PDA

View Full Version : Sampras: Overrated Volleyer?


theagassiman
06-01-2009, 12:33 AM
Now don't get me wrong here.
Despite my avatar and my display name, I am a huge Sampras fan and will route for him over anyone, except for Agassi (of course :)), but to me Sampras seemed to have very overrated volleys.

Yes, they were very pretty and very natural-looking, ceratinly the best of his era, but when you watch him volley against any player who could hit a decent passing shot, like Lleyton Hewitt, or even Kraijek, he always seemed forlorn, almost wary when he volleyed.

In fact I will go so far to say that he did not look like he wanted to be at the net.

Now before you can rightly tell me looks can be decieving, especially with Pete Sampras, Sampras always seemed to me against players like Lleyton and Stich and even other, lesser players, to be very reluctant at the net, as if he was more programmed to go in rather than wanting to.

Now, when he looked like that, and against such a great passer like Hewitt, he almost always seemed to lose the point, and eventually the match, because his volleys let him down.

Now when commentators and suchlike compare Sampras' volleys to great volleyers of the past such as Laver, Mac, Edberg, e.t.c, I feel it is really unfair on those three that Sampras should be compared to them because of the above reasons.

To me the greatest volleyers have to look as if they want to come to the net, as well as play the volleys when they are there, even against a tough passer like Hewitt, or Stich. That's what I feel Sampras didn't do so well, and why I think that his volleys are overrated.

Anyone agree or disagree?

rosen88
06-01-2009, 01:00 AM
Agree and disagree... I dont know if he looked the way you described, but I know that his volleys as a single shot was overrated. But he had one of the best attacking and volley-games of all time. I say his ability to move and read the game so well made his volleys good - not the shot itself.

BorisBeckerFan
06-01-2009, 01:18 AM
Sampras is an excellent volleyer. I don't think he's overrated at all. I've never heard anyone who is a knowledgeable tennis fan say he's as good a volleyer as Laver, Edberg, or Mac. That would certainly be overrating Pete. Pete was not even as good a volleyer as Rafter. Now Serve and Volley is whole different story. Pete's serve component was so good that it immediately puts him in the conversation for best Serve and Volleyers.

downdaline
06-01-2009, 01:49 AM
I dont know if he's overrated, but his net game is centred more on his great athleticism.

While his volleys were very textbook (good technique, good punch), they weren't extraordinarily good (Edberg, Mac). But what made him so good was his cat-like agility at the net. He could reach passing shots lightning fast and hit another volley.

That's wat made him a great volleyer, imo.

35ft6
06-01-2009, 02:22 AM
Compared to the players before him? Maybe. To the players after him? No. So it's a valid, thought provoking question.

Azzurri
06-01-2009, 04:27 AM
Sampras had one of the greatest volley/net games ever. Is he better than Edberg, Mac and Laver (not from my experience but based on others)? No, but he would be considered an A- volleyer if those 3 are A level. His half-volley was better than anyone I have ever seen and that includes Mac and Edberg. He was not at all overrated.

Odd, but this thread is as foolsih as a thread titled "Was Agassi's ground game overrated?"...

Kemitak
06-01-2009, 08:10 AM
What does looking like you want to volley have to do with volleying well? Next you're going to talk about his haircut and fingernail length as criteria for serving?
NEXT!

charliefedererer
06-01-2009, 08:30 AM
I just wish Pete didn't hit so many aces so he could have had more practice at volleying, and reached the pinnacle like Mac, Edberg and Laver.

Ljubicic for number1
06-01-2009, 08:31 AM
Volley game and serve & volley game are two different things. A couple of guys had better volley's but nobody had better serve & volley game.

Azzurri
06-01-2009, 09:31 AM
^^I agree. In stating that, he also had to deal with quite a few hal-volleys throughout a match (especially Wimbledon and fast carpet courts). His serve came so quick and in turn the return did also he was just past the service line very often. His hal-volley was short of amazing. I watched a few of his matches lately and I still in awe how simple he made it look. I just don't know how he kept his hal-volley return so low and piercing.

pmerk34
06-01-2009, 09:33 AM
Sampras had one of the greatest volley/net games ever. Is he better than Edberg, Mac and Laver (not from my experience but based on others)? No, but he would be considered an A- volleyer if those 3 are A level. His half-volley was better than anyone I have ever seen and that includes Mac and Edberg. He was not at all overrated.

Odd, but this thread is as foolish as a thread titled "Was Agassi's ground game overrated?"...

Wow, I almost was going to write this. Well said!

pmerk34
06-01-2009, 09:37 AM
^^I agree. In stating that, he also had to deal with quite a few hal-volleys throughout a match (especially Wimbledon and fast carpet courts). His serve came so quick and in turn the return did also he was just past the service line very often. His hal-volley was short of amazing. I watched a few of his matches lately and I still in awe how simple he made it look. I just don't know how he kept his hal-volley return so low and piercing.

