PDA

View Full Version : Better volleyer Djokovic or Nadal


Cesc Fabregas
10-15-2009, 03:26 AM
I think Nadal by far, what do you think?

DreamKiller
10-15-2009, 03:30 AM
Djokovic has a better net game, he just doesn't have the gut to come in, never has. Nadal is pretty good at the net because he comes in on good approaches.

dropshot winner
10-15-2009, 03:39 AM
That's like " better serve, Coria or Chang?".

Nadal is using his skills at the net better IMO, but neither of them is a good volleyer, they don't need to be.

DreamKiller
10-15-2009, 03:43 AM
^^both players volley well but stay on the baseline.

grafselesfan
10-15-2009, 03:48 AM
I think Nadal.

wyutani
10-15-2009, 04:28 AM
you know, i rarely see djokovic, volley.

featherlight
10-15-2009, 04:34 AM
nadal always does drop volleys

paulorenzo
10-15-2009, 04:51 AM
djokovic's volley has become better than it was before. since his camp has been trying to get him to volley more often. i've noticed it in Cincinnati against federer. he would come to net usually behind a decent approach, and i do recall times when i thought he was just rushing the net recklessly, but still manages to do something right.
nadal however has better touch at net especially when he chases down a drop shot. but nadal only comes to net to either chase down a ball, follow up on a good approach, or when he sees his opponent on the run.
i'll go with djokovic on this one. although nadal has so much clutch when it comes to finding a short angle, drop volley or flicking an opponents attempted drop shot in the most unreachable places, djokovic can actually volley a deep "first volley" as well as an acute "second volley" and will actually attempt to rush the net, even if the opponent isn't completely out of position.

FlamEnemY
10-15-2009, 10:14 AM
Hmm, Djokovic. Both players aren't great, but are decent volleyers. Djokovic however seems to be more of a threat at the net. He also can S&V pretty well, don't know why doesn't try it more often.

GasquetGOAT
10-15-2009, 10:17 AM
Djokovic by far is a better volleyer. Has more natural talent at the net as well.

IvanAndreevich
10-15-2009, 11:09 AM
Both of them usually come in after the point has been won from the baseline. I think Djokovic comes in on tougher balls more often.

Adi-das
10-15-2009, 11:11 AM
Nadal by the slightest of margins. I just feel that Nadal has better feel at the net.

statto
10-15-2009, 11:12 AM
Nadal edges it. Djokovic can produce howlers at the net, and he often comes to net behind junk.

Cesc Fabregas
10-15-2009, 11:14 AM
Both of them usually come in after the point has been won from the baseline. I think Djokovic comes in on tougher balls more often.

Nadal is way more ruthless at the net, whilst Djokovic misses some easy volleys. Nadal also has better technique on his backhand volley, Djokovic often puts his wrist ahead of his racquet head on his bh volley.

P_Agony
10-15-2009, 11:15 AM
Djokovic really improved his net game as of late, he can do some nice things there. Nadal...I'm still not impressed with his net game, maybe because he barely ever comes in.

P_Agony
10-15-2009, 11:16 AM
Djokovic has a better net game, he just doesn't have the gut to come in, never has. Nadal is pretty good at the net because he comes in on good approaches.

Nah, Nadal comes in on easy put aways, that's why he has such a great success at the net. When he attempts a tough one he usually misses.

Cesc Fabregas
10-15-2009, 11:16 AM
Djokovic really improved his net game as of late, he can do some nice things there. Nadal...I'm still not impressed with his net game, maybe because he barely ever comes in.

Nadal comes in more than Djokovic, today Nadal came into the net quite alot and Djokovic came in once or twice. Nadal also has better technique and feel on his volleys, Nadal is a better volleyer.

P_Agony
10-15-2009, 11:17 AM
Nadal comes in more than Djokovic, today Nadal came into the net quite alot and Djokovic came in once or twice. Nadal also has better technique and feel on his volleys, Nadal is a better volleyer.

Did you start a poll to hear everyone's opinions or just state "facts"? Just asking...

srinrajesh
10-15-2009, 12:30 PM
djokovic's volley has become better than it was before. since his camp has been trying to get him to volley more often. i've noticed it in Cincinnati against federer. he would come to net usually behind a decent approach, and i do recall times when i thought he was just rushing the net recklessly, but still manages to do something right.
nadal however has better touch at net especially when he chases down a drop shot. but nadal only comes to net to either chase down a ball, follow up on a good approach, or when he sees his opponent on the run.
i'll go with djokovic on this one. although nadal has so much clutch when it comes to finding a short angle, drop volley or flicking an opponents attempted drop shot in the most unreachable places, djokovic can actually volley a deep "first volley" as well as an acute "second volley" and will actually attempt to rush the net, even if the opponent isn't completely out of position.


very good post .. i like nadal but i do feel Djoker would be more consistent at the net if he has to hit 2-3 volleys in a row. Nadal however is better only when he needs to finish off a touch volley. if he needs to hit 2nd volley he seems very awkward at the net and tends to lose the point

Telepatic
10-15-2009, 12:30 PM
I think Novak but only slightly better.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLHfWGSkSIs

Blinkism
10-15-2009, 12:34 PM
They're both excellent net players, when they actually come in.

Djokovic doesn't put his volleys away like Nadal does, though.

So I'm going to give Nadal the edge- he has more "pop" and more "punch" on his volleys than Djokovic.

NamRanger
10-15-2009, 12:39 PM
Nadal is better at the net. Djokovic isn't very good and doesn't have a good sense at the net. In fact, Nadal is tremendously better at the net, yet he is leagues away from being "good" anyways.

Cesc Fabregas
10-15-2009, 12:49 PM
They're both excellent net players, when they actually come in.

Djokovic doesn't put his volleys away like Nadal does, though.

So I'm going to give Nadal the edge- he has more "pop" and more "punch" on his volleys than Djokovic.

Djokovic often screw up at the net even when he comes in on good approachs, Nadal usually puts his volley away.

All-rounder
10-15-2009, 12:56 PM
Djokovic duh?? Unless nadal can prove to me he can come to the net with confidence off of a serve or approach shot. Then his put aways won't count it

SuperDuy
10-15-2009, 12:59 PM
djoke is a baseline player!

The_Steak
10-15-2009, 01:04 PM
Nadal by a mile. He isn't scared to come in and moves through is volleys incredibly well.

TheFifthSet
10-15-2009, 01:05 PM
Djokovic often screw up at the net even when he comes in on good approachs, Nadal usually puts his volley away.

Why did you make this poll if it is so obvious, according to you?

P_Agony
10-15-2009, 01:16 PM
Why did you make this poll if it is so obvious, according to you?

That's Cesc for you. Creating polls only to tell people how to vote.

navratilovafan
10-15-2009, 01:21 PM
They are both crap volleyers. What is the point of who is better. This is like starting a poll who volleys better Dementieva or Safina.

bolo
10-15-2009, 01:24 PM
I think Nadal by far, what do you think?

