PDA

View Full Version : Is anyone going to attack Nadal with array of Serve-volleys or what?


Pages : [1] 2

GameSampras
05-10-2009, 11:32 AM
Like the great Pete Sampras said he would be licking his chops to play Nadal considering no one ever comes in attacks Nadal and puts pressure on him. Tsonga did at the AO 08 and he whopped on the boy. Sampras said, Im waiting for someone to attack the net and put pressure on Nadal instead of trying to rally with him from the baseline. Poor strategic plans by today's players is a big reason for what we are seeing now.

Why would any player not want to altar their game and add more elements to it? What the point of trying to outdo Nadal from the baseline? Thats losing proposition obviously. Why feed into a player's strengths? Thats ridiculous

Cesc Fabregas
05-10-2009, 11:33 AM
Federer employed this tactic at last years French Open final and got destroyed.

maximo
05-10-2009, 11:34 AM
Federer employed this tactic at last years French Open final and got destroyed.

Yes, but on Hard court its more effective.

dem331
05-10-2009, 11:45 AM
Like the great Pete Sampras said he would be licking his chops to play Nadal considering no one ever comes in attacks Nadal and puts pressure on him. Tsonga did at the AO 08 and he whopped on the boy. Sampras said, Im waiting for someone to attack the net and put pressure on Nadal instead of trying to rally with him from the baseline. Poor strategic plans by today's players is a big reason for what we are seeing now.

Why would any player not want to altar their game and add more elements to it? What the point of trying to outdo Nadal from the baseline? Thats losing proposition obviously. Why feed into a player's strengths? Thats ridiculous

I think Sampras would lose to Federer in his prime and to Nadal now.

JoshDragon
05-10-2009, 11:51 AM
Like the great Pete Sampras said he would be licking his chops to play Nadal considering no one ever comes in attacks Nadal and puts pressure on him. Tsonga did at the AO 08 and he whopped on the boy. Sampras said, Im waiting for someone to attack the net and put pressure on Nadal instead of trying to rally with him from the baseline. Poor strategic plans by today's players is a big reason for what we are seeing now.

Why would any player not want to altar their game and add more elements to it? What the point of trying to outdo Nadal from the baseline? Thats losing proposition obviously. Why feed into a player's strengths? Thats ridiculous

If Pete wants to come out of retirement to get his butt kicked by Nadal, that's fine with me.

No, I don't think that any of the players are going to try to beat Nadal with a S&V strategy. Rafa, is too good at passing shots and most players aren't that strong at the net.

GameSampras
05-10-2009, 11:52 AM
Rafa is no more of a better passer than Andre was.


Lets be real.. Wanna know why Nadal is number 1? Do ya? The death of the great serve-volley tennis and the death of fast courts like indoors and fast grass. Thats the bottom line. Edberg, Becker, Sampras, Goran would eat Nadal alive on Hardcourts and grass.

Of course Nadal will be number 1. THe game is filled with baseliners and slow courts.

JoshDragon
05-10-2009, 11:59 AM
Rafa is no more of a better passer than Andre was.


Lets be real.. Wanna know why Nadal is number 1? Do ya? The death of the great serve-volley tennis and the death of fast courts like indoors and fast grass. Thats the bottom line. Edberg, Becker, Sampras, Goran would eat Nadal alive on Hardcourts and grass.

Of course Nadal will be number 1. THe game is filled with baseliners and slow courts.

That's like saying that Pete, Edberg, Becker, and Goran were only the top players because of fast indoor courts and fast grass. Nadal and other grinders would eat them alive on slower courts.

What's the point of debating something as trivial as this?

Btw, I don't think you watch Nadal, very much, as you have said in the past that he has no weapons. He does have weapons, most notable are his speed, focus, and his backhand.

Frankauc
05-10-2009, 12:02 PM
lol. Sampras would get pass each time. Nadal's speed and spin allows him to hit great angled passing shots and get high %.

All-rounder
05-10-2009, 12:07 PM
On fast hardcourts like US open it works but on todays grass no chance look how many passing shots nadal hit against federer in last years final and the french open.......well we know what happened there

TheTruth
05-10-2009, 12:08 PM
Probably the reason most players don't do it is because they usually get passed or lobbed.

Tsonga did it once and then got his butt kicked the next couple times they played.

Anyway, it's a pretty poor percentage for players to abandon their natural games to serve and volley against Nadal when it hasn't worked that well in the past.

Pete? I don't know what would happen there? I mean, Pete was the man, but Rafa has too many skills, movement being one. That's one thing he definitely has over Agassi, so it's hard to say definitively what Pete would do, besides talk.

All-rounder
05-10-2009, 12:09 PM
That's like saying that Pete, Edberg, Becker, and Goran were only the top players because of fast indoor courts and fast grass. Nadal and other grinders would eat them alive on slower courts.

What's the point of debating something as trivial as this?

Btw, I don't think you watch Nadal, very much, as you have said in the past that he has no weapons. He does have weapons, most notable are his speed, focus, and his backhand.
Soon it will be focus forehand backhand as his speed will no longer be a weapon no matter how good he is age will catch up and thats when or possibly serve and volley might work on nadal

pc1
05-10-2009, 12:11 PM
Rafa is no more of a better passer than Andre was.


Lets be real.. Wanna know why Nadal is number 1? Do ya? The death of the great serve-volley tennis and the death of fast courts like indoors and fast grass. Thats the bottom line. Edberg, Becker, Sampras, Goran would eat Nadal alive on Hardcourts and grass.

Of course Nadal will be number 1. THe game is filled with baseliners and slow courts.

I agree with you. I don't think anyone has the skills to regularly attack Rafa with a serve and volley attack with the possible exception of Tsonga. Definitely there is no one like Pete Sampras actively playing today.

I'm not sure if Becker, Edberg etc would eat Nadal alive but it would be fun to watch. It's very fun to watch serve and volleyers versus a top baseliner on almost any surface.

It would be interesting against Sampras. I think Pete c. 1994 would stand a great chance against Nadal on hardcourt, indoor or grass, especially the 1994 Wimbledon grass. On today's Wimbledon grass, I'm not sure since I've never seem Pete play on it.

With Pete's serve, it would be hard for anyone to blow him out on those surfaces. On clay Nadal of course would have the edge.

TheNatural
05-10-2009, 12:14 PM
No one does it this era because they never learnt to volley and play at net instinctively as a primary way of winning points. If they did they would use a lot of net play alongside their baseline play.

All-rounder
05-10-2009, 12:15 PM
I agree with you. I don't think anyone has the skills to regularly attack Rafa with a serve and volley attack with the possible exception of Tsonga. Definitely there is no one like Pete Sampras actively playing today.

I'm not sure if Becker, Edberg etc would eat Nadal alive but it would be fun to watch. It's very fun to watch serve and volleyers versus a top baseliner on almost any surface.

It would be interesting against Sampras. I think Pete c. 1994 would stand a great chance against Nadal on hardcourt, indoor or grass, especially the 1994 Wimbledon grass. On today's Wimbledon grass, I'm not sure since I've never seem Pete play on it.

With Pete's serve, it would be hard for anyone to blow him out on those surfaces. On clay Nadal of course would have the edge.
On fast hardcourts sampras would have nadal covered but on slow nadal would hit passing shots one after the other

All-rounder
05-10-2009, 12:16 PM
No one does it this era because they never learnt to volley and play at net instinctively as a primary way of winning points. If they did they would use a lot of net play alongside their baseline play.
Well if you can't beat them join them :)

Hankenstein
05-10-2009, 12:17 PM
One guy that could have done that was Gasquet,, but Oh, thatīs right... it might not work.. I heard he goes to much for the lines...

slicefox
05-10-2009, 12:28 PM
They slowed down all the courts, otherwise nadal wouldn't be able to win anything.

I loved how Tsonga whooped on him at the AO, if I see that type of play a few more times, I would achieve tennis-watching nirvana.

Gugafan
05-10-2009, 12:34 PM
One guy that could have done that was Gasquet,, but Oh, thatīs right... it might not work.. I heard he goes to much for the lines...

Lol HaHa

Mardy Fish tried at the US Open and managed to get a set. Murray also executed a serve volley game against Nadal at the Aus Open, which went to 5 sets.

The problem with alot of the current players are they dont possess that instinctive first volley like Rafter, Sampras, Edberg etc.

cucio
05-10-2009, 12:36 PM
With Pete's serve, it would be hard for anyone to blow him out on those surfaces. On clay Nadal of course would have the edge.

The edge? :) More like the complete U2, their manager and some of the backstage people.

thalivest
05-10-2009, 12:39 PM
Rafa is no more of a better passer than Andre was.


Lets be real.. Wanna know why Nadal is number 1? Do ya? The death of the great serve-volley tennis and the death of fast courts like indoors and fast grass. Thats the bottom line. Edberg, Becker, Sampras, Goran would eat Nadal alive on Hardcourts and grass.

Of course Nadal will be number 1. THe game is filled with baseliners and slow courts.

Goran eat Nadal alive on hard courts, LOL! The guy who made only one semifinal and one quarterfinal his whole career of hard court slams and made annual first or second round exits at the U.S Opens to no names. More classic comedy from GameSampras.

TheNatural
05-10-2009, 12:45 PM
Or you could get out the old VHS tapes of Sampras playing like that.

This era tennis-watching Nirvana (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-yZsvv4zDPo&)is watching this type of tennis.

Why doesn't Federer try to Copy Tsonga?:shock:

They slowed down all the courts, otherwise nadal wouldn't be able to win anything.

I loved how Tsonga whooped on him at the AO, if I see that type of play a few more times, I would achieve tennis-watching nirvana.

JoshDragon
05-10-2009, 12:49 PM
They sped up all the courts, in the 90s, otherwise Sampras wouldn't be able to win anything.

I loved how Medvedev whooped on him at the FO, if I see that type of play a few more times, I would achieve tennis-watching nirvana.

I fixed your post.:)

Breaker
05-10-2009, 12:50 PM
One guy that could have done that was Gasquet,, but Oh, thatīs right... it might not work.. I heard he goes to much for the lines...

Shut the door on you way out :)

EtePras
05-10-2009, 01:03 PM
Why would anyone try a strategy that doesn't work above the 4.0 level? That's like saying nobody can invade North Korea with guns and missiles so why not try sending swordsmen instead.

deltox
05-10-2009, 01:15 PM
Or you could get out the old VHS tapes of Sampras playing like that.

This era tennis-watching Nirvana (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-yZsvv4zDPo&)is watching this type of tennis.

Why doesn't Federer try to Copy Tsonga?:shock:

tsonga has an immense wing span to try to pass at the net, plus he can out jump federer and reach higher shots like some of the not perfect lobs. Tsongas AO performance was my fav of all tennis of all time, but its gonna be hard for someone to repeat that kidna stuff . thats a once per decade performance imo.

Cenc
05-10-2009, 01:16 PM
Why would anyone try a strategy that doesn't work above the 4.0 level? That's like saying nobody can invade North Korea with guns and missiles so why not try sending swordsmen instead.

by that logic sampras is a 3.5 player at most
congratulations
u can beat him? (sampras i mean)

deltox
05-10-2009, 01:16 PM
Why would anyone try a strategy that doesn't work above the 4.0 level? That's like saying nobody can invade North Korea with guns and missiles so why not try sending swordsmen instead.

seriously? S&V tennis does well in all tourneys at the amateur level. even open tennis at smaller tourneys have alot of S&V players. 5.0s and 5.5 even though they are sparse, have a vast majority of S&V players at least in the southern US area ive seen.

tacou
05-10-2009, 02:32 PM
how does this conversation recycle itself day after day?

if anyone thinks sampras would have beaten nadal, fine, think that, but why create ANOTHER thread to tell everyone you think that way?

time machine's do not exist. Rafa and Sampras are two different generations. compare the two, contrast them, but don't go on and on for 10 more pages that Sampras would have whooped nadal with S&V when there is no way to prove it.

NamRanger
05-10-2009, 02:57 PM
Goran eat Nadal alive on hard courts, LOL! The guy who made only one semifinal and one quarterfinal his whole career of hard court slams and made annual first or second round exits at the U.S Opens to no names. More classic comedy from GameSampras.


He wouldn't eat him alive but Nadal certainly would have plenty of trouble returning Goran's serve (which is a far superior serve to any serve in the game today other than Karlovic's).

markwillplay
05-10-2009, 04:47 PM
I think the argument is that a great serve and volleyer could possibly take Nadal on quick surfaces....no doubt in my mind about that....however, there is not a great serve and volleyer in the game. Now, sure pros can volley, but these guys did not grow up with that game...don't deny this, you are wrong if you do...they didn't. It is not second nature to them and Nadal's game is second nature to him. I think there are a lot of younger folks that think a serve and volleyer can't survive because the game has passed them by. I am not so sure about that, but I am sure that it is not a style that has been taught in the academies in the past 10 years. I know, strings, slower courts, etc... Let me tell you, Stephan Edberg did quite well on clay and he played some very good clay court guys (the kind that only played on clay for goodness sakes) and beat them with his natural game....but that was second nature to him, not forced. He also took some *** whoopins to so of course it was more difficult on clay.

Chicken or the egg..did serve and volley stop because it is not effective against todays players or is it not effective against todays players because people stopped learning it and relying on it?

My point, you will never know how a natural serve and volleyer would do against Nadal because I don't think you will ever see it. Why would a baseliner who can beat the majority of pros he faces change his game? So the best baseliner will be #1....and he is.

Swissv2
05-10-2009, 05:11 PM
Consider that in the heyday of Serve+Volley, returns and passing shots were not as crazy as nowadays. That is why it was so effective back then.

Seriously watch videos of passing shots, returns from the late 1990s to today among the top players. Today's players have incredible ability to pass a player at the net, i.e. Djokovic, Federer, and especially Nadal among others.

GameSampras
05-10-2009, 05:13 PM
Consider that in the heyday of Serve+Volley, returns and passing shots were not as crazy as nowadays. That is why it was so effective back then.

Seriously watch videos of passing shots, returns from the late 1990s to today among the top players. Today's players have incredible ability to pass a player at the net, i.e. Djokovic, Federer, and especially Nadal among others.


Well you can thank racket technology for a bit of that.

bolo
05-10-2009, 05:21 PM
Rafa is no more of a better passer than Andre was.



obviously not true.

Swissv2
05-10-2009, 05:29 PM
Simply watching Nadal's passing shots vs Agassi's passing shots in any videos - he has a crazy better passing game than Agassi.

Mick
05-10-2009, 05:32 PM
i can only see radek stepanek doing this :)

veroniquem
05-10-2009, 06:12 PM
i can only see radek stepanek doing this :)
And Stepanek has not been able to beat Nadal in 4 meetings on hard, clay and carpet :) (case closed)

bolo
05-10-2009, 06:23 PM
Simply watching Nadal's passing shots vs Agassi's passing shots in any videos - he has a crazy better passing game than Agassi.

can get to far more shots + insane shots once he gets there because of the great hands. It's no contest versus agassi.

sh@de
05-10-2009, 06:25 PM
I suppose trying to serve and volley against Nadal would be funny :p. I seriously doubt it'd work; I'd say Nadal is the best passer in the game at the moment.

JamaicanYoute
05-10-2009, 07:07 PM
I find it funny that so many people forget how great an athlete Sampras is (was).. Actually the only person that reminds me of him is Nadal (and Tsonga @ last years Aussie). Sure, Pete wasn't a scrambler, but that's because their games are different. Anyone who thinks Nadal would crush kill destroy Pete obviously either has bad memory or just started watching tennis.

He may never have one a French but he beat all comers in his era. Players of all types of games. And no day can anyone compare Stepanek with Sampras. I really have an appreciation for his game, but nothing is comparable other than the fact that they both like to volley. Also, everyone always talks about Rafa's high bouncing ball, what about Pete's low bouncing, relatively flat powerful approach shots, his long *** arms, speed, drop volleys. It would be a great match Nadal/Sampras. \

I think people don't do it because they're afraid. If I were to play him, no day would I stay at the baseline. To what? lost 50 lbs from being dragged around. Go to net, if you get passed, you get passed. At least make him work for it. That means every shot he'd have to concentrate to precisely place the ball, rather than give it a clearance of 2-3 over the net...

markwillplay
05-10-2009, 07:16 PM
yup........Fish did well for a set but dones not have the talent that a Sampras or edberg, or Rafter had at net. Actually Fish's performance at the open only showed it could be done. Todays equipment can work both ways.

GameSampras
05-10-2009, 07:18 PM
Consider that in the heyday of Serve+Volley, returns and passing shots were not as crazy as nowadays. That is why it was so effective back then.

Seriously watch videos of passing shots, returns from the late 1990s to today among the top players. Today's players have incredible ability to pass a player at the net, i.e. Djokovic, Federer, and especially Nadal among others.


