PDA

View Full Version : There should be a new sub category added to serve and volley called: "delayed S & V "


The Pusher Terminator
03-19-2005, 03:10 AM
I was watching Henman's match and Dent's match and noticed that they serve and volley very differently.

Henman employs what I term as a "delayed" serve and volley on many points. He will serve the ball and then hit a few ground strokes....and then, when the time is right he rushes the net.

Dent on the other hand serves and then simply rushes the net on almost every point.

Although, both players win their points at the net...they do it quite differently. I do not believe they should both be lumped into a general category of serve and volleyer. Henman does not simply serve and then immediately volley on most points...therefore maybe he should be called a "delayed serve and volleyer."

Noelle
03-19-2005, 03:14 AM
Henman doesn't have a weapon of a serve, so he usually serves and uses his groundstrokes to create an opportunity for him to get to net. Dent's serve, when on, sets up a weak reply, making it easy for him to rush the net.

Perhaps Henman is more of an allcourt player?

ragnaROK
03-19-2005, 07:18 AM
Henman's more of an all court player now isntead of a pure serve and volleyer.

Exile
03-19-2005, 07:41 AM
Yeah that would be called an all court game. Set up the point, go to net, point over.

daniel_rst
03-19-2005, 09:29 AM
Henman almost always comes right in to net after his first serve. He does not, however, usually come in on second serves on any surface other than grass. I think he would like to, but has realized that it is pretty futile. Most top 25 players can pass him more often than not on a second serve return. The good news is that Henman actually has a decent ground game and can eventually find his way to net anyway.

Dent usually comes in off both serves, but there is little difference between his first and second serve. They are both cannons. He would rather double fault than give his opponent something to tee off on. In my opinion this is a good strategy for him. If he is going to lose the point, better to lose on his terms (double fault) than let the other guy get a rhythm returning his serve.

I would still consider both players S&V players. Henman has adapted more of an all-court game by necessity, not because he wants to. If I recall, towards the end, even Edberg was staying back on second serves. And Edberg's ground game was not as good as Henman's.

The Pusher Terminator
03-19-2005, 07:03 PM
I'm sorry...Henman is no all courter! He cannot win from the baseline...he must come to net to finish a point. he is a serve and volleyer hybrid....a "delayed serve and volleyer"....but no way is he an all courter!

Max G.
03-19-2005, 07:36 PM
Sure he can win from the baseline. I've seen him hit plenty of forehand winners. He prefers being at net, but he can hit nice groundies too.

andfor
03-19-2005, 07:36 PM
I'm sorry...Henman is no all courter! He cannot win from the baseline...he must come to net to finish a point. he is a serve and volleyer hybrid....a "delayed serve and volleyer"....but no way is he an all courter!

Trying to start an argument Push? He's a serve and volleyer who also happens to have an all-court game. How did Henman get to the semis of the French last year? He hit a few groundies along the way. Dent also has a decent ground game. Did you see his match against Safin? He looked pretty darn good against him from the backcourt.

If you disagree please tell us what your definition of an All-Court player is.

My definition of an all-court player is a delayed serve and volleyer. Just kidding, sort of. :D

All-Court players typically are able to play serve and volley or baseline given the situation. Some all-court players lean more to the serve and volley some lean more to the baseline style. It's very simple. Please do not complicate things. lol

The Pusher Terminator
03-20-2005, 04:28 AM
Trying to start an argument Push? He's a serve and volleyer who also happens to have an all-court game. How did Henman get to the semis of the French last year? He hit a few groundies along the way. Dent also has a decent ground game. Did you see his match against Safin? He looked pretty darn good against him from the backcourt.

If you disagree please tell us what your definition of an All-Court player is.

My definition of an all-court player is a delayed serve and volleyer. Just kidding, sort of. :D

All-Court players typically are able to play serve and volley or baseline given the situation. Some all-court players lean more to the serve and volley some lean more to the baseline style. It's very simple. Please do not complicate things. lol

Must you hunt me down whenever I make a quote?

Are you actually saying that you believe that Henman is an all courter?? Whats even more shocking is that you seem to be saying that Dent is an all courter as well! I think that you just love to argue with me because you cannot possibly believe that Dent is an all corter!...I did see Dent's match against Safin...and it was pure serve and volley you nut job! Dent won that match serving and volleying ....even on his return of serves he tried to chip and charge...your nuts!

You use the French open to point out that henman is an all courter. Would you call John Mcenroe an all courter? He made it to the finals as well and came very close to beating none other than Ivan Lendl.

Henman is a serve and volleyer. Or what I call a delayed serve and volleyer or maybe simply a "net rusher" because he wins 95% of all his points at the net. Serve & Volley is not simply serving and then volleying. There are varying styles. It is possible to serve ...hit a ground stroke and then rush the net....that is still a serve and volley game!!! Henman cannot win from the baseline...thus he is not an allcourter. He Must rush the net to win the point. Therefore he is a serve and volleyer with a sub-category of "net rusher" or "delayed serve and volley". Just for the record, when he is not playing "delayed serve and volley" he is employing a pure serve and volley game. I would say 40% of the time he employs a pure serve and volley game. In any event he never stays back and tries to win from the baseline. To say that Henman is an allcourter is just ridiculous. Please don't argue just for the sake of arguing.

You asked for my definition of an all courter...I can say it one word: FEDERER.

aj_m2009
03-20-2005, 04:44 AM
I agree with the others and say he is an all-courter.

The Pusher Terminator
03-20-2005, 05:17 AM
I agree with the others and say he is an all-courter.

OMg...I think hell has just frozen over. In any event, ESPN and the rest of the tennis world classify Henman & Dent as serve and volleyers.

aj_m2009
03-20-2005, 05:24 AM
OMg...I think hell has just frozen over. In any event, ESPN and the rest of the tennis world classify Henman & Dent as serve and volleyers.