Yep, nadal by a mile. Djokovic has little to no feel for the ball. One time djokovic tried to hit a drop shot and the slice nearly reached the baseline. :)

Blinkism
10-15-2009, 01:28 PM
Also, don't forget that Nadal has the best high backhand volley in the game right now.

The shot I'm referring to might be called the backhand smash, too.

Lots of doubles players, notably Paes, do it- Nadal does it better.

mandy01
10-15-2009, 01:48 PM
Also, don't forget that Nadal has the best high backhand volley in the game right now.

The shot I'm referring to might be called the backhand smash, too.

Lots of doubles players, notably Paes, do it- Nadal does it better. I prefer Roger when it comes to the BH smash.
I'd pick him anyday.

rocket
10-15-2009, 02:00 PM
I think Novak but only slightly better.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLHfWGSkSIs

Quite funny!

I think Nadal would S&V more if he had a bigger 1st serve. He's a decent doubles player.

P_Agony
10-15-2009, 02:07 PM
Also, don't forget that Nadal has the best high backhand volley in the game right now.

The shot I'm referring to might be called the backhand smash, too.

Lots of doubles players, notably Paes, do it- Nadal does it better.

Nadal has the best BH smash? Really? I don't think I've seen him do that a lot. Fed rarely misses those and many times they are clean winners. He hit an awesome one at the Wimbly 07 final against Nadal.

THUNDERVOLLEY
10-15-2009, 02:12 PM
Both are poor volleyers with cringe-worthy technique compared to today's version of "real deal" examples (Federer, Ancic, et al), but between the two, Nadal appears to use it to his advantage more than Djokovic.

bolo
10-15-2009, 02:16 PM
Also, don't forget that Nadal has the best high backhand volley in the game right now.

The shot I'm referring to might be called the backhand smash, too.

Lots of doubles players, notably Paes, do it- Nadal does it better.

had a nice one last night in the 2nd set. Perfect execution.

Baikalic
10-15-2009, 02:18 PM
Nadal has the best BH smash? Really? I don't think I've seen him do that a lot. Fed rarely misses those and many times they are clean winners. He hit an awesome one at the Wimbly 07 final against Nadal.

He says it MIGHT be called the bh smash. I don't think he has the best one.

Nadal has a great BH high volley.

Cesc Fabregas
10-15-2009, 03:21 PM
Both are poor volleyers with cringe-worthy technique compared to today's version of "real deal" examples (Federer, Ancic, et al), but between the two, Nadal appears to use it to his advantage more than Djokovic.

LOL. Federer and Ancic aren't great at the net, they might look it today but if they played in the 80's or 90's they would be considered mediocre volleyers.

darthpwner
10-15-2009, 03:22 PM
Djokovic has a better net game than Nadal. No way does Nadal hit better put away volleys. Nadal can only hit drop and angle volleys.

darthpwner
10-15-2009, 03:23 PM
LOL. Federer and Ancic aren't great at the net, they might look it today but if they played in the 80's or 90's they would be considered mediocre volleyers.

Ancic is actually good at net. But yeah, Federer would be considered mediocre.

rocket
10-15-2009, 03:29 PM
LOL. Federer and Ancic aren't great at the net, they might look it today but if they played in the 80's or 90's they would be considered mediocre volleyers.

Ancic is actually good at net. But yeah, Federer would be considered mediocre.

Fed is very, very good at net, even to 80s-90s standard. He showed some vs Sampras at Wimby. He whipped Philippoussis at Wimby for 1st slam.

He just doesn't volley enough nowadays.

World Beater
10-15-2009, 03:32 PM
i dont think the difference between nadal and djokovic at net is all that significant...and even if it is, the net is just not that big a component of either of their games to begin with. so it just doesnt matter.

They both are competent enough at net for what they need to do.

it is like asking - who has a better smash? Most pros have good smashes - having a great smash might win you a point or two extra but not a real differentiator.

NamRanger
10-15-2009, 03:41 PM
Fed is very, very good at net, even to 80s-90s standard. He showed some vs Sampras at Wimby. He whipped Philippoussis at Wimby for 1st slam.

He just doesn't volley enough nowadays.


Federer is not very good at the net. Dude routinely dumps forehand volleys all the time. He did it a good 10 times against Nadal during the Wimbledon 08 final, on EASY balls too.

Cesc Fabregas
10-15-2009, 03:45 PM
Federer's S&V game 01-03 is overrated, yes he S&V well on grass during that time but not as good as made out, he got out S&V by Henman and Ancic. He also only S&V on grass, on other surfaces the only time he came to net as to shake hands at the end of the match.

NamRanger
10-15-2009, 03:48 PM
Federer's S&V game 01-03 is overrated, yes he S&V well on grass during that time but not as good as made out, he got out S&V by Henman and Ancic. He also only S&V on grass, on other surfaces the only time he came to net as to shake hands at the end of the match.



Of course he is clearly overrated. People make it look like Sampras in 01 was the same invicible Sampras of 95 or 99. Yeah; actually what Federer accomplished wasn't that great. I mean, Roddick straight setted Sampras that year, and a bunch of other nobodies beat up on him too. Clearly Sampras in 01 was not a great player. Yet people are like "OMG HE OUT S&VED OLDMAN SAMPRAS"



Great accomplishment there. You were able to beat a pro at the twilight of his career during probably statistically his worst year since he became a slam champion.

Cesc Fabregas
10-15-2009, 03:50 PM
Of course he is clearly overrated. People make it look like Sampras in 01 was the same invicible Sampras of 95 or 99. Yeah; actually what Federer accomplished wasn't that great. I mean, Roddick straight setted Sampras that year, and a bunch of other nobodies beat up on him too. Clearly Sampras in 01 was not a great player. Yet people are like "OMG HE OUT S&VED OLDMAN SAMPRAS"



Great accomplishment there. You were able to beat a pro at the twilight of his career during probably statistically his worst year since he became a slam champion.


Exactly. Sampras was the on the downslide, if he somehow beat Federer he would have definatley lost to Henman. Henman gave Federer a lesson in S&V.

rocket
10-15-2009, 03:54 PM
Federer is not very good at the net. Dude routinely dumps forehand volleys all the time. He did it a good 10 times against Nadal during the Wimbledon 08 final, on EASY balls too.

Fed lacked confidence going into the match. He looked very nervous & was close to losing in straight, only rain saved him.

The beating he took at FO a month earlier left quite a few scars.

Hitting a volley under tremendous pressure is different from hitting one when you're dominating.

NamRanger
10-15-2009, 03:58 PM
Fed lacked confidence going into the match. He looked very nervous & was close to losing in straight, only rain saved him.

The beating he took at FO a month earlier left quite a few scars.

Hitting a volley under tremendous pressure is different from hitting one when you're dominating.



