PDA

View Full Version : Is Federer an all-court player?


Pages : 1 [2] 3

BreakPoint
10-25-2009, 06:10 PM
Soderling is flat out overrated period. He doesnt have even close to the best serve, the best forehand, the best anything, other than being the biggest flavor of the month fraud on TW at the moment....
Soderling is in the Top 10 in the world.

Please explain how the ATP rankings "overrates" players.

We're waiting.

grafselesfan
10-25-2009, 06:13 PM
Soderling is in the Top 10 in the world.

Please explain how the ATP rankings "overrates" players.

We're waiting.

Being top 10 alone doesnt warrant the amount of praise he gets on here. Davydenko was top 5 for many years and Ljubicic was top 3 longer than Soderling has been in the top 10, so miles more successful than Soderling yet look at how little attention they get. Anyway come next years French Open his stint in the top 10 will be over for good, if not before that.

All-rounder
10-25-2009, 06:13 PM
LOL at comparing Soderling to Del Potro. Del Potro was already a top 5 player in the World at age 19. Soderling is a 25 year old who other than his dream French Open has 2 Masters quarterfinals and 1 other slam quarterfinal his whole career.
Don't give me that Del potro was strongly criticised when he was in the top 10 he didn't make any slams finals until US open this year despite being in the top 10. Every player has their time to burst onto the scene now its soderling's turn just accept it

Omega_7000
10-25-2009, 06:14 PM
Good for him. What has he done since. Got his *** whooped by Federer a bunch of times which is , been destroyed by a slumping Djokovic, lost to a past his prime Hewitt, been clearly outclassed by Lopez. And who has he beaten since the French Open, one decent win over Davydenko and that is it. His 15 minutes are up. He is not a top 10 caliber player, let alone a potential slam winner.

Soderling had knee problems after the FO. He has been only a shadow of himself after this years FO. Just wait until he is 100% fit again...

Vyse
10-25-2009, 06:15 PM
yes, what does he not do well

BreakPoint
10-25-2009, 06:17 PM
LOL at comparing Soderling to Del Potro. Del Potro was already a top 5 player in the World at age 19. Soderling is a 25 year old who other than his dream French Open has 2 Masters quarterfinals and 1 other slam quarterfinal his whole career.
Soderling has won 4 times as many titles as Patrick Rafter had at the same age, and Rafter is in the Tennis Hall of Fame.

grafselesfan
10-25-2009, 06:18 PM
Don't give me that Del potro was strongly criticised when he was in the top 10 he didn't make any slams finals until US open this year despite being in the top 10. Every player has their time to burst onto the scene now its soderling's turn just accept it

Soderling's turn to do what? Like how he was going to crush Djokovic in Beijing according to TW world, but instead got crushed by a slumping Djokovic. Like he was going to rip apart Nadal in Shanghai, and instead got outcrafted and outclassed with ease by Lopez. He has had his turn, it is called 15 minutes, it is over already whether TW planet is slow to clue in on that or not.

Del Potro was indeed somewhat overranked and overhyped last fall and this winter considering he gained so many points while all the top guys were at the Olympics, winning small tournaments in ver weak fields. However he was still only 19 years old and already posting results it has taken Soderling until age 25 to equal, so laughable to compare him to Soderling.

NamRanger
10-25-2009, 06:21 PM
Soderling has won 4 times as many titles as Patrick Rafter had at the same age, and Rafter is in the Tennis Hall of Fame.



Are you serious? Don't be dumb BP. Rafter made 2 Wimbledon finals and won 2 USOs. This comparison doesn't even make sense. It's not about # of titles; it's about which ones you win.

grafselesfan
10-25-2009, 06:22 PM
Soderling has won 4 times as many titles as Patrick Rafter had at the same age, and Rafter is in the Tennis Hall of Fame.

Rafter at 25 had already won a U.S Open title and ended a year ranked #2 in the World. Next please.