Why on earth don't you think he is an all-courter? He stays back a lot more than any other S&V's do(compared to the ones I have seen(Sampras & Dent)anyway). I think he should be considered an all-court player.

The Pusher Terminator
03-20-2005, 07:17 AM
Why on earth don't you think he is an all-courter? He stays back a lot more than any other S&V's do(compared to the ones I have seen(Sampras & Dent)anyway). I think he should be considered an all-court player.

Sampras is recognized as an all courter by everyone who is anyone!

I think the better question is why on earth do you think you can compare the all court game of Sampras to Henman?

Henman concludes every point at the net. Sampras on the other hand had one of the best running forehands the game has ever seen and could hit winners from any part of the court.

henman basically has one strategy: GET TO THE NET!!!....

Henmans serve strategy:

1. hope for a weak return...hit a strong ground stroke to force a good approach shot ...and then run to the net and volley for a winner; or

2. serve and volley

Henmans return strategy:

1. wait for the right moment...rush the net and volley for a winner.

Henman is clearly a serve and volleyer ...sub category..."delayed serve and volley" or simply "net rusher."

aj_m2009
03-20-2005, 07:29 AM
I have said before that I only started playing and watching tennis 3 years ago so that would make it '02, the year Sampras retired. So I never really got a good chance to watch him but from what I had seen he was pretty much pure S&V. And from what I have seen of Henman he is more of an all-court player to me because he plays from all over the court more than Sampras did from what I have seen.

But fine dude you win, ok. My gosh, he is a net-rusher and Sampras is an all-courter, there ya happy? But just because I say it doesn't mean I believe it. You're never going to change my mind.

andfor
03-20-2005, 07:34 AM
Push, you're thinking to hard about this stuff. Read my last paragraph from my last post and think about it.

If some announcer calls Henman a Serve and Volleyer and another calls him a All-Courter don't have a stroke.

Again, read my post #8, last paragraph. Then look up the definition of the word "subjective". That should clear this up for you.

FYI. The reason I bolded and enlarged my last paragraph is because Push has a tendency to not listen to others trying to give him good advice. I was not yelling, just trying to get his attention. LOL :D

Exile
03-20-2005, 08:02 AM
S&V=
Serve
speed to net and volley
maybe half volley
groundstrokes only if the return is decent enough, or you get lazy.
C&C whenever you can
If not, try and get a good approach.

All court game=
Sometimes S&V
Sometimes stays back.
Sometimes plays the BL
Sometimes goes to net on return
Sometimes goes back.
Looks for weak shot to approach on to go to net.

All of this by intention, not because the opponent forced them.(There are exceptions to this of course)

I think Laver defined it as someone who SHOWS MASTERY of ALL strokes.
Mastery, like being able to rely on any stroke to force an error or get a winner, based on intention of strategy or just the heat of the moment.

bc-05
03-20-2005, 08:05 AM
Must you hunt me down whenever I make a quote?

Are you actually saying that you believe that Henman is an all courter?? Whats even more shocking is that you seem to be saying that Dent is an all courter as well! I think that you just love to argue with me because you cannot possibly believe that Dent is an all corter!...I did see Dent's match against Safin...and it was pure serve and volley you nut job! Dent won that match serving and volleying ....even on his return of serves he tried to chip and charge...your nuts!

You use the French open to point out that henman is an all courter. Would you call John Mcenroe an all courter? He made it to the finals as well and came very close to beating none other than Ivan Lendl.

Henman is a serve and volleyer. Or what I call a delayed serve and volleyer or maybe simply a "net rusher" because he wins 95% of all his points at the net. Serve & Volley is not simply serving and then volleying. There are varying styles. It is possible to serve ...hit a ground stroke and then rush the net....that is still a serve and volley game!!! Henman cannot win from the baseline...thus he is not an allcourter. He Must rush the net to win the point. Therefore he is a serve and volleyer with a sub-category of "net rusher" or "delayed serve and volley". Just for the record, when he is not playing "delayed serve and volley" he is employing a pure serve and volley game. I would say 40% of the time he employs a pure serve and volley game. In any event he never stays back and tries to win from the baseline. To say that Henman is an allcourter is just ridiculous. Please don't argue just for the sake of arguing.

You asked for my definition of an all courter...I can say it one word: FEDERER.


ok if what u mean by allcourt is like fed.. that means he can win points anywhere on the court.. this case henman also can do it.. he's won baseline rallies too.. well yes he won most of his points on the net.. but fed won most of his points on the baseline.. does that mean he;s a baseliner? no.. so imo henman is an allcourter.. coz he can exchange baseline with anyone he wants.. even if he comes in at every opportunity he has.. as for dent.. he is a pure s&v because his baseline simply just sux.. now andy.. he's a pure baseliner because he cant volley.. what about hewitt? well his volleys are good (GS double champion like twice?) and his groundstrokes are very good.. but is he an allcourter? NO coz he doesn't go to the net all the times... but henman just like u said.. he sets up the point from the gs.. therefore? his gs is strong which results in automatic strong gs strong volley = strong volley + good groundstroke = all courter

The Pusher Terminator
03-20-2005, 10:28 AM
"and for"...and others,

I have no clue what you mean by #8...but I read your last paragraph and you still make no sense.

Calling Henman an all courter is simply illogical? It is not subjective. Then I can make the silly statement that I think Agassi is a serve and volleyer....I mean give me a break! Henman cannot win from the baseline! How is he an all-courter? Really...give it up. henman is classified as a serve and volleyer everywhere...but if you chosse to classify him as an all courter then i suppose its your right.....a silly classification but still your right. I just find it funny that when i said Nastase was a baseliner you got all out of shape and had to find quotes that he was an all-courter. Now , when it fits your argument..."everything is now subjective".....calling Henman an all courter is really pathetic. You don't always have to say the opposite of what I say in every post.

aj_m2009
03-20-2005, 10:35 AM
I thought Sampras was classified as a S&V player.