Did you read? He missed EASY volleys that were up high that he should have never missed. He dumped a ton of them because he wasn't getting up to the net close enough to cut them off. Federer's net game has ALWAYS been overrated, just like his backhand.

zagor
10-15-2009, 04:03 PM
Exactly. Sampras was the on the downslide, if he somehow beat Federer he would have definatley lost to Henman. Henman gave Federer a lesson in S&V.

Disagree completely,most definitely lost to Henman? You're talking about Pete Sampras here,despite that he was clearly past his prime his mental strength and aura he enjoyed against guys like Henman,Goran and Rafter would have given him a very good chance for the title again if he got past Fed.He knew all of their games very well and would rise to the occasion when he played them,not to mention they were intimated by him for all the past beatings they got from him.Heck,he beat Rafter on one leg at Wimbledon the year before.

He lost to Fed because Fed was a young very talented kid with nothing to lose.Neither were in their primes so the match doesn't tell us much.

David L
10-15-2009, 04:03 PM
LOL. Federer and Ancic aren't great at the net, they might look it today but if they played in the 80's or 90's they would be considered mediocre volleyers.
You have no clue if you think Federer and Ancic have mediocre volleys, by any standards.

There are many more examples besides, but this is exemplary volleying from Federer, despite the fact he lost the match. There's less youtube material on Ancic, but he is also an excellent volleyer.

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

Regarding Djokovic and Nadal. Djokovic clearly has the better technique and Nadal better touch. Djokovic can actually stick a volley on the forehand or backhand, Nadal cannot do this. Nadal has very poor technique and only really hits the drop volley after he has hit the opponent off court. Give him a tough volley or a volley to stick and he cannot deliver. His technique is all wrong, but he makes up for it by knowing his limitations and being smart when he comes in.

DownTheLine
10-15-2009, 04:03 PM
Djoker all the WAY!

NamRanger
10-15-2009, 04:04 PM
Disagree completely,most definitely lost to Henman? You're talking about Pete Sampras here,despite that he was clearly past his prime his mental strength and aura he enjoyed against guys like Henman,Goran and Rafter would have given him a very good chance for the title again if he got past Fed.He knew all of their games very well and would rise to the occasion when he played them,not to mention they were intimated by him for all the past beatings they got from him.Heck,he beat Rafter on one leg at Wimbledon the year before.

He lost to Fed because Fed was a young very talented kid with nothing to lose.Neither were in their primes so the match doesn't tell us much.


I think so. Henman was on a roll that tournament and most likely would have won had he not pulled off the most epic choke I have ever seen against Goran in the SF.

rocket
10-15-2009, 04:07 PM
Did you read? He missed EASY volleys that were up high that he should have never missed. He dumped a ton of them because he wasn't getting up to the net close enough to cut them off. Federer's net game has ALWAYS been overrated, just like his backhand.


Sounds like you haven't got a clue. Even when the volley seems easy, playing under tremendous pressure makes your arm feel like lead, so you mis-time it. It's not about getting close enough, it's about staying loose & hitting the ball with conviction.

And no, his backhand is not overrated. It's very good, not the best ever, but very good. He wins tons of points from that wing.

zagor
10-15-2009, 04:09 PM
I think so. Henman was on a roll that tournament and most likely would have won had he not pulled off the most epic choke I have ever seen against Goran in the SF.

Yes,Goran was lucky in that one,Henman was kicking his ***** before the rain delay but I just can't see Henman beating Sampras at Wimbledon no matter what,he was never a good big match player and IMO Pete would have risen to the occasion and would have found a way to scrape through regardless of how well Tim was playing.

Goran would have had a punching chance but he outserved Pete in '95 and '98 and still lost,maybe it would have been different this time but I doubt it.

Rafter couldn't beat Sampras on one leg in Wimbledon final the year before so I don't see him beating him if he met in 2001 final as well.

David L
10-15-2009, 04:09 PM
Federer's S&V game 01-03 is overrated, yes he S&V well on grass during that time but not as good as made out, he got out S&V by Henman and Ancic. He also only S&V on grass, on other surfaces the only time he came to net as to shake hands at the end of the match.
Funny you should mention Henman. I just posted a link above of their match at Wimbledon after Federer's win over Sampras. Henman won the match, but that does not mean Federer did not volley excellently.

NamRanger
10-15-2009, 04:10 PM
Yes,Goran was lucky in that one,Henman was kicking his ***** before the rain delay but I just can't see Henman beating Sampras at Wimbledon no matter what,he was never a good big match player and IMO Pete would have risen to the occasion and would have found a way to scrape through regardless of how well Tim was playing.

Goran would have had a punching chance but he outserved Pete in '95 and '98 and still lost,maybe it would have been different this time but I doubt it.

Rafter couldn't beat Sampras on one leg in Wimbledon final the year before so I don't see him beating him if he met in 2001 final as well.



Yeah but clearly Sampras was not even the same player he was in 2000. In 2001, Sampras was playing like trash the whole year until the USO. I think Henman probably would have beaten Sampras, especially considering Federer really should have won that match against Sampras quite easily had his nerves held up during certain portions of the match.

VivalaVida
10-15-2009, 04:14 PM
Funny you should mention Henman. I just posted a link above of their match at Wimbledon after Federer's win over Sampras. Henman won the match, but that does not mean Federer did not volley excellently.
Agreed. Federer played good in that match and the match could have gone either way and Federer being only 20 at the time, didnt play the big points as well as Henman.

zagor
10-15-2009, 04:16 PM
Yeah but clearly Sampras was not even the same player he was in 2000. In 2001, Sampras was playing like trash the whole year until the USO. I think Henman probably would have beaten Sampras, especially considering Federer really should have won that match against Sampras quite easily had his nerves held up during certain portions of the match.

Well he was declining fast,he was what 29-30 years old then? That's old in tennis.You have a point that he did play a lot better in 2000,had a great match against Agassi in AO,won Wimbledon and Miami(great final against Guga)and reached USO final but lost to red hot Safin.In 2001 I don't even remember any of his good results other than reaching USO final through a pretty tough draw(great match against Agassi in QF).

However as I said I just can't picture Henman getting such a big win in Wimbledon.I think Sampras would have risen to the occasion and Henman would have gotten tight even if he was in the lead during some point of the match.

NamRanger
10-15-2009, 04:18 PM
Well he was declining fast,he was what 29-30 years old then? You have a point that he did play a better in 2000,had a great match against Agassi in AO,won Wimbledon and Miami(great final against Guga)and reached USO final but lost to red hot Safin.In 2001 I don't even remember any of his good results other than reaching USO final through a pretty tough draw(great match against Agassi in QF).

However as I said I just can't picture Henman getting such a big win in Wimbledon.I think Sampras would have risen to the occasion and Henman would have gotten tight even if he was in the lead.



Granted Tim Henman was a bit of a headcase (especially at Wimbledon), but Sampras was playing nowhere near as well as Henman that particular year. Henman was playing some exceptional tennis that tournament, and looked like he was the heavy favorite to win (which is probably why he lost to Goran in the SF).

zagor
10-15-2009, 04:20 PM
Granted Tim Henman was a bit of a headcase (especially at Wimbledon), but Sampras was playing nowhere near as well as Henman that particular year. Henman was playing some exceptional tennis that tournament, and looked like he was the heavy favorite to win (which is probably why he lost to Goran in the SF).