I know players of the past (Mac, Connors, Pete, Andre, Lendl etc) cant match up with the greats of today like Stepanek, Nalbandian, Verdasco, Del Potro etc. Its not even comparable:? Those guys are just too solid

JamaicanYoute
05-10-2009, 07:40 PM
yup........Fish did well for a set but dones not have the talent that a Sampras or edberg, or Rafter had at net. Actually Fish's performance at the open only showed it could be done. Todays equipment can work both ways.

I had forgotten about the Fish/Nadal match at the Open. Good match. You're correct - it can be done. I think he just got a little complacent and wasn't going for it as much after he won that first set. Same goes for the Federer/Lopez match at the Open '07. He was coming in quite a bit and took the first set. Amazing match for the most part. Set of his life anyway.

JamaicanYoute
05-10-2009, 07:47 PM
Consider that in the heyday of Serve+Volley, returns and passing shots were not as crazy as nowadays. That is why it was so effective back then.

Seriously watch videos of passing shots, returns from the late 1990s to today among the top players. Today's players have incredible ability to pass a player at the net, i.e. Djokovic, Federer, and especially Nadal among others.

Either that or most people today suck at the net. :roll:

Seriously, if people back then (as you put it, the 'hey day') came in a lot more, then people back then were more accustomed to hitting passing shots. This would typically mean that they could more consistently hit better passing shots. At least that's whats logically sound in my head. Serving and volleying will always be effective. But only if the person who's doing it knows what they're doing.

In your example, none of them (for the most part) haven't had to hit any against a good serve and volleyer. Let alone a great one.

Swissv2
05-10-2009, 08:11 PM
Either that or most people today suck at the net. :roll:

Seriously, if people back then (as you put it, the 'hey day') came in a lot more, then people back then were more accustomed to hitting passing shots. This would typically mean that they could more consistently hit better passing shots. At least that's whats logically sound in my head. Serving and volleying will always be effective. But only if the person who's doing it knows what they're doing.

In your example, none of them (for the most part) haven't had to hit any against a good serve and volleyer. Let alone a great one.

The very phenomenon of there being very little serve&volley players today has been discussed by many top players. Due to the changes in racquet and string technology as well as changes in the speed of the tennis courts, the return of the ball is much more difficult to handle nowadays. Slower courts allow today's more tuned and conditioned tennis athletes to punish the return. Racquet and string technology allows players a higher rate of spin which enables deeper angles on the passing shot.

Though it is good to see players experimenting with the serve+volley game every so often, with the changed conditions in today's tennis it will probably be a few more years before we see top players incorporate serve and volley as a winning tactic.

tlm
05-10-2009, 08:21 PM
You s+v lovers just dont wont let it go.S+V tennis is dead at the pro level period.It is very effective at the amateur level but not with the big boys.

It worked in the old days because the ground strokes were so much weaker than today.Just watch your old time serve+volley matches+ notice how much slower the ground strokes were.Looks like 4.0 players speed, that is why it was so popular it was hard to hit the ball by anyone.

They had to come in, because they couldnt hit hard enough to get points from the back court.The racquets+strings have changed the game, plus the athletes are stronger+have better ground strokes than in the past.

These guys are playing for millions of dollars, do you really think that they wouldnt do anything that would help them win.They dont use s+v that often because it wont work on a consistent basis period.

I keep hearing about tsonga at the ao, big deal he played out of his mind on one day.What has he done since that? If this s+v is so great why has he not beaten nadal with his net rushing since his miracle day?

I do think that the pros should come in more often than they do a lot of times, but it wont work if used all the time.It is not effective enough to be used on a regular basis against the top players.How much proof of this do you people need?

I would suggest that all you s+v lovers watch the old matches if you miss it so bad.Because it is dead+buried+it is not coming back.So watch your old time slo motion tennis,or enjoy the modern game.

Messarger
05-10-2009, 09:59 PM
Why is everyone use Tsonga AO'08 as an example? Sure it was a great performance by him but he's not been able to play like that ever since. If beating Nadal with S&V was that easy, he'd be 4-0 h2h instead of 3-1 down. I read somewhere that Tsonga felt on that day as though he was playing a video game where he could place the ball anywhere he liked. It's not like he or anyone else for that matter could choose to be in the zone anytime they like.

380pistol
05-10-2009, 11:56 PM
Wow this thread is hella funny.

What is the weakest part of Nadal's arsenal?? His return. The problem is nobdy attacks Nadal right from the serve. Sampras, and some others would take nadal out of the point before it starts. Everyone today allows Nadal to get back into the point, despite the fact he doesn't possess a great return and stands so far back on the return.

If Nadal payed Sampras and started is return games 3 feet behind the service line, that's where he'll remain for the remainder of the point. Nadal is not a great returner (return stroke in isolation), when you have and excellent volleyer like Pete, who will be coming in behind the greatest serve ever, Rafa will hav problems. Yes Rafa at times hits out of his passing shots from crazy positions, but if anyone thinks he's gonna do that to prime Pete for 3/5 sets all I gotta do is laugh.

Sampras can do something to Nadal that he hasn't seen very much in his carrer. Attack consostently and take him out the point from the onset. All these guys today allow Nadal to get back in the point and Rafa goes to work. But while Nadal would be woring his way back into the point (from 3 feet behind the baseline on his return), Sampras would be ending it.

P_Agony
05-11-2009, 12:02 AM
Like the great Pete Sampras said he would be licking his chops to play Nadal considering no one ever comes in attacks Nadal and puts pressure on him. Tsonga did at the AO 08 and he whopped on the boy. Sampras said, Im waiting for someone to attack the net and put pressure on Nadal instead of trying to rally with him from the baseline. Poor strategic plans by today's players is a big reason for what we are seeing now.

Why would any player not want to altar their game and add more elements to it? What the point of trying to outdo Nadal from the baseline? Thats losing proposition obviously. Why feed into a player's strengths? Thats ridiculous

I agree. However, trying to S&V against Nadal on clay is commiting suicide. On the slower grass at Wimbeldon it's not as effective as it was, so that leaves hard courts as the only logical place to implement that startegy.

Tsonga, in his match in the AO, has created some great volleys and consistently, thus putting the pressure on Nadal. However, if I recall correctly Tsonga has ever since never beat Nadal again, so this strategy isn't as easy as it sounds.

JamaicanYoute
05-11-2009, 07:10 AM
It worked in the old days because the ground strokes were so much weaker than today.Just watch your old time serve+volley matches+ notice how much slower the ground strokes were.Looks like 4.0 players speed, that is why it was so popular it was hard to hit the ball by anyone.

They had to come in, because they couldnt hit hard enough to get points from the back court.The racquets+strings have changed the game, plus the athletes are stronger+have better ground strokes than in the past.


That's just funny. The ground strokes back then were weaker? What, are you referring to the '80s and early '90's? Because I've been watching tennis for a very long time, in person and on tv and believe me, they don't hit that much harder if at all than they do today. In fact, I think they hit harder back then because they used less spin then these windshield-wiper strokes the majority of the tour uses. And they had to come in because they couldn't hit hard enough to get points from the back court? Umm yeah. Lol. That's just funny. And in regards to having 'better groundstrokes', we'll see how long people with these funny strokes are able to use them as they get older, compared to a more classic, clean stroke.

I do think that the pros should come in more often than they do a lot of times, but it wont work if used all the time.It is not effective enough to be used on a regular basis against the top players.How much proof of this do you people need?

Well the proof is there. Every time someone does what we're saying (and does it well) they make it a great match and usually take the set/points that they do it in. Now, not everyone can do it well, for example I wouldn't expect Agassi to do it and be successful at it. Although that's what it took to beat Moya that day at the French where he went crazy rushing in.

I would suggest that all you s+v lovers watch the old matches if you miss it so bad.Because it is dead+buried+it is not coming back.So watch your old time slo motion tennis,or enjoy the modern game.

Once again this is so funny. I suggest you go watch some Rafter, Sampras, Agassi, Krajicek, Kafelnikov matches to see how fast it is. I mean, if it were so 'slow' like you're stating, I doubt they would have slowed the courts, even at Wimbledon. ;)

Also, we do enjoy the modern game. But that doesn't mean we can ask for some variety.

drakulie
05-11-2009, 07:13 AM
Once again this is so funny. I suggest you go watch some Rafter, Sampras, Agassi, Krajicek, Kafelnikov matches to see how fast it is. I mean, if it were so 'slow' like you're stating, I doubt they would have slowed the courts, even at Wimbledon. ;)

Also, we do enjoy the modern game. But that doesn't mean we can ask for some variety.


Great post!!!

fps
05-11-2009, 07:17 AM
If i was playing Nadal... i'd lose horribly and want the ground to swallow me up. However, my tactics would involve attacking his serve return, and ghosting into the net every once in a while. Not as in hitting the big approach shot- you see Nadal's eyes light up when that happens and he goes into counterpunch bulldog mode. just trying to sneak in a few times when he's getting a little passive. with any luck this would make him hit a bit flatter to counter. then again, he hits with so much spin that volleys must be pretty difficult against him.

NamRanger
05-11-2009, 07:29 AM
I agree. However, trying to S&V against Nadal on clay is commiting suicide. On the slower grass at Wimbeldon it's not as effective as it was, so that leaves hard courts as the only logical place to implement that startegy.

Tsonga, in his match in the AO, has created some great volleys and consistently, thus putting the pressure on Nadal. However, if I recall correctly Tsonga has ever since never beat Nadal again, so this strategy isn't as easy as it sounds.


The 2 matches after that Tsonga was in a position to win each match, but choked.

Arafel
05-11-2009, 07:44 AM
You s+v lovers just dont wont let it go.S+V tennis is dead at the pro level period.It is very effective at the amateur level but not with the big boys.

It worked in the old days because the ground strokes were so much weaker than today.Just watch your old time serve+volley matches+ notice how much slower the ground strokes were.Looks like 4.0 players speed, that is why it was so popular it was hard to hit the ball by anyone.

They had to come in, because they couldnt hit hard enough to get points from the back court.The racquets+strings have changed the game, plus the athletes are stronger+have better ground strokes than in the past.

These guys are playing for millions of dollars, do you really think that they wouldnt do anything that would help them win.They dont use s+v that often because it wont work on a consistent basis period.

I keep hearing about tsonga at the ao, big deal he played out of his mind on one day.What has he done since that? If this s+v is so great why has he not beaten nadal with his net rushing since his miracle day?

I do think that the pros should come in more often than they do a lot of times, but it wont work if used all the time.It is not effective enough to be used on a regular basis against the top players.How much proof of this do you people need?

I would suggest that all you s+v lovers watch the old matches if you miss it so bad.Because it is dead+buried+it is not coming back.So watch your old time slo motion tennis,or enjoy the modern game.

Serve and volley has died, in part, because of the rise of the academies, not because it wouldn't be effective at the pro level. Tennis has become a business, even for the youngest players, and serve/volley takes time and commitment to develop properly. It takes the ability to come forward and know that sometimes you are just going to get passed, but keep coming forward and dare the other person to be able to pass you enough to win.

At the junior level, this style isn't rewarded, because it takes time to develop the instincts needed at the net. With so much money on the line even at the junior level (endorsements, getting attention from management companies who can get you big dollars etc.) the emphasis at the academies now is success immediately, and at that level baseline tennis is most effective, especially since the players are still growing.

Sampras, for instance, was a baseline player as a junior, but committed to learning serve and volley at around 15. In doing so, his junior ranking suffered greatly, and for a while he was losing to players he used to beat. Developing his game took time, and he was patient enough to wait for the rewards. Most people wouldn't be willing to do that, especially as the losses mounted to players they used to beat.

Look at Edberg. He won with serve and volley on clay. He did it by attacking on every point, both in his serve games and return games. He was willing to commit to the net on every point and dare the other player to be able to pass him each time.

I always wanted to be able to serve and volley, but I don't have the mindset needed for it.

pmerk34
05-11-2009, 08:22 AM
Consider that in the heyday of Serve+Volley, returns and passing shots were not as crazy as nowadays. That is why it was so effective back then.

Seriously watch videos of passing shots, returns from the late 1990s to today among the top players. Today's players have incredible ability to pass a player at the net, i.e. Djokovic, Federer, and especially Nadal among others.

Poly strings are the main reason. heck you rarely see passing shots go long nowadays. Common occurrence when they played with all gut set ups.

ksbh
05-11-2009, 09:02 AM
Because a flash in the pan, which is what Jo Willy is, doesn't shine all the time.

Or you could get out the old VHS tapes of Sampras playing like that.

This era tennis-watching Nirvana (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-yZsvv4zDPo&)is watching this type of tennis.

Why doesn't Federer try to Copy Tsonga?:shock:

ksbh
05-11-2009, 09:06 AM
If everyone in the current era could play like Pete, you wouldn't have one multi-slam champion!

Like the great Pete Sampras said he would be licking his chops to play Nadal considering no one ever comes in attacks Nadal and puts pressure on him. Tsonga did at the AO 08 and he whopped on the boy. Sampras said, Im waiting for someone to attack the net and put pressure on Nadal instead of trying to rally with him from the baseline. Poor strategic plans by today's players is a big reason for what we are seeing now.

Why would any player not want to altar their game and add more elements to it? What the point of trying to outdo Nadal from the baseline? Thats losing proposition obviously. Why feed into a player's strengths? Thats ridiculous

JoshDragon
05-11-2009, 10:00 AM
This whole argument about Tsonga beating Nadal with S&V tactics is ridiculous. Tsonga, isn't even a S&V. He's an all court player who occasionally S&V during a match. It's evident from watching their match that Nadal wasn't even close to his normal level:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nO6lalt5f6M

Here is a video of Nadal playing at his best, or at least much better: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mB9muGc30wI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLT8YG3Mu9o

Tsonga played an awesome match but Nadal was just playing terribly and these vids prove it. If Nadal had been playing at his Australian Open 2009 level he would have beaten Tsonga. It probably would have gone five sets but he still would have done it.

pmerk34
05-11-2009, 10:28 AM
This whole argument about Tsonga beating Nadal with S&V tactics is ridiculous. Tsonga, isn't even a S&V. He's an all court player who occasionally S&V during a match. It's evident from watching their match that Nadal wasn't even close to his normal level:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nO6lalt5f6M

Here is a video of Nadal playing at his best, or at least much better: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mB9muGc30wI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLT8YG3Mu9o

Tsonga played an awesome match but Nadal was just playing terribly and these vids prove it. If Nadal had been playing at his Australian Open 2009 level he would have beaten Tsonga. It probably would have gone five sets but he still would have done it.

Tsonga player out of his mind and Blew Nadal off the court. Nadal on his best day would have lost.

P_Agony
05-11-2009, 10:30 AM
The 2 matches after that Tsonga was in a position to win each match, but choked.

How many of those did Federer have...sigh...

Lion King
05-11-2009, 10:35 AM
On fast hardcourts sampras would have nadal covered but on slow nadal would hit passing shots one after the other

Yeah, remember how Guga creamed Pete in Lisbon 2000? That was a slow indoor court and Pete got passed all night long.

r2473
05-11-2009, 10:54 AM
Wanna know why Nadal is number 1? Do ya? The death of the great serve-volley tennis and the death of fast courts like indoors and fast grass. Thats the bottom line.

Serve and Volley
~verb/noun
1. Best and most effective, reliable and powerful style of tennis, no matter if a S&V player didnít win a challenger for 700 years.
2. Real tennis. Non S&V tennis needs to be renamed something else (teeNeZ, te@n@s, Pong).

Mindless Bashing:
~verb/noun
1. Non-S&V teeNeZ.
2. Pong.

JoshDragon
05-11-2009, 11:06 AM
Tsonga player out of his mind and Blew Nadal off the court. Nadal on his best day would have lost.

I agree that Tsonga played amazing tennis but Nadal on his best day would have won. Verdasco played, unbelievably well in his match against Nadal at the Australian Open semis and Nadal still beat him in five sets.

Dilettante
05-11-2009, 11:19 AM
Lets be real.. Wanna know why Nadal is number 1? Do ya? The death of the great serve-volley tennis and the death of fast courts like indoors and fast grass. Thats the bottom line. Edberg, Becker, Sampras, Goran would eat Nadal alive on Hardcourts and grass.

Of course Nadal will be number 1. THe game is filled with baseliners and slow courts.

So go out there yourself, and beat the pros playing your great S & V.

Or... wait, maybe Sampras could regain the #1 again.

Dilettante
05-11-2009, 11:22 AM
The 2 matches after that Tsonga was in a position to win each match, but choked.

See also TTW Dictionary's entry for "choker":

Choker:
~noun
1. Player that lost a match but you wanted him to win so bad, didnít you?