BreakPoint
10-25-2009, 06:22 PM
Soderling's turn to do what? Like how he was going to crush Djokovic in Beijing according to TW world, but instead got crushed by a slumping Djokovic. Like he was going to rip apart Nadal in Shanghai, and instead got outcrafted and outclassed with ease by Lopez. He has had his turn, it is called 15 minutes, it is over already whether TW planet is slow to clue in on that or not.

A "slumping Djokovic"? That "slumping Djokovic" only won the title in Beijing and took out the guy who destroyed Nadal and did it easily.

grafselesfan
10-25-2009, 06:25 PM
A "slumping Djokovic"? That "slumping Djokovic" only won the title in Beijing and took out the guy who destroyed Nadal and did it easily.

Djokovic and Nadal are both struggling right now. Nadal is much further from his best than Djokovic, and Djokovic is a better player on these lightning fast courts all things being equal anyway, so little surprise he is still doing the better of the two right now. It doesnt mean Djokovic isnt off his top form right now which he clearly is not. I am not even going to bother arguing this further. Soderling is overrated period.

BreakPoint
10-25-2009, 06:25 PM
Are you serious? Don't be dumb BP. Rafter made 2 Wimbledon finals and won 2 USOs. This comparison doesn't even make sense. It's not about # of titles; it's about which ones you win.
The point is, who knows where Soderling goes from here? Rafter did even less than Soderling before he was 25 and look at what happened in the rest of his career. Maybe this is Soderling's time to make his move?

NamRanger
10-25-2009, 06:27 PM
The point is, who knows where Soderling goes from here? Rafter did even less than Soderling before he was 25 and look at what happened in the rest of hos career. Maybe this is Soderling's time to make his move?




Soderling has lived up to his seeding, and I think GSF is a little hard on him, but I highly doubt he's going to win a slam any time soon. I think he might be able to maintain his stay in the top 10 for awhile (certainly longer than Gasquet), but I really doubt he will maintain it for a long time considering how inconsistent he is.

BreakPoint
10-25-2009, 06:28 PM
Rafter at 25 had already won a U.S Open title and ended a year ranked #2 in the World. Next please.
Rafter was ranked #14 the week that the '97 US Open started, which he won in the year he turned 25. He had done absolutely nothing before that. Soderling has already won 4 times as many tournaments and is already ranked #10.

Gugafan
10-25-2009, 06:28 PM
Of course he is an all court player compared to todays one-dimensional baseline bashers. Not many other players utilise the short slice to get opponents out of position, serve and volley(ocassionally), defend aswell as attacks, approach the net off anything midcourt.

grafselesfan
10-25-2009, 06:28 PM
The point is, who knows where Soderling goes from here? Rafter did even less than Soderling before he was 25 and look at what happened in the rest of hos career. Maybe this is Soderling's time to make his move?

Rafter at 25 had won a U.S Open title and ended the year ranked #2. A U.S Open title, a year end #2 ranking, and another slam semi, and 2 overall titles >>> A French Open final, maybe a year end #10 or something ranking, another slam quarter, and 4 overall titles. Plus serve/volleyers typically begin to peak later as Navratilova, Edberg, Novotna, Henman, Rafter himself, Tauziat, all demonstrate. You of all people should know that. By age 26 Rafter had 8 total titles, so Soderling will soon be well behind Rafter in even that fairly useless stat as well.

Agassifan
10-25-2009, 06:29 PM
So whoever doesn't share your opinion is an idiot?

Your a genius. That attitude will serve you well in life.

This is not an opinion this is a fact. Pretty much.

NamRanger
10-25-2009, 06:29 PM
Rafter at 25 had won a U.S Open title and ended the year ranked #2. A U.S Open title, a year end #2 ranking, and another slam semi, and 2 overall titles >>> A French Open final, maybe a year end #10 or something ranking, another slam quarter, and 4 overall titles. Plus serve/volleyers typically begin to peak later as Navratilova, Edberg, Novotna, Henman, Rafter himself, Tauziat, all demonstrate. You of all people should know that.