His half volley made me angry because he would hit half volley winners off screaming passing shots. It would anger me because no one should be allowed to make tennis look that easy.

He did this to Agassi in the '90 US Open final in one of the singular perfect displays of championship tennis I have ever seen.

Azzurri
06-01-2009, 09:37 AM
Wow, I almost was going to write this. Well said!

do you have any matches of his on DVD? I know youtube has many clips, but watching him dismantle players with his S&V skills was just awe dropping (not all the time...he did play poorly sometimes). The clips make him look too good, but watching how the match flows is very important to get an idwa of how good he was. You can't win W 7 times and not be top 5 volleyer of all-time. Mac and Edberg combined won less.:)

pmerk34
06-01-2009, 09:38 AM
do you have any matches of his on DVD? I know youtube has many clips, but watching him dismantle players with his S&V skills was just awe dropping (not all the time...he did play poorly sometimes). The clips make him look too good, but watching how the match flows is very important to get an idwa of how good he was. You can't win W 7 times and not be top 5 volleyer of all-time. Mac and Edberg combined won less.:)

I have no DVD's but there is a really good website that sells many matches. I forget the URL though.

Azzurri
06-01-2009, 09:40 AM
His half volley made me angry because he would hit half volley winners off screaming passing shots. It would anger me because no one should be allowed to make tennis look that easy.

He did this to Agassi in the '90 US Open final in one of the singular perfect displays of championship tennis I have ever seen.

indeed, his long arms, quick hands and incredible movement (on fast courts since he was not too good on the red clay) allowed him to play that type of tennis. Mac had incredible hands, but was not as gifted an athlete as Pete, Edberg was also incredible, but again he was not as athletic. I don't mean to disparage Mac or Edberg and its just an opinion, but when I think back of all three, Pete just seemed faster and more agile. Edberg was probably quicker at the net and Mac had better hands...:)

Azzurri
06-01-2009, 09:41 AM
I have no DVD's but there is a really good website that sells many matches. I forget the URL though.

send me an email and I will send you the link. He sells terrific stuff and its very well priced.

pmerk34
06-01-2009, 09:47 AM
indeed, his long arms, quick hands and incredible movement (on fast courts since he was not too good on the red clay) allowed him to play that type of tennis. Mac had incredible hands, but was not as gifted an athlete as Pete, Edberg was also incredible, but again he was not as athletic. I don't mean to disparage Mac or Edberg and its just an opinion, but when I think back of all three, Pete just seemed faster and more agile. Edberg was probably quicker at the net and Mac had better hands...:)

Edberg had perfect form, balance, and footwork. He also had wrists/forearms like a blacksmith.

380pistol
06-01-2009, 12:08 PM
Sampras had one of the greatest volley/net games ever. Is he better than Edberg, Mac and Laver (not from my experience but based on others)? No, but he would be considered an A- volleyer if those 3 are A level. His half-volley was better than anyone I have ever seen and that includes Mac and Edberg. He was not at all overrated.

Odd, but this thread is as foolsih as a thread titled "Was Agassi's ground game overrated?"...

Thank you for saving me the hassle for explaining this. Open Era I can see Edberg and Mac ahead of him. Maybe Laver, and Rafter/Cash, but in the open era, he's among the top 5, or damn close.

Agreed on his half volley. Is his volley "overrated"??? Was good for a laugh though.

beernutz
06-01-2009, 12:56 PM
How can you unarguably be one of the top 10 volleyers of all time and be overrated at it?

egn
06-01-2009, 12:59 PM
So his volleys were not works of art like Edberg...Sampras used it the best. Sampras also is the best serve and volley player ever and yes his half volley was a work of beauty as Azzurri said. To call Sampras and overrated volleyer is insane..He might not had the best volley shot but he sure as hell had the best game revolving around volleys.

!Tym
06-01-2009, 01:53 PM
Wow, I don't believe my ears, Sampras was a GREAT athlete, but a lot of that fascination with his athleticism had to do with his hops imo. Edberg was point-in, point-out CAT like quick. He had the fanciest feet EVER both at the net and getting into the net in the first place imo. He was the Fred Astaire of volleyers, he made it look EASY when it's so not. ALWAY in perfect balance, never a hair out of place.

Cash and Rafter were athlete volleyers who truly RELIED on their athleticism to make them so formidable at net. They SWARMED the net like a hive of bees, they were neither here nor there, they were EVERYWHERE at net.

Sampras was a combination. He was more laconic. His athleticism shown through in isolated bits and pieces, in concentrated spurts. He was flashes of lightning and thunder in the sky, he was not consistently brooding, not consistently the stellar streakster. He was as stellar as he needed to be WHEN he needed it most, but there were guys who imo moved better net than him at best simply because they RELIED on it so much more than him. For Sampras, being the best at anything other than the serve was a PART-TIME option for him. He knew he didn't have to do it all the time, just at the RIGHT times.