The Pusher Terminator
03-20-2005, 10:56 AM
Sampras was an all courter who leaned towards serve and volley. Later in his career he went to the serve and volley more and more. But clearly he was an all courter as he could beat you fom any part of the court...Henman can only win at the net. Sampras on the other hand had some awesome groundstrokes...including one of the best running forehands the game has ever seen...Henman has no groundstrokes. He is a one dimensional player...he can only win at the net!

el_mago
03-20-2005, 11:10 AM
Sampras was an all courter who leaned towards serve and volley. Later in his career he went to the serve and volley more and more. But clearly he was an all courter as he could beat you fom any part of the court...Henman can only win at the net.

I think that is what The Pusher Terminator is trying to make clear. All-around players like Sampras are considered all-around because they really have no real weaknesses and can win a point using any part of their game. IMO, I don't count Henman's groundies as something that can win points and they are a bit of a weakness. Along with Dent's, Henman's groundies are more of a backbone to their game, but it is not something that they can really rely on like Sampras could rely on other parts of his game other than his groundies to win points.

aj_m2009
03-20-2005, 11:25 AM
Whatever y'all, I am done replying to this thread. It is pointless because nobody is willing to change the way they think of Henman or Sampras or Dent for that matter.

The Pusher Terminator
03-20-2005, 11:28 AM
ok if what u mean by allcourt is like fed.. that means he can win points anywhere on the court.. this case henman also can do it.. he's won baseline rallies too.. well yes he won most of his points on the net.. but fed won most of his points on the baseline.. does that mean he;s a baseliner? no.. so imo henman is an allcourter.. coz he can exchange baseline with anyone he wants.. even if he comes in at every opportunity he has.. as for dent.. he is a pure s&v because his baseline simply just sux.. now andy.. he's a pure baseliner because he cant volley.. what about hewitt? well his volleys are good (GS double champion like twice?) and his groundstrokes are very good.. but is he an allcourter? NO coz he doesn't go to the net all the times... but henman just like u said.. he sets up the point from the gs.. therefore? his gs is strong which results in automatic strong gs strong volley = strong volley + good groundstroke = all courter

Ummmmm....fed has a kick *** serve and volley game. He can win from the baseline or the net....henman can only win at the net.

andfor
03-21-2005, 07:52 AM
As I said earlier don't get so worked up about catagorizing players and their playing styles. Some players styles lend itself to a level of subjectiveness. As for your reference to Nastase, you called him a baseliner in an earlier post. That post was about another subjective matter about weather the odds are against Fed to win the French or somehting like that. You stood corrected because Nastase was an all-court player. Let's don't rehash that whole subject again. When you deal in the realm of subjectiveness your going to have a wide range of opinions.

The Pusher Terminator
03-21-2005, 02:43 PM
As I said earlier don't get so worked up about catagorizing players and their playing styles. Some players styles lend itself to a level of subjectiveness. As for your reference to Nastase, you called him a baseliner in an earlier post. That post was about another subjective matter about weather the odds are against Fed to win the French or somehting like that. You stood corrected because Nastase was an all-court player. Let's don't rehash that whole subject again. When you deal in the realm of subjectiveness your going to have a wide range of opinions.

So now I get it. Lets see if i get this straight....classifying players is not subjective when it helps your argument but when it helps my argument then classifying players is a subjective opinion. Thanks for clearing that up.

You can't have it both ways my friend. if you say that classifications are subjective then i was never proved wrong...Following your own line of logic, then it can be my subjective opinion that nastase was a baseliner. Don't pull a kerry flip flop on me my friend.

andfor
03-21-2005, 03:21 PM
So now I get it. Lets see if i get this straight....classifying players is not subjective when it helps your argument but when it helps my argument then classifying players is a subjective opinion. Thanks for clearing that up.

You can't have it both ways my friend. if you say that classifications are subjective then i was never proved wrong...Following your own line of logic, then it can be my subjective opinion that nastase was a baseliner. Don't pull a kerry flip flop on me my friend.

Whatever. You're getting spun up over nothing. Nastase was a All-Court player. If you want to believe he was a baseliner to satisfy your own ego that never lets you admit you're wrong or see another persons point of view, fine. Tim Henman is a S&V with a very capable ground game. If someone calls him an All-Court player on TV, so what. Take it up with them. He has All-Court ability. Not to the same level as Fed, Laver or Sampras, but who does?

Call me Kerry or whatever you want. So what I don't care. I call you trite and this thread a non-subject.

The Pusher Terminator
03-22-2005, 10:47 AM
Whatever. You're getting spun up over nothing. Nastase was a All-Court player. If you want to believe he was a baseliner to satisfy your own ego that never lets you admit you're wrong or see another persons point of view, fine. Tim Henman is a S&V with a very capable ground game. If someone calls him an All-Court player on TV, so what. Take it up with them. He has All-Court ability. Not to the same level as Fed, Laver or Sampras, but who does?

Call me Kerry or whatever you want. So what I don't care. I call you trite and this thread a non-subject.

When trapped all you can do is make personal attacks. You are like a mouse caught in a maze and at every impasse you make another turn.

Either you feel picking a style of play is subjective or objective. Simply pick one and don't get nasty. Lashing out at me just because you have been caught taking two sides of an issue is lame.

Why is it that Nastase MUST be an all-court player? Isn't it then your ego that won't let you see other peoples points of view? Why am I not allowed to think Nastase is a baseliner? You said yourself this is a subjective issue. Please don't get so wound up over nothing. As you said...everyone is entitled to their subjective view....right?

No one on TV has called henman an all-court player. In fact every expert calls him a serve and volleyer. Its nice to hear you admit that he is a serve an volleyer though. I am glad that we both agree.

Finally, please stop stalking me on every post I make. If you really disagree with me then by all means please state your point of view...but your actions on this string were pathetic. I mean at least try and put up a good fight......you really bored me. This was way too easy...you really let me down.