Blade0324
05-11-2009, 11:39 AM
Serve and Volley
~verb/noun
1. Best and most effective, reliable and powerful style of tennis, no matter if a S&V player didnít win a challenger for 700 years.
2. Real tennis. Non S&V tennis needs to be renamed something else (teeNeZ, te@n@s, Pong).

Mindless Bashing:
~verb/noun
1. Non-S&V teeNeZ.
2. Pong.

This is just foolishness. All styles of tennis are equal. I absolutely hate S&V and think it's a sissy way to play but it should get equal credit for being a legit style of play to baseline play. There is a reason that players today don't play that style, it's not effective anymore. You said yourself even if a S&V player didn't win another challenger for 700 years.

Pirao
05-11-2009, 12:11 PM
See also TTW Dictionary's entry for "choker":

It's quite funny, isn't it? According to the haters, every player who loses against Nadal is because they choke. Maybe we should call Nadal Darth Vader or something!

coloskier
05-11-2009, 12:47 PM
This is just foolishness. All styles of tennis are equal. I absolutely hate S&V and think it's a sissy way to play but it should get equal credit for being a legit style of play to baseline play. There is a reason that players today don't play that style, it's not effective anymore. You said yourself even if a S&V player didn't win another challenger for 700 years.

How is going for winners all the time "sissy" compared to waiting at the baseline for your opponent to make the error? If you want to be a TRUE winner, you have to cause it to happen, not wait for someone else to give it to you.

fedtastic
05-11-2009, 04:38 PM
The answer is NO. A big fat NO. Nobody is going to serve and volley against Rafa. Not continiously atleast. Why not? Because it is not the 90s or the 80s. Racket and string technology have changed the way the game is played and also faster surfaces are nowhere to be seen. S&V heaven (wimbldon) has been slowed down. AO slowed down, so why S&V on slower surfaces so you can get passed left,right and centre by Mr Rafa.
This thread is stupid as this topic has been discussed many times. GameSampras, please get some Sampras DVDs and keep watching them because nobody is going to play that style anymore. Unfortunately S&V has died unless something drastic happens.

The-Champ
05-11-2009, 05:06 PM
Consider that in the heyday of Serve+Volley, returns and passing shots were not as crazy as nowadays. That is why it was so effective back then.

Seriously watch videos of passing shots, returns from the late 1990s to today among the top players. Today's players have incredible ability to pass a player at the net, i.e. Djokovic, Federer, and especially Nadal among others.


Stefan Edberg was asked if he would have the same strategy had he played today. He said "I wouldn't be as agressive today because guys return much better than they did during my time".

Anyway, it's just Edberg, he knows nothing about tennis.

The-Champ
05-11-2009, 05:16 PM
The 2 matches after that Tsonga was in a position to win each match, but choked.


Why would you choke against someone you demolished before?

kaiotic
05-11-2009, 05:42 PM
AO 2009 Final - 4th set enuff said

markwillplay
05-11-2009, 07:15 PM
maybe edberg thinks a little differently now than he did when he was 25...just a possibility...maybe not. What would be great is to have enough money to sponsor a great athelete at a young age and teach them serve and volley and make them learn it as a way to play tennis. then get them the best equipment, fitnes, bla bla bla bla, and see. You folks act like the individual player does not make a differnce and just the style. Bull, ther is a difference in the serve and volleyers from the 90's who were ranked 200 and the ones that were in the top 5.

What is funny about this whole thing is that it is true that a serve and volleyr will never dethrone nadal now, no one commits to it, what will dethrone him will be someone who comes along and plays his style better and is younger.....and it will happen folks. I like Nadal and like watching him, I just wish there was more of an agressive type player that worked as hard and was as good. I always like watching contrasting styles against each other. Makes tennis more interesting. But that is just me.

tlm
05-11-2009, 07:55 PM
Ya these guys play for huge money, but they dont s+v even though according to the experts here who live in the past say it would be more effective.

I guess you s+v lovers know more than the pro players do.Many players have tried this against nadal+ some have had some success, but he will end up making you pay.It will not work against the top players consistently.

tlm
05-11-2009, 08:24 PM
By the way jamaicanyoute they slowed the courts because it turned into a serving contest. Which was ruining the game, big serve come to the net bang bang points over very boring.

How many of you watched the sampras- fed exhibition matches? This was some of the most boring tennis i have ever seen.Is this what you guys are missing? I hope this 2-3 shot serving contest never comes back.

Also jamaicayoute are you saying that the groundstrokes are weaker today? Whatever you want to think,the old school flat strokes were much easier to volley.The modern ww forehand which you call weird, dips much quicker+is much more difficult to volley.Also it is much easier to pass with.

You say your old heros game was so fast. What do you mean by fast? How fast the point gets over? Please humor me some more+tell me how the old boys could hit passing shots on the run from 6 feet behind the baseline.

They wouldnt dream of hitting the passing shots that are common place today.Now i will hear how the courts are slower the racquets the strings+ bla blah blah.Which all of these things play into it, but that is the way it is.

But you claim that the proof is there. Whenever the current players play s+v properly that they win the points+the set. But even though they are playing for millions of dollars they dont take your advise + keep coming to the net.

Wow these pro players are really stupid they could win easily, make rafa look stupid+ make much more money by playing s+v tennis.

TheNatural
05-11-2009, 08:36 PM
Edberg also said that Federer should come in and serve volley more versus Nadal.

Stefan Edberg was asked if he would have the same strategy had he played today. He said "I wouldn't be as agressive today because guys return much better than they did during my time".

Anyway, it's just Edberg, he knows nothing about tennis.

tonyg11
05-11-2009, 08:40 PM
I agree that nobody wants to watch Sampras/Krajicek/Ivanisavic snooze fests anymore. But I’m willing to bet the next number 1 will be an aggressive Sampras-style player. The pool of top players are filled with baseliners waiting to get eaten up by an aggressive serve and volleyer.

Guys like Nadal and Federer have taken the baseline game to the next level, but nobody has come after Sampras to take the serve and volley game to the next level. The person to do this will be the next dominant player.

The-Champ
05-11-2009, 09:44 PM
Edberg also said that Federer should come in and serve volley more versus Nadal.


So that means, Stefan would have had an all-court game had he played today.

380pistol
05-11-2009, 10:11 PM
Yeah, remember how Guga creamed Pete in Lisbon 2000? That was a slow indoor court and Pete got passed all night long.

i love these stupid posts. 6-7,6-3,6-4 is getting creamed?!? Do you know that was Pete's 1st tournament after being off for 3 months, and he did a lot of damage to himself going 1 for 8 on break pts.

dem331
05-11-2009, 10:20 PM
By the way jamaicanyoute they slowed the courts because it turned into a serving contest. Which was ruining the game, big serve come to the net bang bang points over very boring.

How many of you watched the sampras- fed exhibition matches? This was some of the most boring tennis i have ever seen.Is this what you guys are missing? I hope this 2-3 shot serving contest never comes back.

Also jamaicayoute are you saying that the groundstrokes are weaker today? Whatever you want to think,the old school flat strokes were much easier to volley.The modern ww forehand which you call weird, dips much quicker+is much more difficult to volley.Also it is much easier to pass with.

You say your old heros game was so fast. What do you mean by fast? How fast the point gets over? Please humor me some more+tell me how the old boys could hit passing shots on the run from 6 feet behind the baseline.

They wouldnt dream of hitting the passing shots that are common place today.Now i will hear how the courts are slower the racquets the strings+ bla blah blah.Which all of these things play into it, but that is the way it is.

But you claim that the proof is there. Whenever the current players play s+v properly that they win the points+the set. But even though they are playing for millions of dollars they dont take your advise + keep coming to the net.

Wow these pro players are really stupid they could win easily, make rafa look stupid+ make much more money by playing s+v tennis.


Sensible post. It was not really S&V by the end of the 90s on fast surfaces, it was huge almost unreturnable serve and out away the dolly that was sitting up on the net. Tennis would have been dead if the courts had not been slowed down to compensate for technology/fitness.

JamaicanYoute
05-12-2009, 07:17 AM
By the way jamaicanyoute they slowed the courts because it turned into a serving contest. Which was ruining the game, big serve come to the net bang bang points over very boring.
So they only slowed the courts only because of the serve? I don't think so. Also, the thing about "bang bang points over very boring" - that's your opinion, not everyone's. I don't call this boring. Maybe you think it's boring because you can't volley. Or maybe you just straight out dont care for it. Doesn't mean it's boring. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dvajKWj4SA

How many of you watched the sampras- fed exhibition matches? This was some of the most boring tennis i have ever seen.Is this what you guys are missing? I hope this 2-3 shot serving contest never comes back.
It was an exhibition match between a pro and a 37 year old former pro smart guy. I don't think it was boring, and I certainly don't think it was boring in the Fish/Nadal match at the Open, or the Nadal/Tsonga match at the Aussie, or the Lopez/Federer or Roddick/Federer matches at the Open in 2007. The fact of the matter is, none of those guys in my book are great volleyers. Sure, the courts are slower, technology is better, and athletes are getting to balls they 'wouldn't have years ago' - I still say a seasoned good volleyer would take that all in stride and still be more effective then running around the baseline, hoping for a guy like Nadal to miss. Why not force him to miss, come up with something special?
Also jamaicayoute are you saying that the groundstrokes are weaker today? Whatever you want to think,the old school flat strokes were much easier to volley.The modern ww forehand which you call weird, dips much quicker+is much more difficult to volley.Also it is much easier to pass with.
Yeah, that must be why so many people volleyed back then, because the ground strokes were so poor and so flat that it was sooo easy to volley. :roll:Do yourself a favor and watch the tape and the numerous others out there with unbelievable volleys and great low passes. Also, I think you're right - clearly they were hitting the ball so softly. :oops:
You say your old heros game was so fast. What do you mean by fast? How fast the point gets over?
Don't be mad because Sampras (and others I can think of) could afford to play their game and still win. It's the players decision to go for their shots. Don't be mad because he still won by doing that. He was obviously of the mind-set that he wasn't going to get into long rallies. I mean who would when you can hit or play the game style he did effectively?
Now i will hear how the courts are slower the racquets the strings+ bla blah blah.Which all of these things play into it, but that is the way it is.

So you admit it, these are the reasons.
But you claim that the proof is there. Whenever the current players play s+v properly that they win the points+the set. But even though they are playing for millions of dollars they dont take your advise + keep coming to the net. Wow these pro players are really stupid they could win easily, make rafa look stupid+ make much more money by playing s+v tennis.
Who said anything about making Rafa look stupid. Don't be mad. I think someone has a man crush :oops:... Once again, it's because probably none of them truly feel comfortable up there. You don't think there's a slight possibility that could be the reason? We've seen that it can work, right? And yes, they do play for millions of dollars - that doesn't automatically mean they are going to do what's best for them. How many times have people tried to drill in Roddick's head that he plays best when he's moving forward? And yet he likes to stay behind with that weak-*** backhand of his? How many times have people said "if only if Safin could get his attitude together (and countless other players) he could do so much better?" Newsflash; people don't always do what's best for them. Even if they have the whole world telling them.

Arafel
05-12-2009, 07:38 AM
So they only slowed the courts only because of the serve? I don't think so. Also, the thing about "bang bang points over very boring" - that's your opinion, not everyone's. I don't call this boring. Maybe you think it's boring because you can't volley. Or maybe you just straight out dont care for it. Doesn't mean it's boring. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dvajKWj4SA



Thanks for this. Great match. This is when tennis was interesting to me, when there were contrasting styles.

I'd also point out this is an example of what I posted earlier, that players today don't have the mindset needed to play serve volley. Agassi makes a lot of great passing shots here, but Sampras just keeps coming in.

Edberg, for instance, had that mentality. He didn't care if he got passed 50 times, he'd come in and dare you to make it 51.

Flawless
05-12-2009, 07:42 AM
Stefan Edberg was asked if he would have the same strategy had he played today. He said "I wouldn't be as agressive today because guys return much better than they did during my time".

Anyway, it's just Edberg, he knows nothing about tennis.

Great post!

Edberg also said that Federer should come in and serve volley more versus Nadal

Yeah, he said he should do that more, but not that it's all he should do. ;)


Serve and Volley
~verb/noun
1. Best and most effective, reliable and powerful style of tennis, no matter if a S&V player didnít win a challenger for 700 years.
2. Real tennis. Non S&V tennis needs to be renamed something else (teeNeZ, te@n@s, Pong).

Mindless Bashing:
~verb/noun
1. Non-S&V teeNeZ.
2. Pong.


Hahahaha, this was great, good job!!

I agree that nobody wants to watch Sampras/Krajicek/Ivanisavic snooze fests anymore. But Iím willing to bet the next number 1 will be an aggressive Sampras-style player. The pool of top players are filled with baseliners waiting to get eaten up by an aggressive serve and volleyer.

Guys like Nadal and Federer have taken the baseline game to the next level, but nobody has come after Sampras to take the serve and volley game to the next level. The person to do this will be the next dominant player.

Yeah, this is partly true, but still there's the surface & technique & technology factors that have changed, so..
Though, I don't see that happening anytime soon. I think kids today are focused on developing different sort of skills.
You never know though, things change pretty quickly nowdays.

Blade0324
05-12-2009, 07:44 AM
How is going for winners all the time "sissy" compared to waiting at the baseline for your opponent to make the error? If you want to be a TRUE winner, you have to cause it to happen, not wait for someone else to give it to you.

I didn't say going for winners is sissy, I said that S&V is sissy. That to me is not going for winners.

thejoe
05-12-2009, 07:49 AM
I didn't say going for winners is sissy, I said that S&V is sissy. That to me is not going for winners.

And Murray and Nadal hitting the ball with 10 metres of net clearance is? I know that Murray in particular has an amazing attacking game, but you can't deny that on clay, he and Nadal play so low risk it is scary. Way more "sissy" than serve-volley (I don't see how you can call it that)

NamRanger
05-12-2009, 07:50 AM
Why would you choke against someone you demolished before?


Heck if I know, but if anyone was watching it was clearly obvious Tsonga blew those matches.


At IW he won the first set like 7-6 or something like that, and was leading 5-2 before somehow imploding on himself. At Rotterdam Tsonga won the 2nd set in a tiebreak and had a break lead in the 3rd before losing.

Cesc Fabregas
05-12-2009, 07:54 AM
Heck if I know, but if anyone was watching it was clearly obvious Tsonga blew those matches.


At IW he won the first set like 7-6 or something like that, and was leading 5-2 before somehow imploding on himself. At Rotterdam Tsonga won the 2nd set in a tiebreak and had a break lead in the 3rd before losing.

Actually Nadal got the early break in the 3rd set in Rotterdam.

thejoe
05-12-2009, 07:57 AM
Actually Nadal got the early break in the 3rd set in Rotterdam.

Wow, that's some memory you have there.

Cesc Fabregas
05-12-2009, 08:01 AM
Wow, that's some memory you have there.

Nadal was a break up in the final set, Tsonga then broke back and Nadal broke him again to win the match.

Blade0324
05-12-2009, 08:01 AM
And Murray and Nadal hitting the ball with 10 metres of net clearance is? I know that Murray in particular has an amazing attacking game, but you can't deny that on clay, he and Nadal play so low risk it is scary. Way more "sissy" than serve-volley (I don't see how you can call it that)

For starters don't exaggerate with your, they hit with 10meters of net clearance. It is higher than many to be sure but it's more like 1-2 meters most of the time. They both also flatten out their shots and go for them quite a bit. Playing low risk is smart tennis and is also a great deal of the clay game. If you can get your opponenet to go for too much first and miss then you have succeeded with a very good winning tactic.

thejoe
05-12-2009, 08:02 AM
For starters don't exaggerate with your, they hit with 10meters of net clearance. It is higher than many to be sure but it's more like 1-2 meters most of the time. They both also flatten out their shots and go for them quite a bit. Playing low risk is smart tennis and is also a great deal of the clay game. If you can get your opponenet to go for too much first and miss then you have succeeded with a very good winning tactic.

I'm not denying that it is smart, that isn't what I was debating. Surely you must agree that it is sissy, as you are not going for the winners, you are waiting for your opponent to gift you the point.

NamRanger
05-12-2009, 08:02 AM
Actually Nadal got the early break in the 3rd set in Rotterdam.


Sorry, I can't remember them all :( I'm not Tennis Encyclopedia.

Pirao
05-12-2009, 08:03 AM
Nadal was a break up in the final set, Tsonga then broke back and Nadal broke him again to win the match.

NamRanger doesn't let such small facts get in the way of his opinions.

Cesc Fabregas
05-12-2009, 08:03 AM
Sorry, I can't remember them all :( I'm not Tennis Encyclopedia.