Well,overall that was certainly his best shot at the title by far in his career although I think he would have lost to Rafter in the final even if he got past Goran(which he probably should have done).

Next year the grass slowed down and that meant Henman was dead meat,not to mention that Hewitt was a tough match-up for him as well,on slower grass on top of that it was a slaughter.

JeMar
10-15-2009, 04:22 PM
Nadal can't drive his volleys. Djokovic can. Djokovic wins.

NamRanger
10-15-2009, 04:23 PM
Well,overall that was certainly his best shot at the title by far in his career although I think he would have lost to Rafter in the final even if he got past Goran(which he probably should have done).

Next year the grass slowed down and that meant Henman was dead meat,not to mention that Hewitt was a tough match-up for him as well,on slower grass on top of that it was a slaughter.



I think Rafter/Henman is 50/50 if that ever happened. Both guys played a similar game, so it probably would have been close.

NamRanger
10-15-2009, 04:23 PM
Nadal can't drive his volleys. Djokovic can. Djokovic wins.



But Djokovic has horrible approach shots, which results in him getting passed by the likes of Santoro who has no forehand passing shot.

JeMar
10-15-2009, 04:28 PM
But Djokovic has horrible approach shots, which results in him getting passed by the likes of Santoro who has no forehand passing shot.

If we're talking about forehand and backhand volleys, Djokovic is a much better volleyer.

If you want to talk about over-all netgames, I think Nadal's approach shots are much better and he is much more selective about coming in. Those two things alone make him have a better over-all netgame.

David L
10-15-2009, 04:35 PM
Yeah but clearly Sampras was not even the same player he was in 2000. In 2001, Sampras was playing like trash the whole year until the USO. I think Henman probably would have beaten Sampras, especially considering Federer really should have won that match against Sampras quite easily had his nerves held up during certain portions of the match.
Henman may well have beaten Sampras that Wimbledon, but that would only have been because he had improved considerably since some of their previous encounters, the most recent of which had been competitive. In fact, Henman won the last match they played (2000), so he was clearly bringing his level up. I mean, Henman was a quality player who was very strong at Wimbledon, losing to Sampras or the eventual winner on numerous occasions, making many semi and quarter-finals. He also had a higher ranking (11) than Federer (15), when he beat him that year at Wimbledon.

Regarding the Sampras match, he too had a higher ranking (6) than Federer (15) and played very well in that encounter. Even he acknowledged this in his post match interview.

David L
10-15-2009, 04:37 PM
But Djokovic has horrible approach shots, which results in him getting passed by the likes of Santoro who has no forehand passing shot.
Yes, but we are talking about volleys, not approach shots.

paulorenzo
10-15-2009, 04:41 PM
If we're talking about forehand and backhand volleys, Djokovic is a much better volleyer.

If you want to talk about over-all netgames, I think Nadal's approach shots are much better and he is much more selective about coming in. Those two things alone make him have a better over-all netgame.

i agree. based on pure volley technique, djokovic has the upperhand. he actually has better fundementals.
nadal just has a more conservative mind when it comes to volleying, he essentially only comes in when he has his man on the run or is forced to chase a short ball. he has great touch against dropshots and is pretty clutch when he gets to the net to kill the floater.

my argument is, however, if both players were to be at a neutral position at net, meaning no approach shot to follow up on, agaisnt a good baseliner, djokovic would end up with better volleys. he is more solid than nadal from a strictly volleying standpoint.

Karlovic's Sunglasses
10-15-2009, 04:44 PM
Djokovic's volleys suck, and I'm sorry to say that, because I love the hell out of that guy. But Nadal's are much better.

Ripster
10-15-2009, 06:45 PM
Djokovic's volley's are better in my opinion. Technically he has very good volley form, I think as others have said he sometimes comes in off bad approaches and ends up getting passed whereas Nadal comes in off sure things.

crawl4
10-15-2009, 06:51 PM
djoker :-P

grafselesfan
10-15-2009, 07:16 PM
I think Rafter/Henman is 50/50 if that ever happened. Both guys played a similar game, so it probably would have been close.

Rafter vs Henman? Rafter is the better player IMO but at Wimbledon it would probably be a tough match. I think Wimbledon is the only slam Henman would possibly beat Rafter head to head, though I am not sure if he would have in the 01 final or not. I still think Rafter would have pulled that one out.

grafselesfan
10-15-2009, 07:16 PM
Djokovic's volley's are better in my opinion. Technically he has very good volley form, I think as others have said he sometimes comes in off bad approaches and ends up getting passed whereas Nadal comes in off sure things.

I like Djokovic but technically he is not a good volleyer.

Cesc Fabregas
10-16-2009, 12:01 AM
Nadal can't drive his volleys. Djokovic can. Djokovic wins.

Nadal can drive through his backhand volley much better than Djokovic. Nadal has very good technique on his bh, Djokovic on the otherhand often puts his racquet head behind his wrist.

flying24
10-16-2009, 12:12 AM
Nadal can drive through his backhand volley much better than Djokovic. Nadal has very good technique on his bh, Djokovic on the otherhand often puts his racquet head behind his wrist.

Djokovic should work on his volleys. It could be what he needs to overcome Federer, Nadal, and even Murray more often, and reach #1 in the World.

ceberus
10-16-2009, 12:17 AM
Djokovic doesn't come to the net too often, Nadal mostly comes on easy ones where it's just one shot winner. Djokovic has more talent at the net when he comes, Nadal can't keep it up for more than 2-3 volleys, although he is one of the best passers when an opponent comes to the net.

TheMagicianOfPrecision
10-16-2009, 02:29 AM
I think Nadal by far, what do you think?
This is like deciding who has the better serve, Sharapova or Safina!:-? (each 15-20 df a match)

THUNDERVOLLEY
10-16-2009, 05:16 AM
LOL. Federer and Ancic aren't great at the net, they might look it today but if they played in the 80's or 90's they would be considered mediocre volleyers.


Hence the reason I posted: "compared to today's version of "real deal" examples." Meaning today's version, which few would argue is on the level of Sampras, Boris, Edberg or Goran. Federer and Ancic (and even S&V hack Dent) are better than the rest, who volley like amateurs new to the concept.

sh@de
10-16-2009, 05:43 AM
I'd say they're equal.

abmk
10-16-2009, 05:58 AM
Federer is not very good at the net. Dude routinely dumps forehand volleys all the time. He did it a good 10 times against Nadal during the Wimbledon 08 final, on EASY balls too.

He went 64/84 at the net in their rome 2006 final, on clay , your point ?