BreakPoint
03-22-2005, 12:26 PM
I don't think there is such a thing as "delayed serve and volley". You either serve and come in and hit the volley off of your opponent's return or you don't. If you hit a couple of groundstrokes or even one before you come into the net and hit the volley - it is no longer considered serve and volley. The whole idea of serve and volley tennis is to use your powerful serve to force a weak return which sets you up to hit a relatively easy volley. It's usually easier to get a weaker return off of your serve than off of a groundstroke. If you like to come in off of an approach shot and then finish the point at the net - then that's more of an all-court style. Just watch guys like Rafter, Henman, Sampras, Ivanisevic, Edberg, Becker, and McEnroe at Wimbledon. That's the definition of serve and volley tennis. Guys like Federer and Connors are more all-court players. Just ask Jack Kramer, the guy who started the serve and volley trend. There's a reason why it's called serve AND volley, because you hit the serve and your next shot is the volley.

The Pusher Terminator
03-22-2005, 01:07 PM
I don't think there is such a thing as "delayed serve and volley". You either serve and come in and hit the volley off of your opponent's return or you don't. If you hit a couple of groundstrokes or even one before you come into the net and hit the volley - it is no longer considered serve and volley. The whole idea of serve and volley tennis is to use your powerful serve to force a weak return which sets you up to hit a relatively easy volley. It's usually easier to get a weaker return off of your serve than off of a groundstroke. If you like to come in off of an approach shot and then finish the point at the net - then that's more of an all-court style. Just watch guys like Rafter, Henman, Sampras, Ivanisevic, Edberg, Becker, and McEnroe at Wimbledon. That's the definition of serve and volley tennis. Guys like Federer and Connors are more all-court players. Just ask Jack Kramer, the guy who started the serve and volley trend. There's a reason why it's called serve AND volley, because you hit the serve and your next shot is the volley.
breakpoint,

There is no such thing as "delayed serve and volley."...I invented that term. It is the subject of this post. You just said above that Henman is a serve and volleyer??? make up your mind! Check out your own quote below::

"Just watch guys like Rafter, HENMAN, Sampras, Ivanisevic, Edberg, Becker, and McEnroe at Wimbledon. That's the definition of serve and volley tennis. "

Sampras is an all courter. he has one of the best running forehands this game has ever seen. He can beat you from the baseline...Henman can't do crap from the baseline. I guess thats why you agreed with me that Henman is a serve and volleyer. I think?

I do not think that a player like Henman can possibly be considered as an "all courter" because he can only win at the net. He serves and volleys on almost every point...granted its a serve and a ground stroke and then a volley...but so what!!! Yanick Noah did the same thing...was he an all courter to?

Henman simply serves and then a little later volleys.....that is not an all courter. Federer can win points simply playing from the baseline. Sampras, could do the same thing...but Henmans only weapon is his volleys!! He has absolutely no other weapons....zero zilch.

The Pusher Terminator
03-22-2005, 01:27 PM
Whatever y'all, I am done replying to this thread. It is pointless because nobody is willing to change the way they think of Henman or Sampras or Dent for that matter.

I can't believe that some of you actually think Dent is an all courter as well!! "ANDFOR" actually thought that dent has a good ground game!!! What is the point of derbating anything with people who think that Dent is an all courter!...Ceck out this gem:

"Dent also has a decent ground game. Did you see his match against Safin? He looked pretty darn good against him from the backcourt"...andfor

GIVE ME A BREAK...Dent served and volleyed that entire match! What match were you guys watching?

aj_m2009
03-22-2005, 01:28 PM
breakpoint,

There is no such thing as "delayed serve and volley."...I invented that term. It is the subject of this post. You just said above that Henman is a serve and volleyer??? make up your mind! Check out your own quote below::

"Just watch guys like Rafter, HENMAN, Sampras, Ivanisevic, Edberg, Becker, and McEnroe at Wimbledon. That's the definition of serve and volley tennis. "

Sampras is an all courter. he has one of the best running forehands this game has ever seen. He can beat you from the baseline...Henman can't do crap from the baseline.

I do not think that a player like Henman can possibly be considered as an "all courter" because he can only win at the net. He serves and volleys on almost every point...granted its a serve and a ground stroke and then a volley...but so what!!! Yanick Noah did the same thing...was he an all courter to?

Henman simply serves and then a little later volleys.....that is not an all courter. Federer can win points simply playing from the baseline. Sampras, could do the same thing...but Henmans only weapon is his volleys!! He has absolutely no other weapons....zero zilch.

Ok, so I accdentally lied, that wasn't my last post, sorry. Anyways, Push, how do you know if Henman can't win from the baseline if he is always at net, huh? Oh, got yourself on that one didn't ya? Now there is no such thing as a "delayed S&Ver" and there never will be, no matter how many times you try and lable someone that. You either serve and then come in and hit a volley or ya don't. Someone who doesn't isn't a S&Ver, they are an all-courter because they set themselves up with a groundstroke, not their serve.

The Pusher Terminator
03-22-2005, 01:32 PM
Ok, so I accdentally lied, that wasn't my last post, sorry. Anyways, Push, how do you know if Henman can't win from the baseline if he is always at net, huh? Oh, got yourself on that one didn't ya? Now there is no such thing as a "delayed S&Ver" and there never will be, no matter how many times you try and lable someone that. You either serve and then come in and hit a volley or ya don't. Someone who doesn't isn't a S&Ver, they are an all-courter because they set them selves up with a groundstroke, not their serve.

Good one. You sure as hell got me!..LOL. Thats like saying if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it then how do you know it makes a noise.

Secondly you miss the point of this post. Henman is a serve and volleyer and all the experts classify him as one. You guys are actually all sort of agreeing with me...you are saying he is not a serve and volleyer but rather an all-courter. I am saying that there should be a new category called "delayed serve and volley" because all courter does not really fit! Come on ...does Henman have the same style of game as Federer?