Henman hit like a "second prime" also after his unspectacular 2003 year. 2004 2 SFs and a QF plus good results everywhere.



Too bad he got old and phased out by the slower surfaces :(

grafselesfan
10-25-2009, 06:31 PM
Henman hit like a "second prime" also after his unspectacular 2003 year. 2004 2 SFs and a QF plus good results everywhere.



Too bad he got old and phased out by the slower surfaces :(

Timmy played some great tennis in 2004, really had a second prime almost like you said. It was such a shame the surfaces had been slowed. Imagine what he could have done that year otherwise, especialy at a Wimbledon played under the old true grass. He even won 2 of his 4 meetings with Federer in late 2003-2004.

boredone3456
10-25-2009, 06:31 PM
The point is, who knows where Soderling goes from here? Rafter did even less than Soderling before he was 25 and look at what happened in the rest of hos career. Maybe this is Soderling's time to make his move?

So he has more titles now than Rafter did at the same age, Rafter had a slam, which most people would see as being more important. If Rafters career ended at 25 and Soderling's ended now...who would rate higher, Rafter or Soderling? Rafter would probably get 8 votes out of every 10 even including the whole "woohoo soderling helped fed win the french by taking out his nemesis" factor, which is part of the reason some people worship, he helped their all time favorite player complete his career grand slam. This is the same type of stuff that people aid about Gasquet and look where he is now...maybe its time to make his next move and go higher, or maybe he becomes a male Marion Bartoli and goes pffftttttt next year.

BreakPoint
10-25-2009, 06:32 PM
Soderling has lived up to his seeding, and I think GSF is a little hard on him, but I highly doubt he's going to win a slam any time soon. I think he might be able to maintain his stay in the top 10 for awhile (certainly longer than Gasquet), but I really doubt he will maintain it for a long time considering how inconsistent he is.
If that's the case, then Rafter was even less likely to win a Slam at the same point in their careers.

grafselesfan
10-25-2009, 06:32 PM
So he has more titles now than Rafter did at the same age, Rafter had a slam, which most people would see as being more important. If Rafters career ended at 25 and Soderling's ended now...who would rate higher, Rafter or Soderling? Rafter would probably get 8 votes out of every 10 even including the whole "woohoo soderling helped fed win the french by taking out his nemesis" factor, which is part of the reason some people worship, he helped their all time favorite player complete his career grand slam. This is the same type of stuff that people aid about Gasquet and look where he is now...maybe its time to make his next move and go higher, or maybe he becomes a female Marion Bartoli and goes pffftttttt next year.

I think he is more likely the next Gasquet or Bartoli than the next Rafter. Lets put it that way.

NamRanger
10-25-2009, 06:34 PM
Timmy played some great tennis in 2004, really had a second prime almost like you said. It was such a shame the surfaces had been slowed. Imagine what he could have done that year otherwise, especialy at a Wimbledon played under the old true grass. He even won 2 of his 4 meetings with Federer in late 2003-2004.



Henman upsetting Federer at Wimbledon. Britain would be lit up with couches on fire everywhere.

NamRanger
10-25-2009, 06:35 PM
If that's the case, then Rafter was even less likely to win a Slam at the same point in their careers.



Rafter's case is a highly unlikely one though. If we were playing a game of statistics, I'd bet that Soderling doesn't win one rather than him winning one.

lambielspins
10-25-2009, 06:36 PM
Rafter was ranked #14 the week that the '97 US Open started, which he won in the year he turned 25. He had done absolutely nothing before that. Soderling has already won 4 times as many tournaments and is already ranked #10.

Rafter at age 25 had won 2 tournaments. Soderling at age 25 had won 4 tournaments (and still has won only 4 at age 25). 4 is twice as much as 2, not 4 times as much. If you are going to troll atleast get your facts straight. Discounting Rafter's U.S Open in his tournament total is a joke since that came 3 months before his 25th birthday, and Soderlings 4th title only 1 month before his. Good luck to Soderling winning 6 more titles by next August like Rafter did, LOL!