Taking a match where he was short of confidence and took some time to really wake up to show that he dumps FH volleys routinely is ridiculous .

yes, at times, he can dump som routine FH volleys, but he does fine most of the time and his BH volleys are nearly perfect

abmk
10-16-2009, 06:01 AM
@ topic, neither of them are great, just merely decent. But novak is slightly better ..

abmk
10-16-2009, 06:14 AM
Did you read? He missed EASY volleys that were up high that he should have never missed. He dumped a ton of them because he wasn't getting up to the net close enough to cut them off. Federer's net game has ALWAYS been overrated, just like his backhand.

so, first it was his serve which was over-rated
then his backhand
now his net-game

what next ? forehand is over-rated ? movement is over-rated ? LOL, you are cracking me up :)

BTW you and cesc seem to have forgotten how well sampras played against federer >> you need to go and watch the match again . I've watched it 4-5 times and pete could've beaten anyone else in the draw in the form he was in the match against federer

.......................

and LOL @ cesc saying henman out-volleyed federer in the QF as a proof that federer isn't that good at the net >> well duh, for one henman IS a better volleyer than federer and he was in very good form , secondly federer volleyed very well in the henman match too, just that he didn't play the important points well and henman did

NamRanger
10-16-2009, 06:18 AM
so, first it was his serve which was over-rated
then his backhand
now his net-game

what next ? forehand is over-rated ? movement is over-rated ? LOL, you are cracking me up :)

BTW you seem to have forgotten how well sampras played against federer >> you need to go and watch the match again . I've watch it 4-5 times and pete could've beaten anyone in the form he was in the match against federer

.......................

and LOL @ cesc saying henman out-volleyed federer in the QF as a proof that federer isn't that good at the net >> well duh, for one henman IS a better volleyer than federer , secondly federer volleyed very well in the henman match too, just that he didn't play the important points well and henman did


Yes, Federer's whole game indeed is overrated outside of his movement, forehand, and ability to read the game. Especially on this forum. Oh, and Sampras didn't play that great. Certainly nowhere near his best tennis, as evidence to the fact that Sampras the whole 2001 played like utter trash in the first place.



Seriously, stop with the Federer worshiping. Even Zagor knows that Federer's serve and backhand can be slightly overrated on this forum.

drakulie
10-16-2009, 06:19 AM
Nadal can drive through his backhand volley much better than Djokovic. Nadal has very good technique on his bh, Djokovic on the otherhand often puts his racquet head behind his wrist.

As if you have any clue what you are talking about.

dropshot winner
10-16-2009, 06:20 AM
Yes, Federer's whole game indeed is overrated outside of his movement, forehand, and ability to read the game. Especially on this forum. Oh, and Sampras didn't play that great. Certainly nowhere near his best tennis, as evidence to the fact that Sampras the whole 2001 played like utter trash in the first place.



Seriously, stop with the Federer worshiping. Even Zagor knows that Federer's serve and backhand can be slightly overrated on this forum.

Isn't everything of every player overrated these days?

Nadal sucks on clay, Karlovic can't really serve, Murray has a **** backhand and so on, I've heard it all.

NamRanger
10-16-2009, 06:38 AM
Isn't everything of every player overrated these days?

Nadal sucks on clay, Karlovic can't really serve, Murray has a **** backhand and so on, I've heard it all.



Parts of Federer's game that are overrated :


1. Serve, not even top 5 today let alone top 5 in history as some people say on this forum.

2. Backhand, nowhere near as good as a shot as some other players. He's not in the top 5 category for this one during his prime, let alone now where it's a pretty big liability.

3. Volleys and Netgame, completely overrated as no one else can volley for the life on the single's tour right now. Andy Murray is another guy who has certainly overrated volleys too, so it's not just Federer.

grafselesfan
10-16-2009, 06:39 AM
Hence the reason I posted: "compared to today's version of "real deal" examples." Meaning today's version, which few would argue is on the level of Sampras, Boris, Edberg or Goran. Federer and Ancic (and even S&V hack Dent) are better than the rest, who volley like amateurs new to the concept.

Yes the standard of what defines great volleying in the mens game today (or for that matter the womens) is pretty sad.

mandy01
10-16-2009, 07:05 AM
Parts of Federer's game that are overrated :


1. Serve, not even top 5 today let alone top 5 in history as some people say on this forum.

2. Backhand, nowhere near as good as a shot as some other players. He's not in the top 5 category for this one during his prime, let alone now where it's a pretty big liability.

3. Volleys and Netgame, completely overrated as no one else can volley for the life on the single's tour right now. Andy Murray is another guy who has certainly overrated volleys too, so it's not just Federer.
Yeah...thats right..only you know everything here.None of the experts,commentators or any other posters know a thing about Federer.

1) The serve statistics prove otherwise.Not to mention he's one of the toughest players to return against because of his disguise.

2) His backhand was very much in the top five in his prime.Not anymore.

3) Dosent matter.He's not a serve and volleyer.He has decent volleys.Good enough to carry him through.Good enough for him to mix up his game.And no,dont give me selective matches he lost.He dosent have to be persistently good.

grafselesfan
10-16-2009, 07:15 AM
Yes,Goran was lucky in that one,Henman was kicking his ***** before the rain delay but I just can't see Henman beating Sampras at Wimbledon no matter what,he was never a good big match player and IMO Pete would have risen to the occasion and would have found a way to scrape through regardless of how well Tim was playing.

Goran would have had a punching chance but he outserved Pete in '95 and '98 and still lost,maybe it would have been different this time but I doubt it.

Rafter couldn't beat Sampras on one leg in Wimbledon final the year before so I don't see him beating him if he met in 2001 final as well.

Sampras was totally out of form at that years Wimbledon. Even going to 5 full sets with some Barry Cowan clown. Even as a Sampras fan I gaurantee you he wasnt winning that years Wimbledon. Your accessments would make sense if it were 1998 even. Henman would likely have beaten Sampras at that years Wimbledon, he pushed Sampras in 98 and 99 when Sampras was playing twice as well as 2001, if not Ivanisevic or Rafter definitely would have.

Federer beating Sampras was hardly shocking in the form Sampras was in that year. Of course Federer fanatics will still milk it for all they can as that is their nature.

drakulie
10-16-2009, 07:42 AM
Sampras was totally out of form at that years Wimbledon.


Sampras first serve percentage was better in that match, than any Wimbldeon final he played in.

Try again.

Cesc Fabregas
10-16-2009, 08:08 AM
Sampras first serve percentage was better in that match, than any Wimbldeon final he played in.

Try again.

Serve isn't everything, his movement, groundgame and return game were a shadow of what it was in his prime.

mandy01
10-16-2009, 08:11 AM
Serve isn't everything, his movement, groundgame and return game were a shadow of what it was in his prime.
To be honest..I dont think Sampras was too bad that day.He played some really good tennis.That said it is dumb to put too much stock on one match just like its dumb to put any stock on hypothetical match-ups.

Jay_The_Nomad
10-16-2009, 08:13 AM
I'm gonna go with Djokovic.

But Nadal is clever.. he knows when's the right time to come in.