We actually all agree ...Henman is NOT a 'pure" serve and volleyer in the classical sense. But I don't think its fair to call him an all courter as he has crappy groundstrokes that are more of a liability than a weapon. I think "delayed serve and volleyer" describes him far better than an all-courter.

aj_m2009
03-22-2005, 01:33 PM
I can't believe that some of you actually think Dent is an all courter as well!! "ANDFOR" actually thought that dent has a good ground game!!! What is the point of derbating anything with people who think that Dent is an all courter!

I didn't say Dent was an all-courter, I really didn't say anything about him, I just tossed him 'cause...uh...I don't know why I tossed him in there but I did. And there is not a point in debating anything with someone who thinks Henman is a "delayed S&Ver".

aj_m2009
03-22-2005, 01:41 PM
Good one. You sure as hell got me!..LOL

I assume that was sarcastic but you're right, I got ya.:)

The Pusher Terminator
03-22-2005, 01:42 PM
I assume that was sarcastic but you're right, I got ya.:)

I just edited for your pleasure:


Good one. You sure as hell got me!..LOL. Thats like saying if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it then how do you know it makes a noise.

Secondly you miss the point of this post. Henman is a serve and volleyer and all the experts classify him as one. You guys are actually all sort of agreeing with me...you are saying he is not a serve and volleyer but rather an all-courter. I am saying that there should be a new category called "delayed serve and volley" because all courter does not really fit! Come on ...does Henman have the same style of game as Federer?

We actually all agree ...Henman is NOT a 'pure" serve and volleyer in the classical sense. But I don't think its fair to call him an all courter as he has crappy groundstrokes that are more of a liability than a weapon. I think "delayed serve and volleyer" describes him far better than an all-courter.

The Pusher Terminator
03-22-2005, 01:45 PM
I didn't say Dent was an all-courter, I really didn't say anything about him, I just tossed him 'cause...uh...I don't know why I tossed him in there but I did. And there is not a point in debating anything with someone who thinks Henman is a "delayed S&Ver".

The sound of your silence is deafining.

aj_m2009
03-22-2005, 02:53 PM
Thats like saying if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it then how do you know it makes a noise.

That is the dumbest thing anyone could say IMO. Of course it makes a noise. If a tree falls in front of you does it make a noise? Yes, so why would it not make a noise if it doesn't fall in front of you?

The Pusher Terminator
03-22-2005, 05:32 PM
That is the dumbest thing anyone could say IMO. Of course it makes a noise. If a tree falls in front of you does it make a noise? Yes, so why would it not make a noise if it doesn't fall in front of you?

OMG...you must be very young. The tree falling in the forest is a very old analogy and the most intelligent philosophers have debated this issue for 100's of years. It is far from dumb.

tennisboy87
03-22-2005, 07:07 PM
aj,

If no one is there to hear the tree fall, how do you know if it makes a noise? I'm just kidding with you lol. I just felt like posting in this ever growing thread.

aj_m2009
03-22-2005, 07:56 PM
OMG...you must be very young. The tree falling in the forest is a very old analogy and the most intelligent philosophers have debated this issue for 100's of years. It is far from dumb.

You're right, it is far from dumb. It's dumber than dumb, it's...********, stupid, and dumb all in one. And your right, I am young. I'm 43. No, just kidding,:p take 30 from that and you have my age.

bc-05
03-22-2005, 09:20 PM
ok firstly who cares.. classify him as a delayed s&v.. dont need to argue.. if he doesn't wanna call henman a delayed s&ver then let him.. talking about dumb? when an old man asking someone for their age while getting rolled bad.. and to find out he's only 13.. makes it more embarassing.. like u got rolled by a 13 yr old..

bobby
03-22-2005, 11:37 PM
The term "delayed serve and volley" is obviously contradictory. Serve and volley has a clear definition: serve and then follow your serve to net. If you do not serve and volley but still come to net, you use your groundstrokes to set up getting to net. This would fall into the allcourt style.

Also, if you think that Henman only wins points at the net, you need to actually watch him play.

The Pusher Terminator
03-23-2005, 07:41 AM
ok firstly who cares.. classify him as a delayed s&v.. dont need to argue.. if he doesn't wanna call henman a delayed s&ver then let him.. talking about dumb? when an old man asking someone for their age while getting rolled bad.. and to find out he's only 13.. makes it more embarassing.. like u got rolled by a 13 yr old..

Bc,

Firstly,I think a heck of a lot of people care. Last I checked I believe there have been 600 viewers of this string and 3 pages of posts. So I do believe quite a few people actually care.

Secondly, I am not forcing anyone to call Henman anything. I am just making a point. The world has classified Henman as a serve and volleyer. Every book, every expert, every Tv announcer has classified Henman as a serve and volleyer. I simply do not believe that he is a serve and volleyer in the classic sense of the term. By the way neither do the guys who are arguing with me on this very website! You guys think he is an all courter! We all agree ...Henman is not a serve and volleyer. But is he an all-courter??? Does he really fit that description? Does he have the same game as Federer? I just don't think so... and therefore rather than calling him an all-courter or a serve and volleyer I feel that a new category should be created called "delayed serve and volley". I think that is a far better description for Henman than all courter or simply serve and volleyer...but If I am forced to choose between only those two then he is a serve and volleyer all the way!

Thirdly, I guess 23 compared to 13 is old...but far from being an old man.

Finally, how on earth did I get rolled? He called one of the most deep and intelligent questions posed to man (the tree falling in forest question) stupid. Is there even a point in arguing against that? Its like saying Shakespeare sucks!

The Pusher Terminator
03-23-2005, 07:41 AM
The term "delayed serve and volley" is obviously contradictory. Serve and volley has a clear definition: serve and then follow your serve to net. If you do not serve and volley but still come to net, you use your groundstrokes to set up getting to net. This would fall into the allcourt style.