The other guys if they laid back like that, they'd be toast, they'd have been journeyman players at BEST...and I don't even think that. They'd be challenger tour guys.

flyboy1
06-01-2009, 02:08 PM
I can't believe anyone is taking away from Sampras' volley technique because of his athleticism. Have you ever seen a volleyer with great technique who wasn't athletic? Maybe we're talking semantics here.....but it seems to me that separating volley technique and athleticism is like saying federer's forehand wouldn't be considered as good if he didn't have tremendous racket speed. Correct, and Porsche's wouldn't be great cars without their engines either. In the words of Andy Roddick, "Thanks Captain Obvious".

darthpwner
06-01-2009, 07:45 PM
he used his athleticism 2 blanket the net and limit his opponents options. imo he didnt have the greatest looking volleys but they were very effective at finishing the point. guys like lleyton stood further back 2 return petes serve so obviously he had more time 2 hit a passing shot. hewitt also loved a target at the net, so pete played into his strength

darthpwner
06-01-2009, 07:49 PM
pete had the arms of a 7 footer and could lunge after passing shot would b winners especially at wimbledon he was very smart about his shot selection in playing the %. sure he didnt look as natural as edberg mac or even fed, but his volleys were excellent

abmk
06-01-2009, 07:50 PM
don't think so ..

IMO, only edberg,mac,rafter,cash,laver and (maybe) henman are better at it than him in the open era

Azzurri
06-02-2009, 04:22 AM
don't think so ..

IMO, only edberg,mac,rafter,cash,laver and (maybe) henman are better at it than him in the open era

I already stated Mac, Edberg and maybe Laver are better at the net. I don't think rafter and Cash were better, just different style. But Henman??? No way. He did not even sniff Wimbledon and never won a major. Heck, Cash and Rafter won majors.

plasma
06-02-2009, 04:58 AM
great post by the op who should be a pro writer.
I saw samp play an exhibit recently.
He doesn't punch his volleys like most players. He actually knows how to volley and just keeps the racquet there, building angles, running his opponent ragged and not hitting the ball too hard.
The op's wisely pointed out that looks can be deceiving. I think it' s a matter of style. Muhammed Ali has a relaxed style like Sampras, Agassi is more like Tyson, it's easier to see his talent.

Azzurri
06-02-2009, 10:31 AM
great post by the op who should be a pro writer.
I saw samp play an exhibit recently.
He doesn't punch his volleys like most players. He actually knows how to volley and just keeps the racquet there, building angles, running his opponent ragged and not hitting the ball too hard.
The op's wisely pointed out that looks can be deceiving. I think it' s a matter of style. Muhammed Ali has a relaxed style like Sampras, Agassi is more like Tyson, it's easier to see his talent.

maybe you should re-read the OP's post. I don't understand your point. Are you saying he is overrated? now you "think" he knows how to volley, yet he is overrated? I don't get what you mean. I doubt the OP meant what you stated in your post, if he did he would have said so.

beernutz
06-03-2009, 09:14 AM
maybe you should re-read the OP's post. I don't understand your point. Are you saying he is overrated? now you "think" he knows how to volley, yet he is overrated? I don't get what you mean. I doubt the OP meant what you stated in your post, if he did he would have said so.

Welcome to the wonderful world of trying to interpret plasma's posts. Watch your step as it is very slippery in there.

Azzurri
06-03-2009, 09:41 AM
Welcome to the wonderful world of trying to interpret plasma's posts. Watch your step as it is very slippery in there.

I normally don't read his posts, not even sure why I bothered this time.

wangs78
06-03-2009, 10:05 AM
Now don't get me wrong here.
Despite my avatar and my display name, I am a huge Sampras fan and will route for him over anyone, except for Agassi (of course :)), but to me Sampras seemed to have very overrated volleys.

Yes, they were very pretty and very natural-looking, ceratinly the best of his era, but when you watch him volley against any player who could hit a decent passing shot, like Lleyton Hewitt, or even Kraijek, he always seemed forlorn, almost wary when he volleyed.

In fact I will go so far to say that he did not look like he wanted to be at the net.

Now before you can rightly tell me looks can be decieving, especially with Pete Sampras, Sampras always seemed to me against players like Lleyton and Stich and even other, lesser players, to be very reluctant at the net, as if he was more programmed to go in rather than wanting to.

Now, when he looked like that, and against such a great passer like Hewitt, he almost always seemed to lose the point, and eventually the match, because his volleys let him down.

Now when commentators and suchlike compare Sampras' volleys to great volleyers of the past such as Laver, Mac, Edberg, e.t.c, I feel it is really unfair on those three that Sampras should be compared to them because of the above reasons.