:) no problem.

Blade0324
05-12-2009, 08:10 AM
I'm not denying that it is smart, that isn't what I was debating. Surely you must agree that it is sissy, as you are not going for the winners, you are waiting for your opponent to gift you the point.

I actually don't see how that is Sissy. You are playing smart tactical tennis and moving your opponent around until they cannot get a reply or you get a short ball you can pounce on. I don't say that you should never go for winners but that should be a small percentage of the time and in the right situation. What Nadal and Murray do is get their opponent to go for winners and poor times from bad positions in the court and thus they miss many of them. To me their opponent would be better served to adapt and play a more similar style and wait for the right opportunity to go for a more aggressive shot. If I can get you to go for a winner that is an ill advised shot and you miss, I'll say thank you sir may I have another, and keep doing this until you quite giving points away.

thejoe
05-12-2009, 08:13 AM
I actually don't see how that is Sissy. You are playing smart tactical tennis and moving your opponent around until they cannot get a reply or you get a short ball you can pounce on. I don't say that you should never go for winners but that should be a small percentage of the time and in the right situation. What Nadal and Murray do is get their opponent to go for winners and poor times from bad positions in the court and thus they miss many of them. To me their opponent would be better served to adapt and play a more similar style and wait for the right opportunity to go for a more aggressive shot. If I can get you to go for a winner that is an ill advised shot and you miss, I'll say thank you sir may I have another, and keep doing this until you quite giving points away.

I'm going by your definition. It isn't going for winners. That is what you called sissy. Surely forcing the point, playing it on your terms (a la serve-volley) is far less sissy, as you are in control. You're confusing me with your contradictions.

Blade0324
05-12-2009, 08:34 AM
I'm going by your definition. It isn't going for winners. That is what you called sissy. Surely forcing the point, playing it on your terms (a la serve-volley) is far less sissy, as you are in control. You're confusing me with your contradictions.

I maybe wasn't clear enough. I wasn't saying that it was sissy to not go for winners I was saying that S&V specifically was. True S&V is not going for winners. I just thing that S&V is a method employed by those that don't have enough confidence in their groundstrokes and consistancy to play from the baseline. It can be effective against an inferior player but against someone with good strokes and mobility it is virtually suicide.

Arafel
05-12-2009, 08:59 AM
I maybe wasn't clear enough. I wasn't saying that it was sissy to not go for winners I was saying that S&V specifically was. True S&V is not going for winners. I just thing that S&V is a method employed by those that don't have enough confidence in their groundstrokes and consistancy to play from the baseline. It can be effective against an inferior player but against someone with good strokes and mobility it is virtually suicide.

Oh please. Watch the Agassi-Sampras video listed above and then come back with your comments about it being effective only against an inferior player and how it won't work against someone with good strokes. Serve/volley is all about going for a winner. You use the serve to set up the open court, or if you come in on the return, you setup with a half-volley.

LeftySpin
05-12-2009, 09:14 AM
I think its easy to say "just serve and volley." Its easy for Sampras to say because he was one of the most dominant serves in the game. I think one of the main problems is that there aren't a lot of people that can serve like Sampras. Also Nadal is one of the best service returners in the game. So it's pretty demoralizing to go in on a what you would think is a good serve just to get passed. All I am saying is that its easier said then done.

TheNatural
05-12-2009, 09:55 AM
Great post!



Yeah, he said he should do that more, but not that it's all he should do. ;)




re:Edberg also said that Federer should come in and serve volley more versus Nadal


No one said that's "all" he should do, but Fed only comes to net to shake hands now, doing some SV and approaching net on some returns of serve is a good start. It's almost like he's allergic to the net yet his 1 hander, and slice and relatively neutral forehand grip should lent itself to plenty of net play. But he may just lack the technical competency and the mentality of the good net players who don't get fazed by a few passes. Pulling off 1 or 2 volleys is easy, but doing it for 3 or 5 sets takes skill and conviction.

He'd be a much better and much more dangerous player if he could integrate sv and a lot more net attacks into his game.

TheNatural
05-12-2009, 10:04 AM
Fed is one of the top servers in his own right. Better than Rafter and Henman.

Nadal's return is ok, but not really all that dangerous on the first shot.Joker and murray hit much better backhand returns.

The main problem is 1/ Fed's technical competency at volleying, he hasn't done it in matches for years(I don't mean 2 sv points in a whole match)
2/ Feds mental approach to volleying, he gives up after being passed twice.

I believe if he had Henman's volleys that he'd use a lot of SV and net attacks in general and he'd be a better player with a more versatile game plan v the top 4.

I think its easy to say "just serve and volley." Its easy for Sampras to say because he was one of the most dominant serves in the game. I think one of the main problems is that there aren't a lot of people that can serve like Sampras. Also Nadal is one of the best service returners in the game. So it's pretty demoralizing to go in on a what you would think is a good serve just to get passed. All I am saying is that its easier said then done.

veroniquem
05-12-2009, 10:14 AM
I actually don't see how that is Sissy. You are playing smart tactical tennis and moving your opponent around until they cannot get a reply or you get a short ball you can pounce on. I don't say that you should never go for winners but that should be a small percentage of the time and in the right situation. What Nadal and Murray do is get their opponent to go for winners and poor times from bad positions in the court and thus they miss many of them. To me their opponent would be better served to adapt and play a more similar style and wait for the right opportunity to go for a more aggressive shot. If I can get you to go for a winner that is an ill advised shot and you miss, I'll say thank you sir may I have another, and keep doing this until you quite giving points away.
So true. Nadal also turns defense into offense quite brilliantly. We see all the time that players who rush too much trying to hit winners- whether they're in a good position to do so or not- have tons of unforced errors (I don't know if that's "sissy" but it causes them to lose a lot of games, sets and matches.)

JamaicanYoute
05-12-2009, 10:16 AM
re:Edberg also said that Federer should come in and serve volley more versus Nadal


No one said that's "all" he should do, but Fed only comes to net to shake hands now, doing some SV and approaching net on some returns of serve is a good start. It's almost like he's allergic to the net yet his 1 hander, and slice and relatively neutral forehand grip should lent itself to plenty of net play. But he may just lack the technical competency and the mentality of the good net players who don't get fazed by a few passes. Pulling off 1 or 2 volleys is easy, but doing it for 3 or 5 sets takes skill and conviction.

He'd be a much better and much more dangerous player if he could integrate sv and a lot more net attacks into his game.

Couldn't agree more.

When I say people should be volleying, I don't understand why some people start breathing down your neck thinking you mean ALL them time. It's so ridiculous.

While I don't think Federer is the worlds best volleyer, he can, and has certainly shown the ability to do it well. Good hands, great timing, and has a great arsenal of shots he can come in on. Maybe mentally he isn't that tough? Who knows, based off of his actions that's what we can assume i guess.

Also, I agree with the Nadal return mention. Not that great a return to be afraid to come in. To at least try it. It's kind of like the mindset where we see that no matter how many times Nadal serves to Fed's backhand, Fed never moves over. I mean, what's that all about. Spice things up man! Have a little fun..

380pistol
05-12-2009, 10:30 AM
I think its easy to say "just serve and volley." Its easy for Sampras to say because he was one of the most dominant serves in the game. I think one of the main problems is that there aren't a lot of people that can serve like Sampras. Also Nadal is one of the best service returners in the game. So it's pretty demoralizing to go in on a what you would think is a good serve just to get passed. All I am saying is that its easier said then done.

You got it wrong. Should Fed come in vs Nadal?? Of course. Should he be serving and volleying?? Yes. Should he be serving and volleying all the time vs Rafa?? No.

Federer has a very good serve, and Nadal's return is nothing special, and Roger should attack him from there. Nadal stands 3 feet behind the baseline when he returns, Federer must make that an issue. Right now he just wants to stay back and outplay Nadal from the baseline, and that just isn't gonna happen for 2 reasons......

-Nadal too consistent, and can defend (and move) well, forcing Roger into errors
-They rally and the moment Nadal takes a ball to Roger's backhand, Fed is playing catch up


He's gotta put in Nadals head, so Nadal just can't get balls back and work his way ino the point. Right now Nadal is too damn good, and too damn considtent. And the way he's going now to beat Nadal 3/5 sets, slugging it out from the baseline is a dificult omen. What's the point of having an all around game (Federer), if you're not gonna use it???

Blade0324
05-12-2009, 12:39 PM
You got it wrong. Should Fed come in vs Nadal?? Of course. Should he be serving and volleying?? Yes. Should he be serving and volleying all the time vs Rafa?? No.

Federer has a very good serve, and Nadal's return is nothing special, and Roger should attack him from there. Nadal stands 3 feet behind the baseline when he returns, Federer must make that an issue. Right now he just wants to stay back and outplay Nadal from the baseline, and that just isn't gonna happen for 2 reasons......

-Nadal too consistent, and can defend (and move) well, forcing Roger into errors
-They rally and the moment Nadal takes a ball to Roger's backhand, Fed is playing catch up


He's gotta put in Nadals head, so Nadal just can't get balls back and work his way ino the point. Right now Nadal is too damn good, and too damn considtent. And the way he's going now to beat Nadal 3/5 sets, slugging it out from the baseline is a dificult omen. What's the point of having an all around game (Federer), if you're not gonna use it???

Because when he tries to use it he gets schooled. If you try something and it's not working you don't keep doing it, that's just crazy. Fed realizes that he can't beat Nadal by coming in so he is trying something else. The problem is that something else doesn't work either and he and everyone else are yet to find another option.

tlm
05-12-2009, 07:12 PM
Now i understand all the pros have to do is hire jaimacanyoute. Because he knows more than the players+their coaches what will work.He knows what is best for them, all i can say is wow somebody is in la la land.

I said that the game has changed in a lot of ways, not just the speed of the courts+equipment. The players can pass from almost anywhere on the court.One of the big changes is the ww forehand, you know that shot you call weird.

The modern forehand is much better than the old school forehand for passing net rushers.Sorry you dont like it+ probably cant hit it but it just the way it is.

Show me how many of the older players could pass from behind the baseline stretched out on the dead run.In todays game it is a common occurrence. It is clearly easier to volley a flat shot compared to a dipping ball with 3000 rpm.But i am sure with your coaching you could show the big boys how to do it.

Every year i hear this s+v fantasy over+over on this site.For the last 5 years i keep hearing that S+V is going to come back.Or there is going to be a great S+V player that takes over the game.It has not even come close to happening+it is not going to.It is dead plain+ simple, see this is called reality.Not what some are hoping for this is known as fantasy.

According to the man with all the answers jaimacanyoute, s+v works. He says that we have seen that it work right? Of course we have not seen it work.Just because someone has some success in a set or a match once in a while does not mean a damn thing.

Let me see who are todays S+V players, the great marty fish, how about stepanek+ of course roddick comes in now to make himself get beat even easier.There was the great Tim hinmen who just retired a couple of years ago. What did he win? How great did he do in the modern game?

Please let me know when this S+v tennis actually wins something in todays game.Again this is reality not fantasy!!!!!!!!!!!!

BreakPoint
05-12-2009, 07:22 PM
Tsonga did it once and then got his butt kicked the next couple times they played.

Um.....losing 6-7, 7-6, 7-5 and 6-4, 6-7, 6-4, in best of 3 set matches, is "getting your butt kicked"?

No, Nadal losing to Tsonga in straight sets, 6-2, 6-3, 6-2 - THAT'S "getting your butt kicked". :oops:

Noveson
05-12-2009, 07:24 PM
Rafa is no more of a better passer than Andre was.


Lets be real.. Wanna know why Nadal is number 1? Do ya? The death of the great serve-volley tennis and the death of fast courts like indoors and fast grass. Thats the bottom line. Edberg, Becker, Sampras, Goran would eat Nadal alive on Hardcourts and grass.

Of course Nadal will be number 1. THe game is filled with baseliners and slow courts.

That's like saying that Pete, Edberg, Becker, and Goran were only the top players because of fast indoor courts and fast grass. Nadal and other grinders would eat them alive on slower courts.

What's the point of debating something as trivial as this?

Btw, I don't think you watch Nadal, very much, as you have said in the past that he has no weapons. He does have weapons, most notable are his speed, focus, and his backhand.

Where you at GameSampras? Just going to ignore this one?

Mansewerz
05-12-2009, 07:29 PM
I will!!!! someone wanna pay for lessons and airfare to Madrid?:D

BreakPoint
05-12-2009, 07:35 PM
lol. Sampras would get pass each time. Nadal's speed and spin allows him to hit great angled passing shots and get high %.
What good are Nadal's passing shots if he never gets to touch the ball? :confused:

That's the beauty of serve and volley tennis, as opposed to hit a groundstroke and run to the net. You come in behind your big serve and you hit the first volley into the open court or behind your opponent. The returner never gets a second chance to hit the ball. :)

Did you see the Fish-Robredo match today? Fish was playing some beautiful serve and volley on clay, taking advantage of Robredo standing so far back on returns. Robredo never got to hit a second shot. Now Nadal stands even further back to receive serve than Robredo and Sampras is a MUCH better serve and volleyer than Fish.

(Yes, Fish lost the match in 3 sets but only because he choked in the 2nd set tiebreak and then mentally went away in the 3rd.)

BorisBeckerFan
05-12-2009, 07:49 PM
Josh Dragon made some good points. To alot of people who grew up watching tennis on primarily fast courts outside of clay, tennis is now a drudge. Very long points with longer baseline rallies being more commom.
Tennis was even played on basketball like wood floors back in the day and that was even faster than carpet which faster than grass which is faster than etc, etc down to what you have today. Even the hardcourts play a touch slow and any surface where the ball even remotely skids is considered fast. The sport has changed and different aspects of the game are being rewarded. So the Josh Dragon reversal on Game Sampras is logical but just doesn't hold as much weight. Had tennis always primarily been a long rally sport and then swithced to a 1 to 3 shots in a rally sport then Josh Dragon's argument would hold more significance. Josh Dragon's logic is sound but Game Sampras's logic is based on the reality of the surfaces slowing down not the hypothetical of surfaces speeding up.

BreakPoint
05-12-2009, 08:10 PM
Did anyone see the Meltzer-Montanes match today? Perfect example of how well serve and volley works on even clay. Meltzer was relentless with his S&V game and Montanes, a very good claycourter, had no answers.

Noveson
05-12-2009, 08:29 PM
What good are Nadal's passing shots if he never gets to touch the ball? :confused:

That's the beauty of serve and volley tennis, as opposed to hit a groundstroke and run to the net. You come in behind your big serve and you hit the first volley into the open court or behind your opponent. The returner never gets a second chance to hit the ball. :)

Did you see the Fish-Robredo match today? Fish was playing some beautiful serve and volley on clay, taking advantage of Robredo standing so far back on returns. Robredo never got to hit a second shot. Now Nadal stands even further back to receive serve than Robredo and Sampras is a MUCH better serve and volleyer than Fish.

(Yes, Fish lost the match in 3 sets but only because he choked in the 2nd set tiebreak and then mentally went away in the 3rd.)

I think you have a great point there. Nadal would have a very very tough time when Sampras is serving. However no one has been talking about when Nadal is serving. Sampras would be back either try to cope from the back of the court(not going to happen) or he would have to try and approach, and Nadal would definitely get his racquet on those, he has amazing speed. So I think it would be a great match. It is dumb to argue about surfaces because just because fast courts came first doesn't mean they are the "right" surface. Obviously on fast courts Sampras would have an advantage, but does that mean he is better than Nadal? No.

NamRanger
05-12-2009, 08:36 PM
I think you have a great point there. Nadal would have a very very tough time when Sampras is serving. However no one has been talking about when Nadal is serving. Sampras would be back either try to cope from the back of the court(not going to happen) or he would have to try and approach, and Nadal would definitely get his racquet on those, he has amazing speed. So I think it would be a great match. It is dumb to argue about surfaces because just because fast courts came first doesn't mean they are the "right" surface. Obviously on fast courts Sampras would have an advantage, but does that mean he is better than Nadal? No.


Sampras would attempt to clobber every Nadal serve; especially 2nd serves. This is the key difference between Sampras and Federer. Sampras is willing to try and impose his game on Nadal, while Federer attempts to beat Nadal at his own game.

JoshDragon
05-12-2009, 08:40 PM
Did anyone see the Meltzer-Montanes match today? Perfect example of how well serve and volley works on even clay. Meltzer was relentless with his S&V game and Montanes, a very good claycourter, had no answers.

S&V can work on clay but only if you have your opponent well out of position, to put the volley away. S&V on clay is the equivalent to hitting defensive returns on carpet or fast indoor hard courts. It can win you some points but it's not conducive to the surface.

icedevil0289
05-12-2009, 08:42 PM
Sampras would attempt to clobber every Nadal serve; especially 2nd serves. This is the key difference between Sampras and Federer. Sampras is willing to try and impose his game on Nadal, while Federer attempts to beat Nadal at his own game.