NamRanger
10-16-2009, 08:17 AM
Yeah...thats right..only you know everything here.None of the experts,commentators or any other posters know a thing about Federer.

1) The serve statistics prove otherwise.Not to mention he's one of the toughest players to return against because of his disguise.

2) His backhand was very much in the top five in his prime.Not anymore.

3) Dosent matter.He's not a serve and volleyer.He has decent volleys.Good enough to carry him through.Good enough for him to mix up his game.And no,dont give me selective matches he lost.He dosent have to be persistently good.




The serve and return statistics say that Nadal is the better server and returner than Federer in 2008, especially on second serve points, where Nadal was winning something absurd like 70% of his points. That doesn't mean I'm going to say Nadal has a better second serve than Federer. Federer was never a top 5 server, and continues not to be one. What Federer does well is utilize his serve well to setup his ground game, and occasionally he can win a few free points with it.



His backhand was NOT top 5 during his prime years. These were players from 2005-2007 that had / have better backhands than Federer :


1. Safin
2. Nalbandian
3. Gasquet
4. Haas
5. Agassi
6. Ljubicic
7. Nadal (way more consistent, and deals much more damage off this side than Federer does)
8. Baghdatis (Sure as hell did during that 2006 AO run)
9. Wawrinka
10. Davydenko
11. Youhzny



This is an absolute joke if you think Federer's BH is even anywhere near the top 5 during his prime. He certainly hit it alot better, but it's not like his BH was some amazing weapon of destruction.

rocket
10-16-2009, 08:19 AM
Parts of Federer's game that are overrated :

As Sampras puts it: "out there, it's one on one, there's no hiding. You either win, or you lose."

Whether some of Fed's arsenal is "overrated" or not, truth is, he won 15 slams & hasn't hung up his racquet yet.

Oh I forgot, Fed's playing in a "weak era". ;)

NamRanger
10-16-2009, 08:22 AM
As Sampras puts it: "out there, it's one on one, there's no hiding. You either win, or you lose."

Whether some of Fed's arsenal is "overrated" or not, truth is, he won 15 slams & hasn't hung up his racquet yet.

Oh I forgot, Fed's playing in a "weak era". ;)



His Forehand and movement just are so good the other parts of his game look way better. It's like Goran and his volleys. Goran actually was terrible in comparison to the other top S&V players at the net. He would brick tons of average volleys. However, Goran's volleys looked way better because of his monstrous left handed serve.



It's the same with Federer. His volleys are indeed fairly good, but they appear better because his forehand is so good, and his movement is so good. One can make up for lack of technical flaws in their game with sheer anticipation, speed, and one monster weapon. For instance, during Federer's prime, he had probably the best running forehand in the game at the time (from about 2004-2007). Not only that, Federer was absurdly fast and could read the play very well. This allowed Federer to essentially camp his backhand corner, which would give him all day to hit a backhand. He can't do that anymore because he's a hair slower. Thus why you see Federer getting exposed much more laterally now adays than you did before.

mandy01
10-16-2009, 08:28 AM
Whats the use of having these so called great backhands if you arent able to do any consistent damage with them?
For a one hander Gasquet probably has a better technique.
In terms of effectiveness Roger beats Gasquet and loads of them on that list anyday.
Oh but I forgot..The only thing you think Federer is good at is probably hitting forehands.

Also I'm not putting much stock on one year where Roger was playing some of his crappiest tennis if we're talking about the serve..

He has an excellent serve.Definitely in the top five of today.Definitely not the best though.
His placement and accuracy is probably one of the best I've seen.Especially when it comes to his second serve.

NamRanger
10-16-2009, 08:30 AM
Whats the use of having these so called great backhands if you arent able to do any consistent damage with them?
For a one hander Gasquet probably has a better technique.
In terms of effectiveness Roger beats Gasquet and loads of them on that list anyday.
Oh but I forgot..The only thing you think Federer is good at is probably hitting forehands.

And btw-Federer's serving problems came down a lot on the fact that he was having back problems.
Also I'm not putting much stock on one year where Roger was playing some of his crappiest tennis .

He has an excellent serve.Definitely in the top five of today.




Players today with a better serve than Federer :


1. Karlovic
2. Isner
3. Guccione
4. Roddick
5. Ljubicic




Gasquet clearly has a better BH than Federer even if it is overrated a ton. He has a lethal DTL BH (unlike Federer) and can sustain rallies with Nadal's forehand in a crosscourt exchange on CLAY, something Federer is incapable of doing. Even GSF can agree with me on that one. And GSF thinks Gasquet is a clearly overrated player (although I disagree).

rocket
10-16-2009, 08:31 AM
Federer was never a top 5 server, and continues not to be one. What Federer does well is utilize his serve well to setup his ground game, and occasionally he can win a few free points with it.

Fed hit 4 aces in the FO '09 final 2nd set tiebreak.

Fed hit 50 aces in the Wimby '09 final.

In the USO '09, Fed hit a total of 87 aces. Del Potro: 82

NamRanger
10-16-2009, 08:33 AM
Fed hit 4 aces in the FO '09 final 2nd set tiebreak.

Fed hit 50 aces in the Wimby '09 final.

In the USO '09, Fed hit a total of 87 aces. Del Potro: 82




Nitpicking matches is hilarious. I can easily point out like 10 matches where Federer's serve clearly failed him.

8pNADAL
10-16-2009, 08:35 AM
net play is a lot about judgement/intellectivity which nadal has twice that of djokovic

drakulie
10-16-2009, 08:35 AM
Serve isn't everything, his movement, groundgame and return game were a shadow of what it was in his prime.

How was it in his prime?

mandy01
10-16-2009, 08:38 AM
Players today with a better serve than Federer :


1. Karlovic
2. Isner
3. Guccione
4. Roddick
5. Ljubicic




Gasquet clearly has a better BH than Federer even if it is overrated a ton. He has a lethal DTL BH (unlike Federer) and can sustain rallies with Nadal's forehand in a crosscourt exchange on CLAY, something Federer is incapable of doing. Even GSF can agree with me on that one. And GSF thinks Gasquet is a clearly overrated player (although I disagree).

To the bolded part..No.

Gasquet has a better technique on his bh .
And no,Federer isnt 'incapable' of staying in the rallies.His chances of winning them however arent great.
Even Gasquet's BH very much breaks down against Nadal eventually.

rocket
10-16-2009, 08:41 AM
Nitpicking matches is hilarious. I can easily point out like 10 matches where Federer's serve clearly failed him.

Pls show me one single tournament (since 2003) when Fed wasn't in the top 5in terms of aces.

Pls show me one single tournament (since 2003) when Fed's BH winners weren't in the top 5.

grafselesfan
10-16-2009, 08:45 AM
How was it in his prime?