To me the greatest volleyers have to look as if they want to come to the net, as well as play the volleys when they are there, even against a tough passer like Hewitt, or Stich. That's what I feel Sampras didn't do so well, and why I think that his volleys are overrated.

Anyone agree or disagree?

Well, first of all, any volleyer will look dumb, forlorn, tired (or however you want to describe it) when they are passed. Fed looks tired and forlorn when he is passed. So i don't think that that in itself detracts from Pete's abilities as a volleyer.

Two, Pete I think was a good volleyer, probably an excellent one, but it's hard to know bc when we speak of pure volleyers its always a pure SERVE and volleyer. Given that Pete has the best serve of his era (and arguably the best of all time if you factor in his 2nd serve) that made the SERVE part of the equation very very strong. His volleys didn't even HAVE to be that good for him to win points because his opponents would often only manage a weak service return that was easy for him to put away with a volley. In other words, I think Pete certainly deserves to be one of the great all-time S&Vers, bc his serve was so damn good.

380pistol
06-03-2009, 10:27 AM
Well have a gander at Sampras at 31 years of age, on deco turf II slower than the one used since 2003....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LC99glR53wE

hoodjem
06-03-2009, 10:47 AM
Sampras was an excellent volleyer. Maybe not quite as sharp as Laver, Mac, or Edberg, but still very very good.

Compared to anyone around today, he is a great volleyer.

380pistol
06-03-2009, 11:01 AM
Sampras was an excellent volleyer. Maybe not quite as sharp as Laver, Mac, or Edberg, but still very good.

Compared to anyone around today, he is great.

Compared to the clown volleyers today, he would be legendary!!! I mean Roger is generally acknowledged as the best volleyer today among singles player. Put him in the 90's in that department, and he trails......

-Edberg
-Rafter
-Sampras
-Stich
-Becker
-Henman
-Krajicek
-Phillippoussis

...you could even throw in Pioline and Ivanisevic. Maybe even Todd Martin. I mean who today stands out as a "good" volleyer?? Not good as in comaprison to the abundance of non volleyers today, just a "good" volleyer?

matchmaker
06-03-2009, 11:13 AM
Sampras was an excellent volleyer.

I cannot understand how anyone would doubt about that.

TennisandMusic
06-03-2009, 11:25 AM
Well have a gander at Sampras at 31 years of age, on deco turf II slower than the one used since 2003....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LC99glR53wE

Man...watching this stuff I miss this kinda tennis. I have to say, it really is a superior way to play.

Cesc Fabregas
06-03-2009, 11:31 AM
Sampras is not an overrated volleyer if anything he volleys are underrated.

JRProstaf9
06-03-2009, 12:33 PM
Sampras had one of the best attacking games of all time. I will admit his volleys were not flashy (then again aside from Johnny Mac whose were?) the technique was short, compact, simple, and based on position and athleticism making for an effective strategy especially when his service game was on (arguably over 90% of the time).

Thats not to say that his game wasn't risky or impervious to a good ballstriker like agassi or in the case of the 2000/2001 US Opens with Safin and Hewitt... but in both of those cases he wasn't able to serve as well as he normally did and thus wasn't able to get in the best position to fend of either opponents passing shots.

Also note that the majority of Hewitt's wins over Sampras were toward the end of his career during (again arguably) Pete's lowpoint before his last grandslam win at the OPEN in 2002.

380pistol
06-03-2009, 01:20 PM
Sampras had one of the best attacking games of all time. I will admit his volleys were not flashy (then again aside from Johnny Mac whose were?) the technique was short, compact, simple, and based on position and athleticism making for an effective strategy especially when his service game was on (arguably over 90% of the time).

Thats not to say that his game wasn't risky or impervious to a good ballstriker like agassi or in the case of the 2000/2001 US Opens with Safin and Hewitt... but in both of those cases he wasn't able to serve as well as he normally did and thus wasn't able to get in the best position to fend of either opponents passing shots.

Also note that the majority of Hewitt's wins over Sampras were toward the end of his career during (again arguably) Pete's lowpoint before his last grandslam win at the OPEN in 2002.

In a sea of clowns only one person has strayed from the bunch to see what was so blatantly obvious.

I've been reading different posters talk about this Hewitt/Sampras complex. Hewitt....
-too good of a passer
-great mover
-returner
-could handle Pete cuz he liked to play S&Vers

Do you think if 1993-97 Sampras got a hold of 2001-02 Hewitt, Pete wouldn't have wore him out?? Do you think if Hewitt in 2001 US Open US Open F, got the Sampras that Agassi (or even Rafter or Safin) got, he leaves Flushing with that trophy??

People here never cease to amaze me, but they all think they know so much more than everyone else.

abmk
06-09-2009, 08:30 AM
I don't think rafter and Cash were better, just different style.

well, I do

But Henman??? No way. He did not even sniff Wimbledon and never won a major. Heck, Cash and Rafter won majors.