I agree and it ****es me off.

JoshDragon
05-12-2009, 08:59 PM
Josh Dragon made some good points. To alot of people who grew up watching tennis on primarily fast courts outside of clay, tennis is now a drudge. Very long points with longer baseline rallies being more commom.
Tennis was even played on basketball like wood floors back in the day and that was even faster than carpet which faster than grass which is faster than etc, etc down to what you have today. Even the hardcourts play a touch slow and any surface where the ball even remotely skids is considered fast. The sport has changed and different aspects of the game are being rewarded. So the Josh Dragon reversal on Game Sampras is logical but just doesn't hold as much weight. Had tennis always primarily been a long rally sport and then swithced to a 1 to 3 shots in a rally sport then Josh Dragon's argument would hold more significance. Josh Dragon's logic is sound but Game Sampras's logic is based on the reality of the surfaces slowing down not the hypothetical of surfaces speeding up.

Tennis has been a long rally sport and a short rally sport at different times. In 1877 When Spencer Gore won Wimbledon for the first time he beat his opponent by S&V. The next year he was beaten by a more defensive player who created the lob and was able to down Gore in straight sets. I think tennis went from a S&V game in the 19th century to a baseline game during the early 20th century when guys like Tilden were dominating. Later, during the Laver/Rosewall years it went back to S&V and then in the 70s there were several baseliners who dominated the sport (Borg, Connors, Villas,) There was a mix in the 80s with baseliners like Agassi, Lendl, Wilander, Chang and S&V like McEnroe, Becker, Edberg and Sampras, that continued into the 90s and now in the 2000s tennis is going back to a baseline sport.

BreakPoint
05-12-2009, 09:01 PM
S&V can work on clay but only if you have your opponent well out of position, to put the volley away. S&V on clay is the equivalent to hitting defensive returns on carpet or fast indoor hard courts. It can win you some points but it's not conducive to the surface.
I actually think serve and volley can work just as well on clay, if not better, as other surfaces. The reason is that, as we all know, clay is slippery so it's harder to push off to start your momentum to start running. This makes it harder for you to go from a standstill after hitting your return to have to start sprinting to the other side of the court to cover the open court. This is also why drop shots work so well on clay.

Another reason is that since clay is so slippery, it's very difficult to change direction on a dime. Thus, volleying behind your opponent as they're running to cover the open court is a great play on clay since there's no way they're going to be able to stop and then change direction back the other way very quickly.

The key is to hit the volleys with a lot of underspin so that the ball skids and stays low or else the ball will bounce up too high on clay and give your opponent more time to run down the volley.

JoshDragon
05-12-2009, 09:22 PM
I actually think serve and volley can work just as well on clay, if not better, as other surfaces. The reason is that, as we all know, clay is slippery so it's harder to push off to start your momentum to start running. This makes it harder for you to go from a standstill after hitting your return to have to start sprinting to the other side of the court to cover the open court. This is also why drop shots work so well on clay.

Another reason is that since clay is so slippery, it's very difficult to change direction on a dime. Thus, volleying behind your opponent as they're running to cover the open court is a great play on clay since there's no way they're going to be able to stop and then change direction back the other way very quickly.

The key is to hit the volleys with a lot of underspin so that the ball skids and stays low or else the ball will bounce up too high on clay and give your opponent more time to run down the volley.

That's also why most clay court specialists slide on clay, to break the momentum that they gained through running down the ball. With certain players, S&V can be effective, the serve is kind of nullified on clay but it could work if you're able to serve out wide enough to pull your opponent away from the court and then hit an underspin volley cross-court. It doesn't work well against the guys like Rafa, because he runs down everything.

You might notice that Federer was able to win some points against Nadal, on clay by coming to net, but that's because he already had Nadal out of position and was simply able to put the volley away.

Clay, is definitely the hardest surface for a s&v but they can still win matches. It's just not a strategy that's naturally suited for it.

bluejack369
05-12-2009, 09:24 PM
I actually think serve and volley can work just as well on clay, if not better, as other surfaces. The reason is that, as we all know, clay is slippery so it's harder to push off to start your momentum to start running. This makes it harder for you to go from a standstill after hitting your return to have to start sprinting to the other side of the court to cover the open court. This is also why drop shots work so well on clay.

Another reason is that since clay is so slippery, it's very difficult to change direction on a dime. Thus, volleying behind your opponent as they're running to cover the open court is a great play on clay since there's no way they're going to be able to stop and then change direction back the other way very quickly.

The key is to hit the volleys with a lot of underspin so that the ball skids and stays low or else the ball will bounce up too high on clay and give your opponent more time to run down the volley.
but the most important part of S&V is the serve, on clay the serve speed gets low, and makes it easier to return but harder to hit a high quality first volley, if S&V would work on clay, Pete should have made it.

BreakPoint
05-12-2009, 09:46 PM
but the most important part of S&V is the serve, on clay the serve speed gets low, and makes it easier to return but harder to hit a high quality first volley, if S&V would work on clay, Pete should have made it.
Not really. Neither Edberg nor Rafter had big serves and they were both great serve and volleyers. They both just hit slow kick serves that kicked up high which gave them more time to close in on the net after their serves. This put them in better positions to hit their first volleys for a winner. Perhaps Sampras' problem was that he went for the big flat first serves too much on clay? Or he just didn't move all that well on clay or didn't have the mentality to grind it out on clay.

Edberg got to the FO final and really should have won against Chang. Rafter got to the semis where he lost to Bruguera.

BreakPoint
05-12-2009, 09:50 PM
That's also why most clay court specialists slide on clay, to break the momentum that they gained through running down the ball. With certain players, S&V can be effective, the serve is kind of nullified on clay but it could work if you're able to serve out wide enough to pull your opponent away from the court and then hit an underspin volley cross-court. It doesn't work well against the guys like Rafa, because he runs down everything.

You might notice that Federer was able to win some points against Nadal, on clay by coming to net, but that's because he already had Nadal out of position and was simply able to put the volley away.

Clay, is definitely the hardest surface for a s&v but they can still win matches. It's just not a strategy that's naturally suited for it.
I think S&V would work even better against Nadal because Nadal stands so far back to receive serve. This gives the server so much more time to close in on the net and gives him more time and distance to track down the direction of the return. It also open ups more angles for the server to volley into and makes it easier to hit the dreaded drop volley. :)

380pistol
05-12-2009, 10:14 PM
Because when he tries to use it he gets schooled. If you try something and it's not working you don't keep doing it, that's just crazy. Fed realizes that he can't beat Nadal by coming in so he is trying something else. The problem is that something else doesn't work either and he and everyone else are yet to find another option.

When has Federer ever tried to beat Nadal by coming to the net??? Don't say the French Open, cuz clay doesn't suit serve and volleyrs period. Take a great S&V and a great baseliner and put them on clay, and who has the advantage.

Fed can't beat Nadal from the net?!? Last I checked Nadal was beating Fed baseline to baseline.

Fed's problem he should serve and volley SOME to keep Nadal honest. As Break Point, and many others know, Nadal stands so far back on the return, and that's the part of his arsenal that will do the least damage. You have to attack him, from there, do something with that first volley and make Rafa's first attemt at a pass a tough one.

Also Federer should not be coming in consistently, as 1) he's not the greatest volleyer, and 2) Nadal most times will eventually find the range.

But Roger should come in to end points, put pressure, and just too change things up. Sometimes hit an approach and come in, chip and charge once in while to put in Nadal's head. One of the reasons Nadal's serve to Fed's backhand is so successful is that Roger has no answer.

If he picks it spots moving forward can be effective for Fed vs Rafa. I'm not saying it will win him the match, and he won't get passed, but it will be effective. When Roger and Rafa get deep in matches Nadal pounds away at Roger's bh, cuz he has no answer. If Fed comes in a bit, and is willing even though he may get passed, Nadal is not as comfortable in the 4th and 5th set. As he knows Fed may come in. Right now he knows in a big situation Roger won't come in on his own volition. Just putting it in Rafa's head can help.

Agassi said vs Sampras, he knew on any 2nd serve Pete could just attack it or chip and come in, and he would have to up with something off the bat and it was unnerving. That alone would make Dre take something off the 1st serve to get it in, or make him slightly less comfortable when hitting a 2nd serve.

Chelsea_Kiwi
05-12-2009, 10:29 PM
In todays game only Federer has the volleys and (first) serve to beat Nadal using S&V. Of course his serve is misfiring atm it would be interesting if he tried S&V at Wimbledon this year.

35ft6
05-12-2009, 10:57 PM
Like the great Pete Sampras said he would be licking his chops to play Nadal considering no one ever comes in attacks Nadal and puts pressure on him.Sampras could have pulled it off on clay and even fast hard courts. Carpet, too. But in case he hasn't noticed, there aren't a lot of competent serve and volleyers in the top 100.

Pirao
05-13-2009, 01:04 AM
Sampras could have pulled it off on clay and even fast hard courts. Carpet, too. But in case he hasn't noticed, there aren't a lot of competent serve and volleyers in the top 100.

Muahahahahahahahaha :lol:

Blade0324
05-13-2009, 06:57 AM
Sampras could have pulled it off on clay and even fast hard courts. Carpet, too. But in case he hasn't noticed, there aren't a lot of competent serve and volleyers in the top 100.

Right......cuz Pete had so much success on clay in his era not playing against most likely the greatest clay court player ever. Remind me again, how many FO titles did Samprass win?

Cesc Fabregas
05-13-2009, 09:02 AM
Melzer served and vollyed today and got destroyed.

oscar_2424
05-13-2009, 09:03 AM
on clay, Rafa would have bagel sampras

skip1969
05-13-2009, 09:04 AM
again, just cos it didn't work today does not mean it couldn't work (with a player with the skills to do it).

Nadal_Freak
05-13-2009, 09:04 AM
Yep serve and volley is not a good strategy against Nadal. You are better off from the baseline if you can handle the high ball. Melzer would've gotten destroyed with either strategy though.

Nadal_Freak
05-13-2009, 09:05 AM
again, just cos it didn't work today does not mean it couldn't work (with a player with the skills to do it).
It could work but it's not the best gamestyle against Nadal.

Pirao
05-13-2009, 09:06 AM
again, just cos it didn't work today does not mean it couldn't work (with a player with the skills to do it).

Yeah, Sampras would have beaten the 2nd greatest clay court player ever (who will probably become the greatest on clay), when he couldn't get to the final of RG even once, lol. Tell me another one, please :lol:.

skip1969
05-13-2009, 09:10 AM
i didn't say anything about sampras. god, i don't know why he's even brought up on this forum as much as he is. the dude is not a current player on the tour. i was speaking in general terms.

there is no reason why coming in (whenever possible) and executing at the net could not work. it's not my fault no one knows how to volley anymore. but it could be a viable strategy if anyone had the skill set to pull it off.

Nadal_Freak
05-13-2009, 09:12 AM
i didn't say anything about sampras. god, i don't know why he's even brought up on this forum as much as he is. the dude is not a current player on the tour. i was speaking in general terms.

there is no reason why coming in (whenever possible) and executing at the net could not work. it's not my fault no one knows how to volley anymore. but it could be a viable strategy if anyone had the skill set to pull it off.
If you can do it against Nadal, you can do it against anyone. Nadal is great at handling that type of game. But you got to be almost Sampras like to succeed.

Pirao
05-13-2009, 09:13 AM
i didn't say anything about sampras. god, i don't know why he's even brought up on this forum as much as he is. the dude is not a current player on the tour. i was speaking in general terms.

there is no reason why coming in (whenever possible) and executing at the net could not work. it's not my fault no one knows how to volley anymore. but it could be a viable strategy if anyone had the skill set to pull it off.

So you're saying Sampras didn't have the skillset to pull it off?

Or maybe you're just speaking of an hypotetical player which would beat Nadal using S&V, because if one of the greatest S&V of all time doesn't have the skillset to pull it off, then who has?

skip1969
05-13-2009, 09:24 AM
So you're saying Sampras didn't have the skillset to pull it off?

Or maybe you're just speaking of an hypotetical player which would beat Nadal using S&V, because if one of the greatest S&V of all time doesn't have the skillset to pull it off, then who has?
i'm saying that talking about sampras is irrelevant, as he is not on the tour . . . at this moment . . . playing at the peak of his powers. what do i care if sampras circa 1997 could beat nadal circa 2009 playing serve and volley? i never get into those sorts of discussions on here cos they are so subjective and ultimately, irrelevant.

i am merely saying that coming in is a viable strategy. in my view, you could argue that staying back against nadal is less viable. there's more data to back up that claim, since 100's of guys have tried to beat him from the back in the last four years and failed.

Pirao
05-13-2009, 09:34 AM
i'm saying that talking about sampras is irrelevant, as he is not on the tour . . . at this moment . . . playing at the peak of his powers. what do i care if sampras circa 1997 could beat nadal circa 2009 playing serve and volley? i never get into those sorts of discussions on here cos they are so subjective and ultimately, irrelevant.

i am merely saying that coming in is a viable strategy. in my view, you could argue that staying back against nadal is less viable. there's more data to back up that claim, since 100's of guys have tried to beat him from the back in the last four years and failed.

It does matter because Sampras had one of the better skillsets in S&V and he sucked on clay, so how does saying that inferior S&V players are going to be able to pull it off against one of the greatest clay courters of all time?

All-rounder
05-13-2009, 10:06 AM
Melzer served and vollyed today and got destroyed.
1. It was On clay
2. It was against nadal on clay
3. Thats suicidal

All-rounder
05-13-2009, 10:07 AM
If you can do it against Nadal, you can do it against anyone. Nadal is great at handling that type of game. But you got to be almost Sampras like to succeed.
If thats so then tsonga would have been the AO champion instead of djokovic

Pirao
05-13-2009, 10:10 AM
1. It was On clay
2. It was against nadal on clay
3. Thats suicidal

People in here are saying it would work on clay too, hence the discussion.

Dilettante
05-13-2009, 10:12 AM
Sampras could have pulled it off on clay

I hope you realize this seems to be highly delusional.

JamaicanYoute
05-13-2009, 10:18 AM
Now i understand all the pros have to do is hire jaimacanyoute. Because he knows more than the players+their coaches what will work.He knows what is best for them, all i can say is wow somebody is in la la land.
But i am sure with your coaching you could show the big boys how to do it
Wow. Let me first begin by saying how ignorant you are. Now that that's over, hey why not? Truly shows how ignorant you are. I mean, look at what Pete Fischer did for Sampras. Who has been with Federer ever since he's gone coach-less? Some guy who plays very well but was never a pro himself. What about Nick Bollettieri? How good a player is he? Ever seen him play? And yet, look at what he's done for countless ATP/WTA Pros. Now, I'm not saying I could be a coach, but it's complete ignorance (especially because you don't know who I am at all) to go and say something as sarcastic as that. All I can say is that you're an idiot.

The modern forehand is much better than the old school forehand for passing net rushers.Sorry you dont like it+ probably cant hit it but it just the way it is.
I can - but I would NEVER trade it in for my more 'classic' forehand. I'm more than happy with my stroke.
According to the man with all the answers jaimacanyoute, s+v works. He says that we have seen that it work right? Of course we have not seen it work.Just because someone has some success in a set or a match once in a while does not mean a damn thing.
More ignorance on your part. We have seen that it works. People other than myself continue to show examples. Plus, if you were completely literate I'm sure you would've noticed that I'm not saying to only Serve/Volley. Have I? If so, please show me where. I'm just saying people should volley more. Whereas you are saying that they shouldn't do it at all because it's dead.
Let me see who are todays S+V players, the great marty fish, how about stepanek+ of course roddick
You're really going to compare these people to Edberg, Sampras, Rafter and people of that caliber? I think you should change your name to 'ignoramo'. When will you get it into your head that basically no one on the tour volleys that greatly?
Please let me know when this S+v tennis actually wins something in todays game
Already have, so have other people. And while I remember (even though I'll probably be ridiculed for this..) are we just talking about the pros? Because since you say it's so 'dead', how do you think you'd do against a serve/volley, or someone who came in a lot? What if that match was also on clay? Think you could prove that it's dead? With your 'modern game'?

Anxiously awaiting your response...

Cesc Fabregas
05-13-2009, 10:19 AM
1. It was On clay
2. It was against nadal on clay
3. Thats suicidal

Very fast clay this clay is quicker than most hardcourts.

Nadal_Freak
05-13-2009, 10:21 AM
If thats so then tsonga would have been the AO champion instead of djokovic
Tsonga doesn't serve and volley. He is a very aggressive baseliner that can handle the high ball with his two-handed backhand. Nadal is also a better player now.