Also, if you think that Henman only wins points at the net, you need to actually watch him play.

Bobby,

Then why does every book, every expert and every TV commentator call Henman a serve and volleyer?...in fact Breakpoint thought he was arguing with me...but take a look at what he actually said:

"Just watch guys like Rafter, HENMAN, Sampras, Ivanisevic, Edberg, Becker, and McEnroe at Wimbledon. That's the definition of serve and volley tennis. "

aj_m2009
03-23-2005, 07:51 AM
Bobby,

I am not forcing anyone to call Henman anything. I am just making a point. The world has classified Henman as a serve and volleyer. Every book, every expert, every Tv announcer has classified Henman as a serve and volleyer. I simply do not believe that he is a serve and volleyer in the classic sense of the term. By the way neither do the guys who are arguing with me on this very website! You guys think he is an all courter! We all agree ...Henman is not a serve and volleyer. But is he an all-courter??? Does he really fit that description? Does he have the same game as Federer? I just don't think so... and therefore rather than calling him an all-courter or a serve and volleyer I feel that a new category should be created called "delayed serve and volley". I think that is a far better description for Henman than all courter or simply serve and volleyer...but If I am forced to choose between only those two then he is a serve and volleyer all the way!

I guess 23 compared to 13 is old...but far from being an old man.

How on earth did I get rolled? He called one of the most deep and intelligent questions posed to man (tree falling in forest question) stupid. Is there even a point in arguing against that?

We agree but we don't agree. We agree that he isn't a S&Ver but we don't agree as to what he should be classified as. And I don't know how you got "rolled" by me either. I don't really know what that term means. But I still think that question is stupid.

aj_m2009
03-23-2005, 07:53 AM
..."Just watch guys like Rafter, HENMAN, Sampras, Ivanisevic, Edberg, Becker, and McEnroe at Wimbledon. That's the definition of serve and volley tennis. "

What is wrong with this?

The Pusher Terminator
03-23-2005, 07:58 AM
AJ...quote:

"We agree but we don't agree. We agree that he isn't a S&Ver but we don't agree as to what he should be classified as. And I don't know how you got "rolled" by me either. I don't really know what that term means. But I still think that question is stupid."


LOL...its not really stupid. Its actually very deep. Think about it:

If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it does it make a sound?

How do really know it made a sound? Were you there to hear it? You can only assume it made a sound but you don't really know for sure ...do you?

Same as Henman's ground strokes...if you never saw him actually win a point from the baseline how do you that he can win one from the baseline.....LOL

The Pusher Terminator
03-23-2005, 07:59 AM
What is wrong with this?

He classified Henman as a serve and volleyer

aj_m2009
03-23-2005, 08:02 AM
LOL...its not really stupid. Its actually very deep. Think about it:

If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it does it make a sound?

How do really know it made a sound? Were you there to hear it? You can only assume it made a sound but you don't really know for sure ...do you?

Why would it not make a sound? I mean if it makes a sound when you are standing there and it falls why would it not make a sound if you are not there?

Same as Henman's ground strokes...if you never saw him actually win a point from the baseline how do you that he can win one from the baseline.....LOL

And really, how do you know? :confused: :p

The Pusher Terminator
03-23-2005, 08:05 AM
Why would it not make a sound? I mean if it makes a sound when you are standing there and it falls why would it not make a sound if you are not there?



And really, how do you know? :confused: :p

My young friend....The question about the tree falling in the forest has been debated forever, There is no answer. We can debate it forever as well...but there really is no answer. Go ahead and ask your parents and see what they have to say. I am glad That I at least gave you something to think about.

aj_m2009
03-23-2005, 08:07 AM
My young friend....The question about the tree falling in the forest has been debated forever, There is no answer. We can debate it forever as well...but there really is no answer. Go ahead and ask your parents and see what they have to say. I am glad That I at least gave you something to think about.

Ok, I will, hold on.

aj_m2009
03-23-2005, 08:09 AM
Ok, I will, hold on.

She said it does also.

The Pusher Terminator
03-23-2005, 08:12 AM
She said it does also.

Well then! There you have it. The question debated for hundreds of years has finally been answered here on Tenniswarehouse. BRAVO!

AAAA
03-23-2005, 08:14 AM
Henman does win points from the baseline against the lower ranked players.

I take all-court play to mean using a mixture of baseline play and net play to win a point. If I hit a few baseline strokes and force a weak floated return and I move in to volley the point for a winner then to me that's an example of an all-court point.

Baseline play is baseline regardless of whether a player ever hits any winners from the baseline. Hitting winners, or not, is not part of a tennis style definition.

aj_m2009
03-23-2005, 08:20 AM
Well then! There you have it. The question debated for hundreds of years has finally been answered here on Tenniswarehouse. BRAVO!

Thank you, thank you.:)

The Pusher Terminator
03-23-2005, 08:33 AM
Henman does win points from the baseline against the lower ranked players.

I take all-court play to mean using a mixture of baseline play and net play to win a point. If I hit a few baseline strokes and force a weak floated return and I move in to volley the point for a winner then to me that's an example of an all-court point.

Baseline play is baseline regardless of whether a player ever hits any winners from the baseline. Hitting winners, or not, is not part of a tennis style definition.

I take "allcourt" play to mean something completely different. To me an All-court player is someone who has a strong game from the baseline or the net.

Your definition is too general. For example...Agassi is an agressive baseliner. Everyone agrees on that (I hope). He plays many of his points from mid-court because he is so agressive and many of his points are finally put away at the net....but that does not make him an all courter in my mind. He does not have a serve and volley game and therefore cannot be considered an all-courter,...but he could fit into an all-courter styke under your definition.

Federer is an all-courter for sure! he does not have to run to the net to win the point. he can win outright from the baseline...but he also can play serve and volley tennis and win points that way as well. he is clearly an all courter.