They're pretty close IMO ... Because he didn't win a major doesn't imply he wasn't a great volleyer , that was because of the rest of the his game ...

Pro Staff Pete
06-09-2009, 08:43 AM
Probably (one of ) the best half volleyers of all time

Devilito
06-10-2009, 04:26 PM
Sampras had amazing volleys. WTF is this thread? lol

pmerk34
06-10-2009, 05:04 PM
Sampras had amazing volleys. WTF is this thread? lol

iT'S FOR LAUGHS

theagassiman
06-11-2009, 04:32 PM
iT'S FOR LAUGHS

Lol, I can see why many of you guys in this thread think that the topic is a joke. But I assure you it is not.

Let me try to explain more clearly why I think that Sampras' volleys are overrated.

I think that when it came to easy, sitter volleys (basically anything that was set up by his big serve or a big forehand) was easy meat, period.

But unlike Mac or Edberg, if confronted by a sharp return, Pete's volleys were often not good enough to pick that up. Maybe he was just suprised someone manage to get his serve/approach shot back in the first place, but I don't think that Pete handled his low volleys as well as he should and could have.

That's why I think he is overrated.

Devilito
06-12-2009, 09:45 AM
Lol, I can see why many of you guys in this thread think that the topic is a joke. But I assure you it is not.

Let me try to explain more clearly why I think that Sampras' volleys are overrated.

I think that when it came to easy, sitter volleys (basically anything that was set up by his big serve or a big forehand) was easy meat, period.

But unlike Mac or Edberg, if confronted by a sharp return, Pete's volleys were often not good enough to pick that up. Maybe he was just suprised someone manage to get his serve/approach shot back in the first place, but I don't think that Pete handled his low volleys as well as he should and could have.

That's why I think he is overrated.

Sitter volleys? Didn't handle low volleys well? Have you ever heard of one Andre Agassi? that's all he pretty much gave Pete is low returns. Pete's volleys were amazing. Get over it.

paterson
06-12-2009, 11:29 AM
I had a chance to talk with Todd Martin at the Memphis tournament a few years ago. I asked him who the best volleyer in the game? Without hesitating, he said "Pat Rafter,
hands down". I tend to agree with Todd. Pat had to play alot more tougher volleys. Pete's volley had a tendency to be a bit wristy.

el sergento
06-12-2009, 02:03 PM
Lol, I can see why many of you guys in this thread think that the topic is a joke. But I assure you it is not.

Let me try to explain more clearly why I think that Sampras' volleys are overrated.

I think that when it came to easy, sitter volleys (basically anything that was set up by his big serve or a big forehand) was easy meat, period.

But unlike Mac or Edberg, if confronted by a sharp return, Pete's volleys were often not good enough to pick that up. Maybe he was just suprised someone manage to get his serve/approach shot back in the first place, but I don't think that Pete handled his low volleys as well as he should and could have.

That's why I think he is overrated.

Pete had the best first volley in tennis. Which is exactly why he didn't have to play that many shots at net or why it seems that he was only effective on those sitters.

Rafter on the other hand was safer with that first volley, going for placement instead of a winner, which meant that he then had to make other volleys to win the point, usually resulting in some great athleticism. It was more impressive to watch, but that didn't mean his net game was better than Pete's, quite the contrary.

Pete also has the best half volley of all time. ABSOLUTE MAGIC, the amount of power he could get off a tough half volley and push it to the base line is unparalleled.

herosol
06-12-2009, 04:13 PM
it's so ahrd to say.

with a ridiculous serve
amazing feet
great agility

the first volley was always an easy one.

Azzurri
06-12-2009, 04:23 PM
well, I do



They're pretty close IMO ... Because he didn't win a major doesn't imply he wasn't a great volleyer , that was because of the rest of the his game ...

my god are you ill-informed. Cash and Rafter had nothing much other than their volley game. Henman may have had a better ground game than those two yet Raft and Cash won majors. You see my simpleton friend, these guys had a terrific mental game while Henman was a choker.

Sampras was heads and above a volleyer compared to Henman.

Azzurri
06-12-2009, 06:02 PM
Lol, I can see why many of you guys in this thread think that the topic is a joke. But I assure you it is not.

Let me try to explain more clearly why I think that Sampras' volleys are overrated.

I think that when it came to easy, sitter volleys (basically anything that was set up by his big serve or a big forehand) was easy meat, period.

But unlike Mac or Edberg, if confronted by a sharp return, Pete's volleys were often not good enough to pick that up. Maybe he was just suprised someone manage to get his serve/approach shot back in the first place, but I don't think that Pete handled his low volleys as well as he should and could have.

That's why I think he is overrated.