FloridaAG
05-13-2009, 10:22 AM
As an aside, and not that he needs me to chime in for him, JamaicanYoute is a very strong player with really nice strokes.

skip1969
05-13-2009, 11:20 AM
It does matter because Sampras had one of the better skillsets in S&V and he sucked on clay, so how does saying that inferior S&V players are going to be able to pull it off against one of the greatest clay courters of all time?
i hate this arguing back and forth . . . but i never said anything about clay, either. no mention of clay, and no mention of sampras.

i am merely talking about the serve/volley (or at least the come in whenever you get the chance) strategy against nadal. i am talking about a viable way to beat the number 1 player in the world. that is, in fact, what the op was getting at. why don't more people come in order to beat nadal.

of course, clay makes it more difficult (if not impossible). but then, s&v has not been the preferred method of playing on clay for a long long time (unless your name was m. navratilova). strategy is altered according to surface, to be sure. but the crux of the issue is why we don't see more variety of strategy when players are facing nadal. and i think that is a very valid question.

Blade0324
05-13-2009, 11:28 AM
i hate this arguing back and forth . . . but i never said anything about clay, either. no mention of clay, and no mention of sampras.

i am merely talking about the serve/volley (or at least the come in whenever you get the chance) strategy against nadal. i am talking about a viable way to beat the number 1 player in the world. that is, in fact, what the op was getting at. why don't more people come in order to beat nadal.

of course, clay makes it more difficult (if not impossible). but then, s&v has not been the preferred method of playing on clay for a long long time (unless your name was m. navratilova). strategy is altered according to surface, to be sure. but the crux of the issue is why we don't see more variety of strategy when players are facing nadal. and i think that is a very valid question.

YOu make some good and valid points. I think the main reason that you don't see more players try to implement more variety against Nadal is that it is difficult to implement your game when he is imposing his game on you. I think most if not nearly all players are simply trying to hold on, so to speak, when playing Nadal.

skip1969
05-13-2009, 11:36 AM
YOu make some good and valid points. I think the main reason that you don't see more players try to implement more variety against Nadal is that it is difficult to implement your game when he is imposing his game on you. I think most if not nearly all players are simply trying to hold on, so to speak, when playing Nadal.
i agree. his game does not make things easier. i don't think his game makes it easier to come in. but it can't make it easy to stay back, either. so many people have lost from the baseline. it would be nice to see some lose from the net. :)

i mean to say, even fed at the peak of his powers was content to stay back. even when he had the skills to come forward. i know he's not a natural net player, but how many times are you gonna lose to the same person in the same way? it shows a complete lack of thoughtfulness, or a lack of courage, that you aren't willing to experiment. imo

cucio
05-13-2009, 11:43 AM
Sampras could have pulled it off on clay and even fast hard courts. Carpet, too. But in case he hasn't noticed, there aren't a lot of competent serve and volleyers in the top 100.

Mmm, for the context I think 35ft6 meant to write "grass" instead of "clay" and he just had a slip. Otherwise it makes no sense, we all know how Pete's game was dulled by the brick dust.

JamaicanYoute
05-13-2009, 11:44 AM
i agree. his game does not make things easier. i don't think his game makes it easier to come in. but it can't make it easy to stay back, either. so many people have lost from the baseline. it would be nice to see some lose from the net. :)

i mean to say, even fed at the peak of his powers was content to stay back. even when he had the skills to come forward. i know he's not a natural net player, but how many times are you gonna lose to the same person in the same way? it shows a complete lack of thoughtfulness, or a lack of courage, that you aren't willing to experiment. imo

Be careful! Some people might begin to suspect that you claim to know more than Federer himself! :)

Once again, someone who makes sense. No one said it would be easy, but staying back trying to out rally him surely isn't any easier.

As an aside, and not that he needs me to chime in for him, JamaicanYoute is a very strong player with really nice strokes.

Thanks for the compliment man - let me know when we're all getting together again. Maybe this time on some clay?

skip1969
05-13-2009, 11:49 AM
Be careful! Some people might begin to suspect that you claim to know more than Federer himself! :)
well, i don't know much. and it isn't even about fed. i hate bringing him and nadal up in the same breath on here.

all i know is that if i were on tour, i would have a losing record against nadal (just like everyone else) but i would have lost a bunch of different ways by now. heh

JamaicanYoute
05-13-2009, 12:16 PM
well, i don't know much. and it isn't even about fed. i hate bringing him and nadal up in the same breath on here.

all i know is that if i were on tour, i would have a losing record against nadal (just like everyone else) but i would have lost a bunch of different ways by now. heh

I'd have to say me too. I'm not going to do the same thing over and over and over when it's not working...

To: tlm
They had to come in, because they couldnt hit hard enough to get points from the back court.The racquets+strings have changed the game, plus the athletes are stronger+have better ground strokes than in the past.

Yeah, I see what you mean. :roll::lol:, whenever I see any of these I can't stop myself from yawning...they hit so softly. And their strokes dont allow for any winners from the baseline..LOL

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_oizEjkreZw&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYDABjLoUOw&feature=related (watch the second point. Yeah I can see you're right about not being able to hit low spinning winners/balls back then. :oops:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MgScOlDlZWY - such horrible play from the back that would get demolished today!!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lbSRRDQF7YQ&feature=related (poor old man Andre, couldn't do anything against newer styles of swing and newer technology and slower courts...

And the list goes on and on... Go get yourself an education.

Blade0324
05-13-2009, 02:09 PM
I would like to see someone hit overly high moon balls to Nadal deep in the court and make him do all the work. Might not accomplish a win but it would be about the longest match in history and would be fun to see someone with a great lob game give it a go. What have they to lose.

BreakPoint
05-13-2009, 02:20 PM
Melzer served and vollyed today and got destroyed.
And now you're comparing Meltzer with Pete Sampras?

How many Grand Slams has Meltzer won again?

BreakPoint
05-13-2009, 02:24 PM
Right......cuz Pete had so much success on clay in his era not playing against most likely the greatest clay court player ever. Remind me again, how many FO titles did Samprass win?
Sampras did win Rome. Something not even a great clay court player like Federer could do.

Sampras also used to beat Muster on clay. You know Muster, the guy that has many more clay court titles than Nadal and was the powerhouse on clay in Sampras' era? Sampras also had to deal with Courier, Agassi, and Chang - all not to shabby on clay and all French Open champions. And not to mention other great claycourters and FO champions in his era like Bruguera and Kuerten.

BreakPoint
05-13-2009, 02:28 PM
It could work but it's not the best gamestyle against Nadal.
Sure beats trying to out rally Nadal from the baseline. Most guys fall asleep first. :shock:

Pirao
05-13-2009, 02:31 PM
And now you're comparing Meltzer with Pete Sampras?

How many Grand Slams has Meltzer won again?

Did anyone see the Meltzer-Montanes match today? Perfect example of how well serve and volley works on even clay. Meltzer was relentless with his S&V game and Montanes, a very good claycourter, had no answers.

More hipocrisy from BP, what a surprise :lol:

BreakPoint
05-13-2009, 02:32 PM
Very fast clay this clay is quicker than most hardcourts.
I guess you've never played on hardcourts before. :(

BreakPoint
05-13-2009, 02:34 PM
More hipocrisy from BP, what a surprise :lol:
Um...and WHERE exactly did I ever say that Meltzer could beat Nadal by S&V? :-? I said it proves S&V can work on clay against Montanes.

Are you saying Montanes is a better claycourter than Nadal? OK, gotcha! :oops:

JoshDragon
05-13-2009, 03:45 PM
Sampras did win Rome. Something not even a great clay court player like Federer could do.

Sampras also used to beat Muster on clay. You know Muster, the guy that has many more clay court titles than Nadal and was the powerhouse on clay in Sampras' era? Sampras also had to deal with Courier, Agassi, and Chang - all not to shabby on clay and all French Open champions. And not to mention other great claycourters and FO champions in his era like Bruguera and Kuerten.

You can't compare Muster to Nadal. Muster, was not in the same League as Nadal. Pete would never have won that Rome title against Nadal.

BreakPoint
05-13-2009, 03:54 PM
You can't compare Muster to Nadal. Muster, was not in the same League as Nadal. Pete would never have won that Rome title against Nadal.
And you know this for a fact because......?

There's no way you can prove that.

BTW, Muster had many more clay court titles than Nadal. And Sampras has even beaten two-time French Open champion (and additional finalist) Courier on clay at the French Open. :shock: :)

tlm
05-13-2009, 05:22 PM
To the pro coach jamaicanyoute, you come up with some strange reasoning.Then you have enough nerve to call someone an idiot.You are full of bs, i am the one that said in this thread that s+v can be effective at times+that it could be used tactically a little more often, check my posts idiot.I never ever said that it should not be used at all.Just one of your many lies.

This thread was about attacking nadal with s+v, which has been tried many times with very little success. It just does not work in the modern game on a consistent enough basis.I know you want it to, but it does not.

You still want to talk about sampras+edberg+ all these players of yesterday.This is 2009 not 1992, you are living in the past.I gave examples of players of todays game that s+v,that was the subject remember using s+v against nadal.

The fact is the players that do play that style today are not successful.Again these are the facts, something you cant comprehend.You cant give a straight answer to a question. You go into your bs zone.

When asked to tell me when somebody wins something in todays game with s+v you respond by saying i already have.More dancing around the question.

Then you have enough nerve to ask if we are just talking about the pros.As you would say if you were completely literate you would have read in my previous post that i said clear as a bell that s+v is very effective at the amateur level. Please go back and read those statements i made+then we see who the real idiot is.

Federer_pilon
05-13-2009, 05:30 PM
And you know this for a fact because......?

There's no way you can prove that.

BTW, Muster had many more clay court titles than Nadal. And Sampras has even beaten two-time French Open champion (and additional finalist) Courier on clay at the French Open. :shock: :)

Just like you were saying Federer would beat Nadal every time if they played with wood racquets...

And you know this for a fact because ... ?

There's no way you can prove that.


owned....now get out

Federer_pilon
05-13-2009, 05:31 PM
BTW, Muster had many more clay court titles than Nadal.

Didn't Muster play almost exclusively on clay?

TheNatural
05-13-2009, 05:47 PM
Not only does Sampras tell Fed what he should do, he then goes out out on court and shows how it should be done.

Federer's crying and vulnerability after he loses may also give some insight as to why hes scared to be lose at net. Nadal has exposed the Vulnerable side of Fed to the max by simply beating him Once or twice While Fed attempted a little net play. Now Fed doesn't even try it. Nadal has successfully intimidated Federer into thinking he has no hope in the world of winning by attacking the net, when the reality is that his hopes would increase if he used some more net play.

Heres what Sampras thinks Fed should do: (http://thetennistimes.com/pistol-pete-can-relate-to-federers-sour-days/)

"I was very curious to see how a hard-court match between them would go," (AUSTRALIAN OPEN 09) Sampras said this Monday night. He'd just completed an exhibition at the SAP Open in San Jose versus Tommy Haas and was reflecting on what had happened to Federer that evening in Melbourne. Sampras admitted he was surprised to see Federer show so much emotion following his defeat. Said Sampras, "After a loss, you keep it together. It's hurt him more than I'd have thought. He's an emotional player. It kind of caught me off guard. It shows how much he cares."


Although Sampras concedes Federer "dominated the game more than I ever did," when it comes to the matter of taking down Nadal, Sampras' approach would have been far different. "If I was Roger, I'd try to come in a little bit more. I'd get into net, particularly when guys stay so far back. If you don't win these points, at least put something in his head. It's rough to see Nadal taking charge of these rallies and hitting ball after ball to Roger's backhand."

True to his word, throughout the exhibition against Haas, Sampras frequently showed off the sharp volleys and commitment to forward movement that often left opponents feeling helpless at the critical stages of matches. While Federer has earned his titles with point-to-point excellence, Sampras was supreme at a brand of gunslinger tennis -- the ability at 4-4 to play six great points and snap up the set in the blink of an eye.

Sampras also respects Nadal. "He's an incredible athlete, one of the strongest on the mental side -- he and [Bjorn] Borg. He's got the mentality of a marathon runner. He plays every point like it's the last point. But he's improving, too. And now he's got the fear factor."

JoshDragon
05-13-2009, 06:29 PM
And you know this for a fact because......?

There's no way you can prove that.

BTW, Muster had many more clay court titles than Nadal. And Sampras has even beaten two-time French Open champion (and additional finalist) Courier on clay at the French Open. :shock: :)

Nadal, is either the greatest or second greatest clay court player of all time. Jim Courier was, great but also not in the same league as Nadal. Nadal and Borg are both in a class by themselves on clay. No one even comes close to them. Not even Guga, Wilander, or Lendl. Who were better clay court players than the guys you mentioned.

Sampras, was not good on clay. He wasn't horrible but he was far from strong on it. There is just no way he'd win against the best clay court player of all time. That's common sense.

BreakPoint
05-13-2009, 06:35 PM
Just like you were saying Federer would beat Nadal every time if they played with wood racquets...

And you know this for a fact because ... ?

There's no way you can prove that.

Because no one in their right mind would argue that Federer's classic game is better suited for wood racquets than Nadal's "modern" game, and because no one would argue that Federer's K90 with gut mains is closer to a wood racquet strung with natural gut than Nadal's Babolat APD with full poly strings, THAT's why!

So there, it's proven! OWNED!!! :oops:

BreakPoint
05-13-2009, 06:36 PM
Didn't Muster play almost exclusively on clay?
No, he didn't. That's like saying Nadal only plays exclusively on clay. Muster played on all surfaces, just like every other top pro.

BreakPoint
05-13-2009, 06:39 PM
Nadal, is either the greatest or second greatest clay court player of all time. Jim Courier was, great but also not in the same league as Nadal. Nadal and Borg are both in a class by themselves on clay. No one even comes close to them. Not even Guga, Wilander, or Lendl. Who were better clay court players than the guys you mentioned.

Sampras, was not good on clay. He wasn't horrible but he was far from strong on it. There is just no way he'd win against the best clay court player of all time. That's common sense.
It's not common sense. How many serve and volleyers of Sampras' caliber has Nadal ever had to play against at the French Open? The answer is ZERO!

JoshDragon
05-13-2009, 06:50 PM
It's not common sense. How many serve and volleyers of Sampras' caliber has Nadal ever had to play against at the French Open? The answer is ZERO!

But how many french opens did Sampras win? Pete lost to Gilbert Schaller in 1995 in the first round of the French Open. Schaller, was a very unaccomplished clay court specialist, his playing style was similar to Nadal's and like Nadal he was very quick but he lacked Rafa's consistency. If this journeymen beat Pete, during his prime years, on clay, using the same playing style as Nadal than what kind of a chance would Pete have had against Rafa?

TheNatural
05-13-2009, 06:51 PM
Because no one in their right mind would argue that Federer's classic game is better suited for wood racquets than Nadal's "modern" game, and because no one would argue that Federer's K90 with gut mains is closer to a wood racquet strung with natural gut than Nadal's Babolat APD with full poly strings, THAT's why!

So there, it's proven! OWNED!!! :oops:

so When is Federer coming to net like Sampras has done with Feds own racket? :oops:

Or are you going to conveniently bypass this question as ussual.:oops:

Federer_pilon
05-13-2009, 07:11 PM
Because no one in their right mind would argue that Federer's classic game is better suited for wood racquets than Nadal's "modern" game, and because no one would argue that Federer's K90 with gut mains is closer to a wood racquet strung with natural gut than Nadal's Babolat APD with full poly strings, THAT's why!

So there, it's proven! OWNED!!! :oops:

These are all assumptions man...nothing is proven. If Nadal grew up playing with a wood racquet, his game would have been different. You can't draw any conclusions....

BreakPoint
05-13-2009, 07:12 PM
so When is Federer coming to net like Sampras has done with Feds own racket? :oops:

Or are you going to conveniently bypass this question as ussual.:oops:
I don't know. Why don't you give Federer a call and ask him? :oops:

BreakPoint
05-13-2009, 07:14 PM
These are all assumptions man...nothing is proven.They are not assumptions, they are facts.

Even Nadal admits he can't play worth a d*mn with a wood racquet.

Federer_pilon
05-13-2009, 07:17 PM
No, he didn't. That's like saying Nadal only plays exclusively on clay. Muster played on all surfaces, just like every other top pro.

oh yeah? Muster played way more on clay than on all other surfaces put together man.....

BreakPoint
05-13-2009, 07:18 PM
But how many french opens did Sampras win? Pete lost to Gilbert Schaller in 1995 in the first round of the French Open. Schaller, was a very unaccomplished clay court specialist, his playing style was similar to Nadal's and like Nadal he was very quick but he lacked Rafa's consistency. If this journeymen beat Pete, during his prime years, on clay, using the same playing style as Nadal than what kind of a chance would Pete have had against Rafa?
How many FO's Sampras has won is not relevant. What's relevant is that Nadal has never faced a great serve and volleyer like Sampras while Sampras has faced plenty of clay court specialists like Nadal.

