddy41788
06-15-2007, 04:47 PM
I have to say I've never seen a slow grass court - ever.

Ummm... what about Wimbledon the last couple of years? It's not a slow court, but it's definitely a slow grass court.

alwaysatnet
06-15-2007, 08:15 PM
You can still S&V on grass, but you need a big serve(rules out Henman) & have to be reasonably decent up there(rules out Roddick) Mahut has both.

People seem to forget Philippoussis made the final at W in '03 , S&Ving 1st & 2nd serve, & the grass was already slowed down by then.

Guy was basically retired last year, showed up at W as a wildcard & beat a seed in the 1st round by playing that way.

and kendrick almost beat nadal 1st round as well, s&ving.

problem just isn't surface, but the fact that academy style tennis basically killed s&v in the 1980s. I bet Nick B probably yelled at any kid at the academy who dared come to net(or who wouldn't hit the swing volley instead)

S&V was dead before sampras even won his 1st wimbledon, most juniors were taught to be baseliners since the mid 80s, & it wasn't because conditions were slow or racquet technology made it hard to s&v, its because it was a harder game to develop & no junior wants to lose shorterm, even if it helps their game longterm.

even if the atp makes every surface fast overnight, I doubt S&V will become common, the coaching mentality is just too safe these days & junior results are weighed too highly.Well played. Serve and volley tennis takes longer to master than banging from the baseline and results for a net player may not immediately be the best.
I am begining to believe that the real problem is coaching...not the racquets, or the slower courts(though they are factors). Somewhere out there may be a junior serve and volley Moses to show the people the way out of the robotic baseliner desert. One successful player might make a huge difference and turn around the net players drought.

DragonFly
06-18-2007, 08:01 PM
Well this shows it must be effective. Nadal is the best player in the World today on all surfaces so to beat him you must have an unbelievable strategy and perfectly executed.


Mhmm.. that's why in the last half of '06 he didn't win a single title.

ledor
06-18-2007, 09:06 PM
Well this shows it must be effective. Nadal is the best player in the World today on all surfaces so to beat him you must have an unbelievable strategy and perfectly executed.

Err, no not yet.

BNK
06-19-2007, 03:47 AM
Nadal lost the match in order to go back to spain and watch Real Madrid's final game OK ;)

laurie
06-19-2007, 03:51 AM
There is no doubt Queens plays quicker than Wimbledon for the last few years. The ball stays lower. At Wimbledon, the ball kicks up higher, especially when its hot, like a hard bouncing court - even in the 1990s, in 1993 when it was really hot, Courier got to the final and Agassi was defending champ and lost in the quarters in 5 sets to a then titleless Sampras.

So, basically, the Wimbledon courts suits Nadal's game slightly better because of the higher bounce.

federerfanatic
06-19-2007, 06:22 AM
At Wimbledon, the ball kicks up higher, especially when its hot, like hard bouncing court - even in the 1990s, in 1993 when it was really hot, Courier got to the final and Agassi was defending champ and lost in the quarters in 5 sets to a then titleless Sampras.


Sampras's win over Agassi in the 93 Wimbledon quarters was definitely no upset. Sampras had taken over the #1 ranking, even if controversely at that point, as he did not hold a slam title for the previous 12 months. Pete had been building in confidence and momentum, maturing greatly as a player under Tim Gullikson, and overall had a very good 1993 campaign. Agassi was fat, badly undertrained, coming off an injury, played little and done little in 1993. It was actually very surprising Agassi managed to somehow make it as close as he did.

Also a higher bouncing court would have helped Agassi's chances vs Sampras, not hurt them.