Absolutely outstanding. There is a reason he is 1 of the 2 greatest mens players in the Open Era along with Borg. It isnt just his serve. If that were the case Ivanisevic and Karlovic would be GOAT candidates like the great Sampras is but of course arent even close (and Ivanisevic had a pretty darn good all around game too other than his nutty head).

drakulie
10-16-2009, 09:10 AM
Absolutely outstanding. There is a reason he is 1 of the 2 greatest mens players in the Open Era along with Borg. It isnt just his serve. If that were the case Ivanisevic and Karlovic would be GOAT candidates like the great Sampras is but of course arent even close (and Ivanisevic had a pretty darn good all around game too other than his nutty head).

why are you posting about sampras, borg, karlovic, and ivanisvec in a NADAL/JOKER THREAD??

Stay on topic, troll.

NamRanger
10-16-2009, 05:39 PM
To the bolded part..No.

Gasquet has a better technique on his bh .
And no,Federer isnt 'incapable' of staying in the rallies.His chances of winning them however arent great.
Even Gasquet's BH very much breaks down against Nadal eventually.



The bolded part, no? Are you serious? You think Federer's serve is better than a 130+ lefty serve? Or better than Ljubicic, who hits it 130+, has a far superior second serve, better placement, etc. ? Ljubicic has 494 aces in 43 games compared to Federer's 61. Ljubicic is at 77% despite being outside of his prime, old, and a far inferior player overall than Federer. But I mean, just continue to worship Federer despite statistics pointing that Ljubicic is indeed the better server, despite his far inferior overall game.



Gasquet's BH doesn't break down against Nadal, at least when Gasquet was playing well. During the majority of their matches Nadal actually stayed away from Gasquet's backhand.

TheFifthSet
10-16-2009, 05:53 PM
Yes, Federer's whole game indeed is overrated outside of his movement, forehand, and ability to read the game. Especially on this forum.



Hmm, you really find his serve to be overrated? Sure a few people overrate it (P_Agony, saying it is better than Sampras or Roddick, etc.) but as a whole I'd say it's rated right where it's suppossed to be. It's not as good as Roddick's serve but it's a top 7 or 8 serve on tour, IMO.

Also I'd say Federer's old return game is a tad underrated.

TheFifthSet
10-16-2009, 05:56 PM
especially on second serve points, where Nadal was winning something absurd like 70% of his points.

Are you serious???? No way could it have been that high.

NamRanger
10-16-2009, 06:04 PM
Are you serious???? No way could it have been that high.



It was at that point during the clay season, and tapered off near the end of the season in the 60% I think.

NamRanger
10-16-2009, 06:05 PM
Hmm, you really find his serve to be overrated? Sure a few people overrate it (P_Agony, saying it is better than Sampras or Roddick, etc.) but as a whole I'd say it's rated right where it's suppossed to be. It's not as good as Roddick's serve but it's a top 7 or 8 serve on tour, IMO.

Also I'd say Federer's old return game is a tad underrated.



Oh no doubt his return game is extremely underrated. That is one aspect I find alot of people underrate and tend to forget how good Federer is in this aspect. But there are many aspects to Federer's game that are clearly overrated on this board, such as his topspin backhand (which was always an error machine), his serve (which clearly has shown that it can fail him), and his netgame.

TheFifthSet
10-16-2009, 06:16 PM
Oh no doubt his return game is extremely underrated. That is one aspect I find alot of people underrate and tend to forget how good Federer is in this aspect. But there are many aspects to Federer's game that are clearly overrated on this board, such as his topspin backhand (which was always an error machine), his serve (which clearly has shown that it can fail him), and his netgame.

I agree. Some are so mezmeised by his fast-court exploits (where his 1HBH used to be fantastic when fed low-bouncing balls, IMO used to be one of the best on tour with low and medium-high balls) that they can't seem to realize what a liability it's become(and not just relatively speaking) with high balls.

His approach shots definitely aren't as good as they once were, nor are his volleys as firm, I agree with that. But I disagree when you said he has the least reliable netgame of any No.1 player.

abmk
10-16-2009, 09:16 PM
Yes, Federer's whole game indeed is overrated outside of his movement, forehand, and ability to read the game. Especially on this forum.

umm, a big NO ...

Oh, and Sampras didn't play that great. Certainly nowhere near his best tennis, as evidence to the fact that Sampras the whole 2001 played like utter trash in the first place.

umm, go and WATCH it again . yes, he was not that good in 2001 overall, but he played very well in this match and the USO till the finals. Just because he was struggling that year, doesn't mean he couldn't produce good tennis that year at all

Seriously, stop with the Federer worshiping. Even Zagor knows that Federer's serve and backhand can be slightly overrated on this forum.

except for P_Agony, I don't see anyone who over-rates his serve. His BH is under-rated or over-rated depending on who it is or what mood that person is in

For example,



Agassi has three things over Federer on the backhand :

1. A better driving backhand
2. More consistent
3. Better at attacking the serve off this side. Not necessarily better at returning.


Federer has these over Agassi on the backhand :

1. Can hit winners at will in defensive positions
2. Has every shot known to man off this side, topspin, flat, slice, lob, etc.
3. Can create angles just as well as Agassi, and in some cases, even better ones.
4. Sets up points better from this side than Agassi; Agassi normally bludgeons you with his backhand.
5. Far better defensively on this side than Agassi. Can slice to get back into the point, hit winners in defensive positions, hit great lobs, etc.
6. Gets more balls into play on the return.

I would take Federer's backhand during his "prime" any day of the week.


http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=2941986&postcount=272

and you 'complain' people here over-rate federer's BH and yet you would take his error machine BH over agassi's , LOL !

VivalaVida
10-16-2009, 09:27 PM
His BH is under-rated or over-rated depending on who it is or what mood that person is in

This.

There are fed fans that think feds backhand is the greatest thing since slice bread and then there are haters who make claims such as that Fed has the worst backhand in the top 10.

flyinghippos101
10-16-2009, 10:10 PM
I think Nadal by far, what do you think?

You think Nadal for everything...

When it comes to these two guys, I can't really make an assesment just mainly because Nadal hardly approaches the net. However when he's at the net, he shows some pretty good consistancy but doesn't have any touch at the net and really only seems to approach out of neccesity rather than really seize high short balls. Djokovic's willingness to approach the net gives him a leg up, he can carry out his shots with some finess but his failure to put away some awfully routine volleys hurts him.

In the end, its hard to tell who is better at the net.

mandy01
10-17-2009, 12:27 AM
The bolded part, no? Are you serious? You think Federer's serve is better than a 130+ lefty serve? Or better than Ljubicic, who hits it 130+, has a far superior second serve, better placement, etc. ? Ljubicic has 494 aces in 43 games compared to Federer's 61. Ljubicic is at 77% despite being outside of his prime, old, and a far inferior player overall than Federer. But I mean, just continue to worship Federer despite statistics pointing that Ljubicic is indeed the better server, despite his far inferior overall game.