Was it relevant that Ivanisevic had never won Wimbledon after so many tries when he was in the 2001 final? Just ask Rafter.

BreakPoint
05-13-2009, 07:25 PM
oh yeah? Muster played way more on clay than on all other surfaces put together man.....
No, he didn't. He played lots of tournaments on hard courts and carpet.

Nadal also plays a lot on clay but that doesn't mean that's all he plays on, but most of his titles are on clay.

TheNatural
05-13-2009, 07:40 PM
I don't know. Why don't you give Federer a call and ask him? :oops:

Because I'm not the one that's distressed by seeing him get continually get crushed on the baseline by the top 4, you are. :oops:

BreakPoint
05-13-2009, 07:53 PM
These are all assumptions man...nothing is proven. If Nadal grew up playing with a wood racquet, his game would have been different. You can't draw any conclusions....
But he didn't, did he? We're talking about if both Federer and Nadal were given wood racquets and told to play in a tournament TODAY with only a 5 minute warm-up.

BreakPoint
05-13-2009, 07:55 PM
Because I'm not the one that's distressed by seeing him get continually get crushed on the baseline by the top 4, you are. :oops:
I couldn't care less. I just enjoy seeing Federer play - win or lose.

tlm
05-13-2009, 08:10 PM
I just watched the nadal melzer match.That s+v tactic that melzer used continually through out the match looked like it worked real well.He got his *** kicked 6-3 6-1 in 1 hour. Really looks like that would be the way to beat nadal.

Wish more players would use this tactic against nadal.It makes it a lot easier on rafa to take these matches in a short time without having to work very hard at all.

JoshDragon
05-13-2009, 08:24 PM
How many FO's Sampras has won is not relevant. What's relevant is that Nadal has never faced a great serve and volleyer like Sampras while Sampras has faced plenty of clay court specialists like Nadal.

Was it relevant that Ivanisevic had never won Wimbledon after so many tries when he was in the 2001 final? Just ask Rafter.

It is relevant, it means that Pete's clay game wasn't good enough to win one.

Sampras, never faced an opponent anywhere near Nadal's level on clay. The three best clay court players from his generation were Andre, Muster, and Courier. Those guys were much, much, weaker and less consistent on clay than Nadal and Borg. There's no comparing them.

The Rafter and Ivanisevic match is a poor comparison because both players used the same playing style and neither one had won Wimbledon up to that point. Sampras's playing style couldn't be more different from Nadal's.

Pirao
05-13-2009, 09:31 PM
Um...and WHERE exactly did I ever say that Meltzer could beat Nadal by S&V? :-? I said it proves S&V can work on clay against Montanes.

Are you saying Montanes is a better claycourter than Nadal? OK, gotcha! :oops:

I think S&V would work even better against Nadal because Nadal stands so far back to receive serve. This gives the server so much more time to close in on the net and gives him more time and distance to track down the direction of the return. It also open ups more angles for the server to volley into and makes it easier to hit the dreaded drop volley. :)

No, you don't get me, I'm the one who gets you, everytime. Seriously BP, try harder to not get owned man, you make it too easy :lol:

crazylevity
05-13-2009, 09:34 PM
It is relevant, it means that Pete's clay game wasn't good enough to win one.

Sampras, never faced an opponent anywhere near Nadal's level on clay. The two best clay court players from his generation were Andre, Muster, and Courier. Those guys were much, much, weaker and less consistent on clay than Nadal and Borg. There's no comparing them.

The Rafter and Ivanisevic match is a poor comparison because both players used the same playing style and neither one had won Wimbledon up to that point. Sampras's playing style couldn't be more different from Nadal's.

Just a minor point, but...:)

The-Champ
05-13-2009, 09:58 PM
I just watched the nadal melzer match.That s+v tactic that melzer used continually through out the match looked like it worked real well.He got his *** kicked 6-3 6-1 in 1 hour. Really looks like that would be the way to beat nadal.

Wish more players would use this tactic against nadal.It makes it a lot easier on rafa to take these matches in a short time without having to work very hard at all.

The last time Melzer faced Nadal on a HC he got bageled. Yesterday he brought the same game on clay and he got destroyed. Good effort from him.

Mick
05-13-2009, 10:01 PM
i think melzer knew he had no chance against nadal from the back court, so he figured what the heck, he should rush the net and hope for the best.

BreakPoint
05-13-2009, 10:59 PM
No, you don't get me, I'm the one who gets you, everytime. Seriously BP, try harder to not get owned man, you make it too easy :lol:
So you put together two totally unrelated posts and draw some kind of conclusion? Just how uneducated are you anyway?

What does a post about Nadal have ANYTHING at all to do with a completely separate post about a match between Meltzer and Montanes?? :confused:

So if in one post you wrote: "Nadal wore a blue shirt today."

And then in a totally different post, you wrote: "Federer won his match today."

Your conclusion would be that Federer would beat Nadal whenever Nadal wears blue shirts? OK, man, I do hope you pass the 3rd grade one of these days. How sad for you. :oops: :(

Pirao
05-14-2009, 12:38 AM
So you put together two totally unrelated posts and draw some kind of conclusion? Just how uneducated are you anyway?

What does a post about Nadal have ANYTHING at all to do with a completely separate post about a match between Meltzer and Montanes?? :confused:

So if in one post you wrote: "Nadal wore a blue shirt today."

And then in a totally different post, you wrote: "Federer won his match today."

Your conclusion would be that Federer would beat Nadal whenever Nadal wears blue shirts? OK, man, I do hope you pass the 3rd grade one of these days. How sad for you. :oops: :(

I thought posting unrelated points when you're losing a discussion was your specialty :lol:

BreakPoint
05-14-2009, 12:49 AM
I thought posting unrelated points when you're losing a discussion was your specialty :lol:
Huh? I've already WON this discussion so you're dead and buried. How sad for you. :cry:

veroniquem
05-14-2009, 12:51 AM
Huh? I've already WON this discussion so you're dead and buried. How sad for you. :cry:
I don't think you could win anything with the kind of arguments you put forth...

Bud
05-14-2009, 12:54 AM
I just watched the nadal melzer match.That s+v tactic that melzer used continually through out the match looked like it worked real well.He got his *** kicked 6-3 6-1 in 1 hour. Really looks like that would be the way to beat nadal.

Wish more players would use this tactic against nadal.It makes it a lot easier on rafa to take these matches in a short time without having to work very hard at all.

:oops::oops::oops:

Melzer was neutralized by Nadal after he made that slight adjustment for Melzer's S&V game.

Bud
05-14-2009, 12:55 AM
i think melzer knew he had no chance against nadal from the back court, so he figured what the heck, he should rush the net and hope for the best.

I agree... he probably thought it was a good choice, too until game 4 :oops:

veroniquem
05-14-2009, 12:55 AM
:oops::oops::oops:

Melzer was neutralized by Nadal after he made that slight adjustment for Melzer's S&V game.
He agees with you. His post is ironical.

Bud
05-14-2009, 12:56 AM
He agees with you. His post is ironical.

I know... the embarrassment was for Melzer :)

Clay lover
05-14-2009, 12:58 AM
I am so ****ing ****ed off but I have to say it again. NO, Nadal doesnt stand super far back and loop topspin moonballs when returning against serve and volleyers. SEE FOR YOURSELF how he adapted against melzer yesterday.

Bud
05-14-2009, 12:59 AM
I am so ****ing ****ed off but I have to say it again. NO, Nadal doesnt stand super far back and loop topspin moonballs when returning against serve and volleyers. SEE FOR YOURSELF how he adapted against melzer yesterday.

The people who post he's a moonballer (regardless of who he's playing) have never played tennis.

Nadal is a very smart player... saw he needed to adjust his game... adjusted... then annihilated Melzer.

BreakPoint
05-14-2009, 01:17 AM
I don't think you could win anything with the kind of arguments you put forth...
Does it matter what arguments I put forth? The *********s here like you will always still think Nadal is God, right?

So when is Nadal going to find a cure for cancer and negotiate eternal peace in the Middle East again? Aren't those things on his agenda too since he can do no wrong and he can do anything?

BreakPoint
05-14-2009, 01:38 AM
The people who post he's a moonballer (regardless of who he's playing) have never played tennis.

Nadal is a very smart player... saw he needed to adjust his game... adjusted... then annihilated Melzer.
I didn't notice Nadal adjusting his game at all. He was standing way behind the baseline to receive first serves throughout the entire match, from beginning to end. He never stood closer to put more pressure on the serve and volleyer and to take away Meltzer's time in closing in on the net. If you don't believe me, just watch the match over again.

What happened was that Meltzer started double-faulting, missing first serves, and missing relatively easy volleys. Then he got desperate and started coming in behind weak second serves, which was a bad idea, especially on clay against Nadal. So as is typically with most Nadal matches, Meltzer basically beat himself.

Clay lover
05-14-2009, 01:44 AM
I didn't notice Nadal adjusting his game at all. He was standing way behind the baseline to receive first serves throughout the entire match, from beginning to end. He never stood closer to put more pressure on the serve and volleyer and to take away Meltzer's time in closing in on the net. If you don't believe me, just watch the match over again.

What happened was that Meltzer started double-faulting, missing first serves, and missing relatively easy volleys. Then he got desperate and started coming in behind weak second serves, which was a bad idea, especially on clay against Nadal. So as is typically with most Nadal matches, Meltzer basically beat himself.

I saw Nadal hitting low, hard returns and stepping in against the second serve. But anyway, we can agree to disagree.

BreakPoint
05-14-2009, 01:57 AM
I saw Nadal hitting low, hard returns and stepping in against the second serve. But anyway, we can agree to disagree.
Nadal was stepping in on second serves throughout the entire match because that's what he always does against just about everyone.

ignigena
05-14-2009, 02:20 AM
No, you don't get me, I'm the one who gets you, everytime. Seriously BP, try harder to not get owned man, you make it too easy :lol:

fully agree.

Pirao
05-14-2009, 02:40 AM
Huh? I've already WON this discussion so you're dead and buried. How sad for you. :cry:

BP, are you high? I'm asking this seriously :lol:

BorisBeckerFan
05-14-2009, 02:48 AM
I saw Nadal hitting low, hard returns and stepping in against the second serve. But anyway, we can agree to disagree.

Maybe you and Breakpoint could disagree to agree?

BorisBeckerFan
05-14-2009, 02:55 AM
I am so sorry, i forgot to cap the P in BreakPoint. I meant no offense by it.

obsessedtennisfandisorder
05-14-2009, 03:22 AM
The people who post he's a moonballer (regardless of who he's playing) have never played tennis.

Nadal is a very smart player... saw he needed to adjust his game... adjusted... then annihilated Melzer.

if we say sampras is ten on s&v ability, i call melzer a 3 (an extra 1 for at least trying to be different)...this guy is a baseliner doing desperation..and
we use this as "evidence" s&v mivht work...laughable. besides it's CLAY
even if melzer S@v well he still lose because clay is very tough for this..
ball is slow and gives baseliner more chance

Blade0324
05-14-2009, 06:20 AM
I didn't notice Nadal adjusting his game at all. He was standing way behind the baseline to receive first serves throughout the entire match, from beginning to end. He never stood closer to put more pressure on the serve and volleyer and to take away Meltzer's time in closing in on the net. If you don't believe me, just watch the match over again.

What happened was that Meltzer started double-faulting, missing first serves, and missing relatively easy volleys. Then he got desperate and started coming in behind weak second serves, which was a bad idea, especially on clay against Nadal. So as is typically with most Nadal matches, Meltzer basically beat himself.

You must secretly be Stevie Wonder. Are you watching tennis on a brail TV? You just really have no idea what you are talking about.

Pirao
05-14-2009, 06:35 AM
if we say sampras is ten on s&v ability, i call melzer a 3 (an extra 1 for at least trying to be different)...this guy is a baseliner doing desperation..and
we use this as "evidence" s&v mivht work...laughable. besides it's CLAY
even if melzer S@v well he still lose because clay is very tough for this..
ball is slow and gives baseliner more chance

What are you saying? According to the geniuses here Sampras would have no trouble against Nadal on clay :lol:

JoshDragon
05-14-2009, 08:20 AM
Just a minor point, but...:)

Lol, thanks.:)

BreakPoint
05-14-2009, 11:30 AM
BP, are you high? I'm asking this seriously :lol:
Yes, I do have a very high intelligence and am very high up in society and in life in general. Thanks for asking. :)

BreakPoint
05-14-2009, 11:35 AM
You must secretly be Stevie Wonder. Are you watching tennis on a brail TV? You just really have no idea what you are talking about.
It's obvious you haven't got a clue. I had the match on tape and watched it twice. It happened EXACTLY as I said. Nadal NEVER stepped in closer on Meltzer's 1st serves throughout the entire match. He was 10 feet back behind the baseline to receive 1st serves from beginning to end. Meltzer started double-faulting, missing 1st serves, and missing easy volleys. He basically beat himself. He's not a natural serve and volleyer, which is probably why he missed so many serves and missed so many volleys.

BorisBeckerFan
05-14-2009, 11:48 AM
Why is Meltzer being used as an example of serve and volleying? Yes he uses the tactic but he's no good at it. Relatively speaking. Unless there is a good S&V player to challenge Nadal, we may never know how he would respond. As is, there currently aren't consistently good S&V players to challenge Nadal. It would have been awesome to see Pete and Rafa face off at their primes. I would pick Pete. The issue is, I don't know if Nadal is at his prime yet. This guy is still getting better.

Pirao
05-14-2009, 11:57 AM
Yes, I do have a very high intelligence and am very high up in society and in life in general. Thanks for asking. :)

Thanks for the laugh man! :lol:

BreakPoint
05-14-2009, 01:03 PM
Thanks for the laugh man! :lol:
Um.....scoring in the top 2% in the United States on my university exams pretty much proves it. :oops:

Pirao
05-14-2009, 01:08 PM
Um.....scoring in the top 2% in the United States on my university exams pretty much proves it. :oops:

Yes, I'm sure you did. Although maybe your exams were in comedy, then you would definitely have had a chance :mrgreen:.

JT_2eighty
05-14-2009, 01:15 PM
It's obvious you haven't got a clue. I had the match on tape and watched it twice.

was there another reason to watch it twice besides this thread? I mean, I wouldn't even watch it once. Who has this kind of free time???

Anyway, if someone with a S&V game like Rafter ever comes around again, that would be a great matchup. But don't quote me on who would win because I'd rather not debate about "what ifs" and the like. I prefer reality.

BreakPoint
05-14-2009, 01:18 PM
Yes, I'm sure you did. Although maybe your exams were in comedy, then you would definitely have had a chance :mrgreen:.
Yeah, I did. It's too bad you're still in the 3rd grade after 10 years. I feel very sad for you. :(

BreakPoint
05-14-2009, 01:20 PM
was there another reason to watch it twice besides this thread? I mean, I wouldn't even watch it once. Who has this kind of free time???

I watched it once when it was shown on TV and then I watched it again on tape just in case I missed Nadal moving closer to the baseline by an inch on Meltzer's 1st serve. He never did, not even an inch closer.

TheNatural
05-14-2009, 01:47 PM
I watched it once when it was shown on TV and then I watched it again on tape just in case I missed Nadal moving closer to the baseline by an inch on Meltzer's 1st serve. He never did, not even an inch closer.

He moved as close as he needed to move :oops:

TennisandMusic
05-14-2009, 01:50 PM
Um.....scoring in the top 2% in the United States on my university exams pretty much proves it. :oops:

When was that...40 years ago?

And if you're so "high in life and society" why do you apparently spend most of your time arguing yourself into the ground with kids on a tennis message board? Most smart successful people I know don't do that.

BreakPoint
05-14-2009, 02:01 PM
He moved as close as he needed to move :oops:
That's because he's never played against a really GOOD serve and volleyer.

Let's see him try that against Sampras.

BreakPoint
05-14-2009, 02:04 PM
When was that...40 years ago?
Not even close.

And if you're so "high in life and society" why do you apparently spend most of your time arguing yourself into the ground with kids on a tennis message board? Most smart successful people I know don't do that.
Then you don't know any REALLY smart and successful people. Because REALLY smart and successful people can do whatever the heck they want to do. :)

JT_2eighty
05-14-2009, 02:07 PM
I would have chosen something like travelling around the world over tennis forum arguments. oh well to each his own

BreakPoint
05-14-2009, 02:15 PM
I would have chosen something like travelling around the world over tennis forum arguments. oh well to each his own
Been there, done that. Now it's time to enjoy playing tennis. :)

TheNatural
05-14-2009, 02:18 PM
Been there, done that. Now it's time to enjoy playing tennis. :)


You play tennis less frequently than you buy a new racket.