Its obvious you are a troll and continue this garbage. its also obvious you were dropped as a baby because even with all the "informed" posters, you still don't get it. I realize even some of the supporters probably never even watched the guy other than YouTube clips, but its plain as day he was gifted at the volley.

Azzurri
06-12-2009, 06:05 PM
I had a chance to talk with Todd Martin at the Memphis tournament a few years ago. I asked him who the best volleyer in the game? Without hesitating, he said "Pat Rafter,
hands down". I tend to agree with Todd. Pat had to play alot more tougher volleys. Pete's volley had a tendency to be a bit wristy.

not getting your point. Did Martin say Pete volley's were wristy or you? Just because he named rafter (its his personal opinion) does not mean Pete had any glaring flaw.

Azzurri
06-12-2009, 06:06 PM
Pete had the best first volley in tennis. Which is exactly why he didn't have to play that many shots at net or why it seems that he was only effective on those sitters.

Rafter on the other hand was safer with that first volley, going for placement instead of a winner, which meant that he then had to make other volleys to win the point, usually resulting in some great athleticism. It was more impressive to watch, but that didn't mean his net game was better than Pete's, quite the contrary.

Pete also has the best half volley of all time. ABSOLUTE MAGIC, the amount of power he could get off a tough half volley and push it to the base line is unparalleled.

excellent post.

jimbo333
06-12-2009, 06:20 PM
my god are you ill-informed. Cash and Rafter had nothing much other than their volley game. Henman may have had a better ground game than those two yet Raft and Cash won majors. You see my simpleton friend, these guys had a terrific mental game while Henman was a choker.

Sampras was heads and above a volleyer compared to Henman.

Henman was certainly a choker anyway:)

jimbo333
06-12-2009, 06:26 PM
Sampras had one of the greatest volley/net games ever. Is he better than Edberg, Mac and Laver (not from my experience but based on others)? No, but he would be considered an A- volleyer if those 3 are A level. His half-volley was better than anyone I have ever seen and that includes Mac and Edberg. He was not at all overrated.

Odd, but this thread is as foolsih as a thread titled "Was Agassi's ground game overrated?"...

Yes this sums it up very well. Sampras one of the greatest ever volleyers!

Edberg, McEnroe and Laver slightly better though:)

jimbo333
06-12-2009, 06:27 PM
Pete had the best first volley in tennis. Which is exactly why he didn't have to play that many shots at net or why it seems that he was only effective on those sitters.

Rafter on the other hand was safer with that first volley, going for placement instead of a winner, which meant that he then had to make other volleys to win the point, usually resulting in some great athleticism. It was more impressive to watch, but that didn't mean his net game was better than Pete's, quite the contrary.

Pete also has the best half volley of all time. ABSOLUTE MAGIC, the amount of power he could get off a tough half volley and push it to the base line is unparalleled.

This is clearly inaccurrate. Pete was not the best!!!

Azzurri
06-12-2009, 07:00 PM
Henman was certainly a choker anyway:)

I liked the guy and hoped he would win after Pete lost in 01/02...but never happened.:(

Azzurri
06-12-2009, 07:02 PM
This is clearly inaccurrate. Pete was not the best!!!

the guy won 7 W titles..the ultimate S&V surface...Rafter never won. sorry, but he was the best volleyer of his generation.

jimbo333
06-12-2009, 07:06 PM
I liked the guy and hoped he would win after Pete lost in 01/02...but never happened.:(

He was a very good player, but did choke on the big occasions. He was under huge pressure at Wimbledon, where he was loved:)

Murray is cleverly playing down his chances at Wimbledon, and is not nearly as popular as Henman was, possibly due to the fact he is Scottish!!!

I actually prefer Murray as a player:)

jimbo333
06-12-2009, 07:11 PM
the guy won 7 W titles..the ultimate S&V surface...Rafter never won. sorry, but he was the best volleyer of his generation.

He was indeed the best volleyer of his generation:)

But we have both agreed that Edberg, McEnroe and Laver were slightly better volleyers overrall!!!

Dark Victory
06-12-2009, 07:14 PM
Probably (one of ) the best half volleyers of all time
Pete had the best half-volley of all time. Period.

Edberg, Mac, Rafter, those guys moved well and had great hands, but they just didn't have the natural athleticism to execute the kind of deft pick-ups Pete did with his half-volley.

zagor
06-12-2009, 07:20 PM
Lol, I can see why many of you guys in this thread think that the topic is a joke. But I assure you it is not.

Let me try to explain more clearly why I think that Sampras' volleys are overrated.

I think that when it came to easy, sitter volleys (basically anything that was set up by his big serve or a big forehand) was easy meat, period.

But unlike Mac or Edberg, if confronted by a sharp return, Pete's volleys were often not good enough to pick that up. Maybe he was just suprised someone manage to get his serve/approach shot back in the first place, but I don't think that Pete handled his low volleys as well as he should and could have.