Sampras is an intresting example. here is a guy who has an incredible serve and volley game...but he also has a very strong baseline game. Maybe not equally as strong as his serve and volley game...but he still has some kick *** ground strokes. He had one of the best running forehands...maybe even better than Fed's. He could win from the baseline...he had some awesome ground strokes. he could play serve and volley tennis or he could win points from the baseline. Henman is no Sampras or Federer!

Henman has only one weapon: His Volleys. His forehand is nothing special, his backhand is nothing special. All he can do is hope for a weak return off of his mediocre serve and then hit a good approach shot and then run to the net and volley for a winner. If you believe thats an all-courter...then that is your right. He would then however be the first all-courter ever with the crappiest groundstrokes the world has ever seen. I think he is a serve and volleyer before an all-courter any day of the week...he has only two strategys:

1. serve and volley

2. serve....pray for a weak return...then hit a good approach shot and volley for a winner (serve-approach-volley!)...thats not an all courter in my mind.

Finally, Henman could probaly win points against lower ranked players from the baseline. In fact I am sure he could beat any of us from the baseline....but thats not what we are talking about here!

AAAA
03-23-2005, 09:09 AM
Agassi is a baseliner, no prefix. There are baseliners with powerful shots and not so powerful shots. The sub-classification you are trying to make with the s&v style of game, or any style, is not something I agree with. If one was to delay the s&v play even longer what do we call them using you way of thinking? Intermittent serve and volleyer?

Do we call Fernando Gonzales a 'Agressive Kamikazee baseliner'/'Agressive Show-time Baseliner'/'Agressive Go for broke baseliner or an Agressive 'no-game-plan-baseliner' since he obviously plays aggressively like Agassi but whereas Agassi's agressive play is measured and thought out, Gonzales's definately isn't.

When you classify/sub-classify beyond a certain degree the plot is being lost.

The Pusher Terminator
03-23-2005, 09:47 AM
Agassi is a baseliner, no prefix. There are baseliners with powerful shots and not so powerful shots. The sub-classification you are trying to make with the s&v style of game, or any style, is not something I agree with. If one was to delay the s&v play even longer what do we call them using you way of thinking? Intermittent serve and volleyer?

Do we call Fernando Gonzales a 'Agressive Kamikazee baseliner'/'Agressive Show-time Baseliner'/'Agressive Go for broke baseliner or an Agressive 'no-game-plan-baseliner' since he obviously plays aggressively like Agassi but whereas Agassi's agressive play is measured and thought out, Gonzales's definately isn't.

When you classify/sub-classify beyond a certain degree the plot is being lost.

Unlike "delayed serve and volley"...I did not invent the agressive baseliner classification. before insulting me why don't you go ahead and read Bolleteri's classifications in his handbook and you will see that he uses a category called agressive baseliner. Now if you feel you need to make fun of experts like Bolleteri and others then go ahead...but please don't blame the messenger.

equinox
03-23-2005, 10:11 AM
Do we call Fernando Gonzales?
Power Baseliner.

andfor
03-23-2005, 05:12 PM
When trapped all you can do is make personal attacks. You are like a mouse caught in a maze and at every impasse you make another turn.

Either you feel picking a style of play is subjective or objective. Simply pick one and don't get nasty. Lashing out at me just because you have been caught taking two sides of an issue is lame.

Why is it that Nastase MUST be an all-court player? Isn't it then your ego that won't let you see other peoples points of view? Why am I not allowed to think Nastase is a baseliner? You said yourself this is a subjective issue. Please don't get so wound up over nothing. As you said...everyone is entitled to their subjective view....right?

No one on TV has called henman an all-court player. In fact every expert calls him a serve and volleyer. Its nice to hear you admit that he is a serve an volleyer though. I am glad that we both agree.

Finally, please stop stalking me on every post I make. If you really disagree with me then by all means please state your point of view...but your actions on this string were pathetic. I mean at least try and put up a good fight......you really bored me. This was way too easy...you really let me down.

Look. All I am saying is that some players blur the lines as to what type of game they play on a given day, surface or against different opponents. On grass Henman Serves and Volley's more than he does on other surfaces. Nastase played baseline more on clay than he does on grass. All-Court players have this ability. For the most part Tim is a Serve and Volleyer who has a pretty decent All-Court game. As for Nastase the Tennis Hall of Fame says the following. "He was an expert at putting the ball just beyond an opponent's reach, and applying discomfiting spin. He lobbed and retrieved splendidly, in his prime possibly the fastest player of all, and he could play either baseline or serve-and-volley." If you want to call him a baseliner to make yourself feel like you won and disagreement you lost two months ago fine.

Lighten up and stop taking yourself so seriously mister Delayed Serve and Volleyer.

As for my view on topics that may be subjective, it's varys. :D

Lastly, nice job trying to belittle me using the same old message board clichés. You showed your true self. :(

The Pusher Terminator
03-24-2005, 01:50 PM
Look. All I am saying is that some players blur the lines as to what type of game they play on a given day, surface or against different opponents. On grass Henman Serves and Volley's more than he does on other surfaces. Nastase played baseline more on clay than he does on grass. All-Court players have this ability. For the most part Tim is a Serve and Volleyer who has a pretty decent All-Court game. As for Nastase the Tennis Hall of Fame says the following. "He was an expert at putting the ball just beyond an opponent's reach, and applying discomfiting spin. He lobbed and retrieved splendidly, in his prime possibly the fastest player of all, and he could play either baseline or serve-and-volley." If you want to call him a baseliner to make yourself feel like you won and disagreement you lost two months ago fine.

Lighten up and stop taking yourself so seriously mister Delayed Serve and Volleyer.