BreakPoint
05-14-2009, 02:44 PM
You play tennis less frequently than you buy a new racket.
And you know this because.......????? :confused:

Um...you mean playing tennis outdoors just about everyday all year round isn't "frequent" enough? :-? And I own far, far fewer racquets than many of the people on this board. In fact, ALL the racquets that I own fit into two racquet bags.

TheNatural
05-14-2009, 02:59 PM
And you know this because.......????? :confused:

Um...you mean playing tennis outdoors just about everyday all year round isn't "frequent" enough? :-? And I own far, far fewer racquets than many of the people on this board. In fact, ALL the racquets that I own fit into two racquet bags.


I remember once in the racket forum you saying you had no one to hit with for a month so you reviewed a racket by hitting against the brick wall :lol:

BreakPoint
05-14-2009, 03:55 PM
I remember once in the racket forum you saying you had no one to hit with for a month so you reviewed a racket by hitting against the brick wall :lol:
Show me that post because that's never happened to me so I couldn't have posted it. You must be thinking of someone else. My problem is that I have TOO MANY people to play with that I can't possibly accommodate them all. And I would never review a racquet by hitting against a brick wall, not that I even know of any brick walls anywhere near me. :-?

TheNatural
05-14-2009, 04:13 PM
Show me that post because that's never happened to me so I couldn't have posted it. You must be thinking of someone else. My problem is that I have TOO MANY people to play with that I can't possibly accommodate them all. And I would never review a racquet by hitting against a brick wall, not that I even know of any brick walls anywhere near me. :-?


You expect me to search through 22000 posts to find it?:shock:

There's a brick wall in your bedroom, but you may have to take down all those Roger Federer posters first.

bhkimm
05-14-2009, 04:29 PM
Like the great Pete Sampras said he would be licking his chops to play Nadal considering no one ever comes in attacks Nadal and puts pressure on him. Tsonga did at the AO 08 and he whopped on the boy. Sampras said, Im waiting for someone to attack the net and put pressure on Nadal instead of trying to rally with him from the baseline. Poor strategic plans by today's players is a big reason for what we are seeing now.


I don't know, because Nadal seems to be able to pass just about anyone, like Federer at RG last year and Djokovic at Monte Carlo and Rome

BreakPoint
05-14-2009, 04:42 PM
You expect me to search through 22000 posts to find it?:shock:

There's a brick wall in your bedroom, but you may have to take down all those Roger Federer posters first.
You ever heard of the search function?

No, I don't have a brick wall in my bedroom. Where do you think I live? :-? And how would you attach posters to a brick wall, not that I have ANY posters at all on my walls.

Pirao
05-15-2009, 12:26 AM
Yeah, I did. It's too bad you're still in the 3rd grade after 10 years. I feel very sad for you. :(

I see, you went to a "special" university. Was it congenitous, or did the doctor drop you on your head? this explains a lot of things, mainly why you can't string two coherent posts together, and you're always changing the points of discussions :).

JT_2eighty
05-15-2009, 07:49 AM
I don't know, because Nadal seems to be able to pass just about anyone, like Federer at RG last year and Djokovic at Monte Carlo and Rome

I wasn't gonna let myself get sucked into the "what if" arguments, but I'm just throwing this out there: Rafter in his prime would be the best bet at taking S&V to Nadal successfully. The way he could cover the net in his best year or two was simply unreal. He may not have had the precision volleys of Sampras or the touch of Federer, but his determination would match up well vs. Nadal in this fantasyland of "what if" speculation, imo. If another player surfaces with that style of play, it's S&V's only chance against Nadal's passing shots. Just a thought, and I'm sure I'll get blasted on this idea, but who really cares it's all fun anyway. $0.02

Andyk028
05-15-2009, 07:57 AM
Tsonga player out of his mind and Blew Nadal off the court. Nadal on his best day would have lost.

This is just simply untrue.

BreakPoint
05-15-2009, 10:35 AM
This is just simply untrue.
But it is true. Nadal didn't play poorly at all. Tsonga just played better. Even Nadal himself said so.

onehandbh
05-15-2009, 11:46 AM
\Rafter in his prime would be the best bet at taking S&V to Nadal successfully.

I'd put my $$ on Edberg. He destroyed Muster.

pmerk34
05-15-2009, 02:01 PM
This is just simply untrue.

What is simply untrue? Watch the match. Tsonga aced him at will and blasted forehands from a cannon. At the net he hit about 12 absurdly good drop volley winners.

Sometimes when a more powerful player is on fire there is nothing anyone can do. .

pmerk34
05-15-2009, 02:02 PM
I'd put my $$ on Edberg. He destroyed Muster.

Edberg was very good on the dirt....

TheNatural
05-15-2009, 02:37 PM
Edberg was very good on the dirt....


Edberg also gives good advice in order to beat Nadal. I think it applies to more people than Just Fed :

Edberg's Advice (http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/tennis/is-federer-losing-his-grip-1675217.html)
"He's not going to beat Nadal from the back of the court. Hardly anybody does. To beat him I think he needs to reshape his game a little bit." Stefan Edberg

"In order to develop and become an even better player his strategy should be to play more serve-and-volley," Stefan Edberg said. "I think that would benefit him and it would make it easier to beat Nadal, though that's never easy of course.

"It takes time. It's not as though you can switch on and change your style suddenly. You have to do it over six months or a year, playing a lot of serve-and-volley to get your momentum and so that at the back of your mind you know what you're doing."

TheNatural
05-15-2009, 03:21 PM
But it is true. Nadal didn't play poorly at all. Tsonga just played better. Even Nadal himself said so.


Nadal played well in parts but very ordinary and too passively in other parts. Tsonga got very lucky on 4 or 5 crucial points, he just stuck his racket out and accidentally hit some fluke volleys off the frame that just dropped over. The match would have turned around and Nadal would have won if not for those vital points. But still Nadal should have played better and not put himself into the position he was in so full credit to Tsonga.He played the match of his life but couldn't bring that game to the final.

pmerk34
05-15-2009, 04:09 PM
Nadal played well in parts but very ordinary and too passively in other parts. Tsonga got very lucky on 4 or 5 crucial points, he just stuck his racket out and accidentally hit some fluke volleys off the frame that just dropped over. The match would have turned around and Nadal would have won if not for those vital points. But still Nadal should have played better and not put himself into the position he was in so full credit to Tsonga.He played the match of his life but couldn't bring that game to the final.

He did hit some lucky drop volley winners, but he also did it about a dozen times. You also forgot the mention that he served like Roddick and hit forehands like Federer that match.

BreakPoint
05-15-2009, 05:01 PM
Nadal played well in parts but very ordinary and too passively in other parts. Tsonga got very lucky on 4 or 5 crucial points, he just stuck his racket out and accidentally hit some fluke volleys off the frame that just dropped over. The match would have turned around and Nadal would have won if not for those vital points. But still Nadal should have played better and not put himself into the position he was in so full credit to Tsonga.He played the match of his life but couldn't bring that game to the final.
If you'd played tennis, you'd know that when your opponent is playing great and kicking your butt, he doesn't allow you to play well and he makes you look bad. It's pretty much out of your control.

Dilettante
05-15-2009, 06:58 PM
If you'd played tennis, you'd know that when your opponent is playing great and kicking your butt, he doesn't allow you to play well and he makes you look bad. It's pretty much out of your control.

And when someone doesn't seem to play 100% versus Nadal, what would you say?

Just curious.

BreakPoint
05-15-2009, 09:01 PM
And when someone doesn't seem to play 100% versus Nadal, what would you say?

Just curious.
No one plays 100% against Nadal, and a lot of that has to do with Nadal. He doesn't allow his opponents to play at 100%.

Once in a while, someone does manage to play great against Nadal, like Tsonga at the '08 AO SF, Gonzales at the '07 AO QF, and Murray at the '08 USO SF.

Nanshiki
05-15-2009, 09:20 PM
People can play 100% against him, the problem is that he still usually wins. If tennis was about the total combined MPH of your forehands, backhands, serves, and returns instead of who gets the last shot back, he'd probably lose a lot more.

BreakPoint
05-15-2009, 10:00 PM
People can play 100% against him, the problem is that he still usually wins. If tennis was about the total combined MPH of your forehands, backhands, serves, and returns instead of who gets the last shot back, he'd probably lose a lot more.
I disagree. Most people beat themselves when they play Nadal. Verdasco today was a prime example. That's why Nadal can win even with very few winners and very few unforced errors. He makes his opponents make all of the unforced errors.

TheNatural
05-15-2009, 10:02 PM
No one plays 100% against Nadal, and a lot of that has to do with Nadal. He doesn't allow his opponents to play at 100%.

Once in a while, someone does manage to play great against Nadal, like Tsonga at the '08 AO SF, Gonzales at the '07 AO QF, and Murray at the '08 USO SF.

You're right, although those are bad examples.He had an injured leg and couldn't run properly at the 07 AO thats why he lost to Gonzo or else he would have beaten him as usual, At 08 USO he was fatigued from Olympic win or he would have beaten Fed in the final. But I'll give you the Tsonga one.

BreakPoint
05-15-2009, 11:40 PM
You're right, although those are bad examples.He had an injured leg and couldn't run properly at the 07 AO thats why he lost to Gonzo or else he would have beaten him as usual, At 08 USO he was fatigued from Olympic win or he would have beaten Fed in the final. But I'll give you the Tsonga one.
Got any more excuses?

Gonzalez was on fire that year at the AO. Just look at the way he destroyed Haas in the semis. Haas didn't know what hit him. Gonzo could do no wrong during that tournament. He was crushing the ball like there was no tomorrow and everything was going in. Nadal (nor Blake nor Hewitt nor Haas) had a chance. It had nothing to do with Nadal's leg. His leg was good enough to beat Murray a round earlier.

TheNatural
05-16-2009, 01:14 AM
Got any more excuses?

Gonzalez was on fire that year at the AO. Just look at the way he destroyed Haas in the semis. Haas didn't know what hit him. Gonzo could do no wrong during that tournament. He was crushing the ball like there was no tomorrow and everything was going in. Nadal (nor Blake nor Hewitt nor Haas) had a chance. It had nothing to do with Nadal's leg. His leg was good enough to beat Murray a round earlier.
http://www.daveoncode.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/doh.jpg


Good on him, but Nadal was injured. What Do Gonzo's matches versus Haas and Hewitt have to do with Nadal's injury? besides Nadal is in a whole different class to Haas and Hewitt. He injured the Leg during the Murray match. Nadal even said he couldn't say How well Gonzo was playing because Nadal was too injured to make a proper analysis. We all know Nadal is in a whole different class to Gonzales.He would have won for sure if he was uninjured. Nadal was more disappointed in the injury than in the loss because he knew how limited he was with the injury he had.

It had EVERYTHING to do with the leg.



Rafael Nadal AUSTRALIAN OPEN January 24, 2007 (http://www.asapsports.com/show_interview.php?id=41084)

MELBOURNE, VICTORIA

THE MODERATOR: Questions, please.

Q. Fernando was in awesome form out there. What was it like on the other side of the court? Could you do much against him?
RAFAEL NADAL: Well, he's playing very good level, that's for sure. Maybe was not a good match for me. I don't know if I can say I am playing bad, but for sure I can't play at hundred percent, no?
I have problems in my leg, so I cannot run. I can't run a lot. Was difficult play one match like this, quarterfinals of one Grand Slam, with pain, without the best conditions, no?

Q. When did you hurt your leg?
RAFAEL NADAL: After the match. After the last match of Murray.

Q. Is that what the treatment was for?
RAFAEL NADAL: Yeah.

Q. What exactly is it?
RAFAEL NADAL: I don't know. I don't know. I really don't know why. I was thinking before the -- before the match, I was practicing a little bit in the hotel because I was very tired. Today I going to warm up. I don't feel very bad. I just feel very tired. The leg hurt.
When I am on court, I am trying to run. Hundred percent run, well, I can't. I can't start. Was difficult and disappointing for me, no? I don't know if is a good opportunity because Fernando is very tough match. But for sure when you are in quarterfinals of a Grand Slam and you can't play with your best feelings, your best conditions, is difficult, no?

Q. Did you expect to win?
RAFAEL NADAL: Well, before the match, yes. When I am on the match, no.(due to the leg injury obviously breakpoint you doofus. You think Nadal would ever think he could not win during a match if he was not injured?)

Q. Did you do something in the match against Murray? When did you feel the pain in that match?
RAFAEL NADAL: I don't know. I don't feel the pain in the match of Murray, no? I feel later. I feel after. Well, I don't know. I was thinking was just tired. Normal. I was playing very tough match, I just feel tired. Maybe is not just tired, because is not normal. Walking right now I have lot of pain. Maybe is a little bit more than tired.

Q. What part of your leg is the pain in?
RAFAEL NADAL: Well, it's not just the one place. I have pain here, in my famous *** (smiling). After I feel a little bit here, too (pointing to the inside and outside of the thigh). That maybe it's just tired, no? But down this way and in the *** is very, very painful, no?

Q. What do you do now? Do you leave Australia as soon as you can? Where do you play next?
RAFAEL NADAL: Well, I going to leave on Friday maybe because tomorrow I don't have plane. Well, I want to play the Davis Cup after one week. I hope be hundred percent for Davis Cup. Is one of my goals always, play for your country is always special for me.
But I need go to the doctor and watch what I can I do right now, no?

Q. Will you have a scan?
RAFAEL NADAL: No, not yet. I just have doping right now. Nothing else.

Q. How much better a player is Fernando now? Does he seem more patient?
RAFAEL NADAL: Well, he improves his game a lot, no? He's playing with more calm all the time. Well, now he's doing a lot of slice, open the backhand. Sometimes is difficult.
Well, today I can't say so much, no, because I am not, I don't know. (Speaking in Spanish).
INTERPRETER: He really didn't have the chance to see how he plays because he was never at a hundred percent today.
RAFAEL NADAL: But for sure he has very good results. He improves a lot his game.

Q. Do you think he's got the game to beat Roger or Andy in the final?
RAFAEL NADAL: You never know. Roger is always very difficult. Is another level always. But you never know. When you are in one final of Grand Slam, you can win for sure because you are with big confidence. Anything can do.
But we will see the semifinals against Tommy Haas, no?

Q. You will have a scan in Spain?
RAFAEL NADAL: Yeah, for sure, because I have the Davis Cup after one week. I need know if I going to be in the team or not - for me and for the rest.

Q. How much more disappointing is it when you have to leave a tournament after losing not being a hundred percent fit than when you lose in a tough match just normally?
RAFAEL NADAL: Well, disappointing, no, because I was playing fine. I was playing good. I was winning very important match two days ago against Murray. I was with good confidence for try to play this quarterfinals and try to go to the final, no? But, well, that's it. I was trying my best all the time. I was fighting a lot for being in this quarterfinals.
But these things happening sometimes. Well, it's not a problem. If I am playing bad, something, well, you can go to the home and say disappointing. But today I just say, well, I can't do more.(due to the injury breakpoint you doofus) I try my best. Well, that's it.

End of FastScripts

BreakPoint
05-16-2009, 09:31 AM
Good on him, but Nadal was injured. What Do Gonzo's matches versus Haas and Hewitt have to do with Nadal's injury? besides Nadal is in a whole different class to Haas and Hewitt. He injured the Leg during the Murray match. Nadal even said he couldn't say How well Gonzo was playing because Nadal was too injured to make a proper analysis. We all know Nadal is in a whole different class to Gonzales.He would have won for sure if he was uninjured. Nadal was more disappointed in the injury than in the loss because he knew how limited he was with the injury he had.
What a bunch of BS.


Q. Fernando was in awesome form out there. What was it like on the other side of the court? Could you do much against him?
RAFAEL NADAL: Well, he's playing very good level, that's for sure. Maybe was not a good match for me. I don't know if I can say I am playing bad,
:oops:

Q. When did you hurt your leg?
RAFAEL NADAL: After the match. After the last match of Murray.
So he hurt his leg while taking a shower? Too bad for him. How do you know Gonzalez didn't hurt his elbow while brushing his teeth that morning?
:oops:

If you believe this then you also believe that Nadal beat Federer at Wimbledon last year because Federer was still recovering from mono. Except that Federer has way too much class to blame his loss on the mono.
:-?

pmerk34
05-16-2009, 09:41 AM
If you'd played tennis, you'd know that when your opponent is playing great and kicking your butt, he doesn't allow you to play well and he makes you look bad. It's pretty much out of your control.

See 1990 US Open final.