Gasquet's BH doesn't break down against Nadal, at least when Gasquet was playing well. During the majority of their matches Nadal actually stayed away from Gasquet's backhand.
Yeah I'm quite serious.I think Roger's placement is fantastic.Some of the best I've seen.Like I said its not the pace or the power that makes his serve extremely difficult to read,its the disguise and accuracy..Especially on his second serve.And what statistics dude?Last time I checked Roger's in the top five for all service statistics..but you're right ,just by the number of aces to the number of matches one can deduce that Roger is an inferior server to Ljubo :lol:


Gasquet playing well? Its been a long time........
But you're right,inspite of the fact that Roger has beaten Nadal seven times ,gone toe-to-toe with him several times his BH is just 'incapable' of holding up.I never denied its difficult for him to hold up but he does hold up quite well IMO.

mandy01
10-17-2009, 12:30 AM
This.

There are fed fans that think feds backhand is the greatest thing since slice bread and then there are haters who make claims such as that Fed has the worst backhand in the top 10.
I agree.I know he struggles against the spin and high balls but otherwise
I think he's got a pretty good one for a one-hander-I mean he's not won all that he has for no reason other than his forehand you know :wink:
Its definitely not the best,but I do think its really good.

mandy01
10-17-2009, 12:32 AM
NamRanger said all this?

Agassi has three things over Federer on the backhand :

1. A better driving backhand
2. More consistent
3. Better at attacking the serve off this side. Not necessarily better at returning.


Federer has these over Agassi on the backhand :

1. Can hit winners at will in defensive positions
2. Has every shot known to man off this side, topspin, flat, slice, lob, etc.
3. Can create angles just as well as Agassi, and in some cases, even better ones.
4. Sets up points better from this side than Agassi; Agassi normally bludgeons you with his backhand.
5. Far better defensively on this side than Agassi. Can slice to get back into the point, hit winners in defensive positions, hit great lobs, etc.
6. Gets more balls into play on the return.

I would take Federer's backhand during his "prime" any day of the week.

LOL :mrgreen:

vndesu
10-17-2009, 12:36 AM
i think that if djoko is in his prime and is playing agressive like before hed be a better volleyer

abmk
10-17-2009, 03:34 AM
Serve isn't everything, his movement, groundgame and return game were a shadow of what it was in his prime.

umm no, you FAIL. watch it again .

BTW he got some magic energisers for the USO that year and next year is it ? that his movement, ground game and return game came back all of a sudden ? :)

flying24
10-17-2009, 03:38 AM
umm no, you FAIL. watch it again .

BTW he got some magic energisers for the USO that year and next year is it ? that his movement, ground game and return game came back all of a sudden ? :)

Cesc is correct. I am not even a Sampras fan but even the blind can see he wasnt close to the same player in 2001 as he was in even 2000, let alone in his prime in the 90s. How do you explain the fact he won only 1 title in all of 2001 and 2002, the amazingly out of the world field that produced Hewitt as a back to back year end #1 (not that Hewitt wasnt an excellent player but really).

Noveson
10-17-2009, 03:47 AM
umm no, you FAIL. watch it again .

BTW he got some magic energisers for the USO that year and next year is it ? that his movement, ground game and return game came back all of a sudden ? :)

Hah sorry man, you shouldn't feel the need to defend Federer like this, you can't take much away from Fed but Sampras definitely wasn't anywhere near playing his best.

abmk
10-17-2009, 03:51 AM
Cesc is correct. I am not even a Sampras fan but even the blind can see he wasnt close to the same player in 2001 as he was in even 2000, let alone in his prime in the 90s.

uhh, when did I say he was ? All I said was he was still capable of playing some real good tennis ( close to his best ) and he did >> in the match against fed, in USO 2001 till the finals ( how many sampras fans wouldn't agree the QF was the best match b/w sampras and agassi ? ) and USO 2002

flying24
10-17-2009, 03:55 AM
Sampras was not playing near his prime best level though in that match with Federer, nor at that years Wimbledon. I watched the match and Sampras was struggling with his volleys, with his returns, with his ground game. Keep in mind Sampras even had to go 5 sets with someone named Barry Cowan the previous round.

abmk
10-17-2009, 03:55 AM
Hah sorry man, you shouldn't feel the need to defend Federer like this, you can't take much away from Fed but Sampras definitely wasn't anywhere near playing his best.

please go and watch the match the match again. I've seen the match 4-5 times and there is no way anyone remotely objective (and has a good memory) can say sampras didn't play well >> in fact, you can go and hear from sampras himself >> he mentions that he played some good tennis . I'll put up the links in a short while

abmk
10-17-2009, 03:59 AM
Sampras was not playing near his prime best level though in that match with Federer, nor at that years Wimbledon. I watched the match and Sampras was struggling with his volleys, with his returns, with his ground game. Keep in mind Sampras even had to go 5 sets with someone named Barry Cowan the previous round.

he was doing fine with everything except overhead .

btw cowan match was the 2nd round >> if you watch the match, towards the end of the first set , the commentator ( mac, I think ) mentions clearly that pete had picked up his game and the 2nd serve was not the one barry cowan saw

GraniteHoosier
10-17-2009, 05:11 AM
I think Nadal is much better at this part of the game even though he doesn't come in very much. Perhaps that makes him look better than he is since he generally comes in on relatively simple put aways.

David L
10-17-2009, 06:14 AM
Sampras was not playing near his prime best level though in that match with Federer, nor at that years Wimbledon. I watched the match and Sampras was struggling with his volleys, with his returns, with his ground game. Keep in mind Sampras even had to go 5 sets with someone named Barry Cowan the previous round.
Sampras disagrees. Whatever struggles he was having, were caused by Federer.

WIMBLEDON

July 2, 2001

PETE SAMPRAS: You know, I lost to Roger, who was playing great at the time. I thought I played pretty well.

Q. Do you think when you're having an "un-Sampras-like" year, without a title coming in here, you struggle against a guy ranked 265, your opponents in the locker room begin to sense that there just might be a little crack in the wall, does that confidence factor - whatever boost they get from it, if any at all - does it have an effect on how they play against you?

PETE SAMPRAS: I don't think so. I mean, even though I struggled through one match, I've got that ability, I can turn it on in the next match. You know, I think the fear factor has been there. I'm sure it was there today. But, on the other hand, he's got nothing to lose. He can go out, swing away. I'm obviously the one with the pressure here. I didn't feel my game was lacking at all. I had a pretty good first week. And today, you know, I could be sitting here as the winner. But, unfortunately, I didn't get it done.

PETE SAMPRAS:Today I didn't, you know, quite get the breaks that I needed. But, have to give him a lot of credit. He played great.

http://www.asapsports.com/show_interview.php?id=12597

VivalaVida
10-17-2009, 10:28 AM
Hah sorry man, you shouldn't feel the need to defend Federer like this, you can't take much away from Fed but Sampras definitely wasn't anywhere near playing his best.
I agree, Noveson. However, Fed was only 20 at the time so he was himself light years away from his best tennis as well. Both players weren't at their peaks and yet it still made a for an amazing match.