That's why I think he is overrated.

So Sampras pick-up volleys weren't great? Now I've heard everything.Not saying whether Edberg is a better volleyer than Sampras(he probably is)but you do understand that Sampras had less time to react than either Edberg or Rafter because his serve was faster? That's why he was so often forced to play half-volleys which he was actually great at,I don't quite understand what are you saying.

jimbo333
06-12-2009, 07:24 PM
Pete had the best half-volley of all time. Period.

Edberg, Mac, Rafter, those guys moved well and had great hands, but they just didn't have the natural athleticism to execute the kind of deft pick-ups Pete did with his half-volley.

Have you ever seen Edberg play mate?

If you have, you wouldn't be saying this!!!

Azzurri
06-12-2009, 07:40 PM
He was indeed the best volleyer of his generation:)

But we have both agreed that Edberg, McEnroe and Laver were slightly better volleyers overrall!!!

agreed.....:)

pmerk34
06-13-2009, 07:14 AM
Have you ever seen Edberg play mate?

If you have, you wouldn't be saying this!!!

I saw Edberg play dozens of times mate and Sampras as well and Sampras had a better half volley than Edberg

Azzurri
06-13-2009, 08:16 AM
I saw Edberg play dozens of times mate and Sampras as well and Sampras had a better half volley than Edberg

I agree, Pete had the best half-volley I have ever seen. he hit so many of them and Edberg did not (I believe because of Pete's serve). Not that Edberg could not handle them, but for how difficult those shots are, I was and still am in awe of how easy he made it look (Pete).

el sergento
06-13-2009, 01:50 PM
I agree, Pete had the best half-volley I have ever seen. he hit so many of them and Edberg did not (I believe because of Pete's serve). Not that Edberg could not handle them, but for how difficult those shots are, I was and still am in awe of how easy he made it look (Pete).

Agreed 100%. The shots he was able to pick up weren't just difficult, they were, and sill are, downright impossible to play for 80% of the tour.

Sadly I can't find any video. Someone should make a compilation of some spectacular Sampras half volleys:)

Azzurri
06-13-2009, 03:50 PM
Agreed 100%. The shots he was able to pick up weren't just difficult, they were, and sill are, downright impossible to play for 80% of the tour.

Sadly I can't find any video. Someone should make a compilation of some spectacular Sampras half volleys:)

really? Youtube has tons of clips, but you can get full videos of his matches. They run around $7 for a DVD and you can get some terrific matches (just google tennis matches on dvd). He used to half-volley quite a bit at Wimbldeon.

kiki
03-20-2011, 04:54 AM
He was a solid volleyer, but not an inspired one.He is clearly below Laver,Roche,Mac,Cash,Rafter,Edberg and on equal terms with the other 3 great volleyers who were Becker,Stich and Panatta.

But he won most of his volleys, which is the true important thing at the net game, cause of his great serve and great forehand approach shots.If he is not a top 5 volley alone considered, he certainly is a top 5 serve and volley player ( equal to Mac,Edberg,Becker and Stich and better than Rafter or Cash IMO).

Datacipher
03-20-2011, 05:06 AM
He was a solid volleyer, but not an inspired one.He is clearly below Laver,Roche,Mac,Cash,Rafter,Edberg and on equal terms with the other 3 great volleyers who were Becker,Stich and Panatta.

But he won most of his volleys, which is the true important thing at the net game, cause of his great serve and great forehand approach shots.If he is not a top 5 volley alone considered, he certainly is a top 5 serve and volley player ( equal to Mac,Edberg,Becker and Stich and better than Rafter or Cash IMO).

O...K....well thank you for your opinion Michael.

kiki
03-20-2011, 05:29 AM
O...K....well thank you for your opinion Michael.

You welcome, Pat:)

Ludwig von Mises
04-02-2011, 12:11 AM
He was a solid volleyer, but not an inspired one.He is clearly below Laver,Roche,Mac,Cash,Rafter,Edberg and on equal terms with the other 3 great volleyers who were Becker,Stich and Panatta.

But he won most of his volleys, which is the true important thing at the net game, cause of his great serve and great forehand approach shots.If he is not a top 5 volley alone considered, he certainly is a top 5 serve and volley player ( equal to Mac,Edberg,Becker and Stich and better than Rafter or Cash IMO).