As for my view on topics that may be subjective, it's varys. :D

Lastly, nice job trying to belittle me using the same old message board clichés. You showed your true self. :(


I have never lost any argument to you and if I did I would gladly admit it. I still believe that the odds are against Fed ever winning the French open....however,.....I thought that I had wrongly claimed that Nastase was a baseliner. I actually thought you proved me wrong with all of your wonderful quotes and figures. However, You have now taught me that a players style is all subjective. You actually bolded the word SUBJECTIVE and told me that I need to understand what that word means. Therefore, following your own line of logic, it is my subjective opinion that Nastase is a baseliner....unless of course you were simply talking out of both sides of your mouth. Maybe it is actually you who cannot admit that you have taken both sides of an issue. Why is it that when it comes to Henman the "lines are blurred" but when it comes to Nastase then evrything has now become magically crystal clear?

You are famous on these boards for coming up with some of the best quotes and facts. Just like you did with nastase....showing to everyone that Nastase is an all courter. I then ask you....why is it that you all of a sudden cannot come up with any quotes saying Henman is an all courter? The answer is because every book, every expert,and every other authority calls him a serve and volleyer.

Finally, please stop getting all stirred up just because I don't want to meet you to "play" tennis in a "private" session. NO MEANS NO ....deal with it old man!

andfor
03-24-2005, 03:20 PM
Well then he's a Serve and Volleyer. Not a Delayed Serve and Volleyer.

The Pusher Terminator
03-24-2005, 07:35 PM
Well then he's a Serve and Volleyer. Not a Delayed Serve and Volleyer.

Of course he is a serve and volleyer!!! There is No such thing as a "delayed serve and volleyer"....thats what I was trying to invent. SHEESH!!!!

andfor
03-25-2005, 08:57 AM
Of course he is a serve and volleyer!!! There is No such thing as a "delayed serve and volleyer"....thats what I was trying to invent. SHEESH!!!!

Looks like we are both coming around. I agree he's a serve and volleyer and you agree not to classify Henman or any player as a delayed serve and volleyer. Right?

The Pusher Terminator
03-25-2005, 02:36 PM
I agree there is no such thing as a "delayed serve and volleyer"...but i do think that there should be such a classification invented....thats what my post was all about from the very beginning.

Young Siward
03-25-2005, 05:05 PM
It's a tough task to wade through some of this thread but anyways...

If I had to pigeonhole Tim Henman into one category, it would be Serve & Volley. Why? Because the majority of the time he does exactly that on first serves. Yet he does have an all court game - second serves.

Now anyone who says he's got nothing at the baseline is at best mistaken. Case in point, look at the semi final of the French against Coria. Looked ok to me there. Btw, he has of late developed very nice crosscourt forehand and is pretty damn good on running groundies.

Now for my completely crazy and illogical argument. Someone in this thread stated that both Fed and Henman are both all court players, and while one happens to like to end points at the baseline, the other does so at the net. My feeling is that Rodge is just a wee bit overrated at net, but has the serve to counteract that. Henman has an average serve, yet gets around it with remarkable volleys. If you could put a value on both groundies and volleys and added them, I reckon Henman and Fed would be closer than you think.

Just to note, John Lloyd did call him an all court player. But hey, what would he know? ;)

I ain't going near that forest btw.

aj_m2009
03-25-2005, 05:09 PM
...I ain't going near that forest btw.

You don't need to, I settled it already.:p

Young Siward
03-25-2005, 05:10 PM
You don't need to, I settled it already.:p

Thank God!
*Goes to check.. :p

bc-05
03-25-2005, 05:21 PM
Bc,

Firstly,I think a heck of a lot of people care. Last I checked I believe there have been 600 viewers of this string and 3 pages of posts. So I do believe quite a few people actually care.

Secondly, I am not forcing anyone to call Henman anything. I am just making a point. The world has classified Henman as a serve and volleyer. Every book, every expert, every Tv announcer has classified Henman as a serve and volleyer. I simply do not believe that he is a serve and volleyer in the classic sense of the term. By the way neither do the guys who are arguing with me on this very website! You guys think he is an all courter! We all agree ...Henman is not a serve and volleyer. But is he an all-courter??? Does he really fit that description? Does he have the same game as Federer? I just don't think so... and therefore rather than calling him an all-courter or a serve and volleyer I feel that a new category should be created called "delayed serve and volley". I think that is a far better description for Henman than all courter or simply serve and volleyer...but If I am forced to choose between only those two then he is a serve and volleyer all the way!

Thirdly, I guess 23 compared to 13 is old...but far from being an old man.

Finally, how on earth did I get rolled? He called one of the most deep and intelligent questions posed to man (the tree falling in forest question) stupid. Is there even a point in arguing against that? Its like saying Shakespeare sucks!


sorry my bad.. oops !

The Pusher Terminator
03-28-2005, 01:15 PM
It's a tough task to wade through some of this thread but anyways...

If I had to pigeonhole Tim Henman into one category, it would be Serve & Volley. Why? Because the majority of the time he does exactly that on first serves. Yet he does have an all court game - second serves.

Now anyone who says he's got nothing at the baseline is at best mistaken. Case in point, look at the semi final of the French against Coria. Looked ok to me there. Btw, he has of late developed very nice crosscourt forehand and is pretty damn good on running groundies.

Now for my completely crazy and illogical argument. Someone in this thread stated that both Fed and Henman are both all court players, and while one happens to like to end points at the baseline, the other does so at the net. My feeling is that Rodge is just a wee bit overrated at net, but has the serve to counteract that. Henman has an average serve, yet gets around it with remarkable volleys. If you could put a value on both groundies and volleys and added them, I reckon Henman and Fed would be closer than you think.

Just to note, John Lloyd did call him an all court player. But hey, what would he know? ;)

I ain't going near that forest btw.

Ummm.....Tim Henman is a serve and volleyer. You are wrong, I do not believe he has a baseline game and neither does Espn .

John LLoyd was never anything except Chrissies husband. In fact Chrissie could beat the crap out of John...LOL. I am curious , however, when did John say Henman was an all courter? And where has John been for the past 100 years?

How can you say Fed's S & V game is overated? Did you see him at the net against Hewit? Those were some awesome volleys!!