I think he is a great volleyer, and probably the most explosive, athletic player ever to play- his level of athleticism IMO makes him a better volleyer than anyone I have seen except for Mac, Edberg, and Rafter- and I would say equal to Mac, Edberg, Rafter even in a pure volley perspective. He is better than Cash, Becker, Stich, Pannatta. As for half-volleys yes- he is the best I have ever seen. I also think that his overheads are the best I have seen. Although, the Agassi overhead from the baseline is awesome. I have not seen Laver and Roche play when they were in their prime.

kiki
04-02-2011, 03:36 AM
I think he is a great volleyer, and probably the most explosive, athletic player ever to play- his level of athleticism IMO makes him a better volleyer than anyone I have seen except for Mac, Edberg, and Rafter- and I would say equal to Mac, Edberg, Rafter even in a pure volley perspective. He is better than Cash, Becker, Stich, Pannatta. As for half-volleys yes- he is the best I have ever seen. I also think that his overheads are the best I have seen. Although, the Agassi overhead from the baseline is awesome. I have not seen Laver and Roche play when they were in their prime.

I donŽt think his ability on the single stroke of volley
is as good as Mac,Edberg,Cash,Rafter,Laver or Roche.Those guys could " invent" volleys from nowhere, heŽs more like Becker,Newcombe - or Stich-, a solid, steady volleyer whose approach or serve made for 80% of their volleying.But he could not improvise as well at the net.however, he may have won as many points at the net as those above mentioned and that is, at the very end, what counts.

pmerk34
04-02-2011, 06:41 AM
He was a solid volleyer, but not an inspired one.He is clearly below Laver,Roche,Mac,Cash,Rafter,Edberg and on equal terms with the other 3 great volleyers who were Becker,Stich and Panatta.

But he won most of his volleys, which is the true important thing at the net game, cause of his great serve and great forehand approach shots.If he is not a top 5 volley alone considered, he certainly is a top 5 serve and volley player ( equal to Mac,Edberg,Becker and Stich and better than Rafter or Cash IMO).

Edberg is the best low ( not half) forehand volleyer I've seen. That is a very difficult shot to execute when returning a ball hit with pace.

The frames put out today for the most part are not great frames for net play it seems as the pro game has moved to hyper aggressive spin and pace. I used to think Lendl hit hard, Jurgin Meltzer hits consistently harder than he did.

I was hitting once with a pure drive and having all kinds of fun trying to get more spin and pace but at the net it was difficult to really stick a volley. I then took a friends leaded up pro staff 6.1 95 and just stuck it out in front of me at net and stuck some volleys using the exact same technique that worked so poorly with the pure drive.

kiki
04-02-2011, 12:04 PM
Edberg is the best low ( not half) forehand volleyer I've seen. That is a very difficult shot to execute when returning a ball hit with pace.

The frames put out today for the most part are not great frames for net play it seems as the pro game has moved to hyper aggressive spin and pace. I used to think Lendl hit hard, Jurgin Meltzer hits consistently harder than he did.

I was hitting once with a pure drive and having all kinds of fun trying to get more spin and pace but at the net it was difficult to really stick a volley. I then took a friends leaded up pro staff 6.1 95 and just stuck it out in front of me at net and stuck some volleys using the exact same technique that worked so poorly with the pure drive.

Edberg ,yeah, had a great low volley, but I think Pat Cash had the most spectacular one, he hit it almost from the shoe level.But Stefan, who was taller than Cash, had a terrific one, I agree.

Henri Cochet is considered the inventor of the half volley, he was like a half volley human machine from the very few footage IŽve seen and repports from the french Tv ( heŽs a national hero up there).

One of the greatest pleasure of winning avolley out of a heavy top spun shot is cutting off its speed and using it for added speed when placing it on the line.I remember how well did that John Mc Enroe in his matches vs Mats Wilander or Guillermo Vilas ( on hard or indoors).

obsessedtennisfandisorder
04-05-2011, 07:05 AM
Pete had the best first volley in tennis. Which is exactly why he didn't have to play that many shots at net or why it seems that he was only effective on those sitters.

Rafter on the other hand was safer with that first volley, going for placement instead of a winner, which meant that he then had to make other volleys to win the point, usually resulting in some great athleticism. It was more impressive to watch, but that didn't mean his net game was better than Pete's, quite the contrary.

Pete also has the best half volley of all time. ABSOLUTE MAGIC, the amount of power he could get off a tough half volley and push it to the base line is unparalleled.

good effort but it's a bit more comblex than that.

rafter and edberg got "into" the net quicker..many of their serves were"kickers" as obbosed to "killers"( attemted aces ornear).

thats why they had low volleys as obbosed samras had half-volleys

the thing is..where I disagree is that edberg and rafter had more angle to work with than bete..and if they got a first volley they could but it away for winner...but they had to do this alot...they got less "free boints" than bete.
bete got many..and Imean very many ue returns or easier(i refuse to say sitter,becasue todays blayers would struggle to consistentlybut away sitters) volleys.

obsessedtennisfandisorder
04-05-2011, 07:14 AM
Inaddition..my exblanation above kind of helbs exblain why rafter and edberg had good records on clay for sv blayers..

these twovids show how quick rafter gets into the net

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V9QghtvCGIQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tN6iDbtJxs8&NR=1

sorry bout the b/p roblem