BreakPoint
10-25-2009, 06:38 PM
So he has more titles now than Rafter did at the same age, Rafter had a slam, which most people would see as being more important. If Rafters career ended at 25 and Soderling's ended now...who would rate higher, Rafter or Soderling? Rafter would probably get 8 votes out of every 10 even including the whole "woohoo soderling helped fed win the french by taking out his nemesis" factor, which is part of the reason some people worship, he helped their all time favorite player complete his career grand slam. This is the same type of stuff that people aid about Gasquet and look where he is now...maybe its time to make his next move and go higher, or maybe he becomes a male Marion Bartoli and goes pffftttttt next year.
What if Soderling wins the Aus Open, French Open, and Wimbledon next year while he's still 25? Would you then say he's done more than Rafter at 25?

boredone3456
10-25-2009, 06:39 PM
What if Soderling wins the Aus Open, French Open, and Wimbledon next year while he's still 25? Would you then say he's done more than Rafter at 25?

yeah and you think he is going to do that??? you'd have better odds at winning the lottery....twice.

lambielspins
10-25-2009, 06:40 PM
What if Soderling wins the Aus Open, French Open, and Wimbledon next year while he's still 25? Would you then say he's done more than Rafter at 25?

Yeah and if Nadal wins the Calender Slam the next 3 years in a row would you then concede him as the GOAT? Even that has a better chance of happening than Soderling winning the first 3 slams next year.

BreakPoint
10-25-2009, 06:47 PM
Rafter at age 25 had won 2 tournaments. Soderling at age 25 had won 4 tournaments (and still has won only 4 at age 25). 4 is twice as much as 2, not 4 times as much. If you are going to troll atleast get your facts straight. Discounting Rafter's U.S Open in his tournament total is a joke since that came 3 months before his 25th birthday, and Soderlings 4th title only 1 month before his. Good luck to Soderling winning 6 more titles by next August like Rafter did, LOL!
Is it Soderling's fault that his birthday comes BEFORE the US Open while Rafter's birthday comes AFTER the US Open? What matters is what you did before the year you turned 25.

lambielspins
10-25-2009, 06:52 PM
Is it Soderling's fault that his birthday comes BEFORE the US Open while Rafter's birthday comes AFTER the US Open? What matters is what you did before the year you turned 25.

Soderling before the year he turned 25 had only 3 titles, so even by your new form of manipulative reasoning he still wouldnt have "4 times as many titles". What difference does it make that Soderling's birthday came before the U.S Open. It is not like he won the title there anyway like Rafter did. That only means at 25 he wasnt good enough to do what Rafter did at 24.

BreakPoint
10-25-2009, 07:03 PM
Soderling before the year he turned 25 had only 3 titles, so even by your new form of manipulative reasoning he still wouldnt have "4 times as many titles". What difference does it make that Soderling's birthday came before the U.S Open. It is not like he won the title there anyway like Rafter did. That only means at 25 he wasnt good enough to do what Rafter did at 24.
Huh? Rafter turned 25 the year he won his first US Open. Soderling turned 25 this year. Soderling won his 4th title earlier in the year that he turned 25 than Rafter won his 2nd title in the year that he turned 25. Thus, at the same point in their careers, Soderling had 4 times as many titles as Rafter for a couple of months. But, yes, if you look at the year before they both turned 25, then Soderling only had 3 times as many titles as Rafter at that point in their careers.

grafselesfan
10-25-2009, 07:06 PM
Huh? Rafter turned 25 the year he won his first US Open. Soderling turned 25 this year. Soderling won his 4th title earlier in the year that he turned 25 than Rafter won his 2nd title in the year that he turned 25. Thus, at the same point in their careers, Soderling had 4 times as many titles as Rafter for a couple of months. But, yes, if you look at the year before they both turned 25, then Soderling only had 3 times as many titles as Rafter at that point in their careers.

ROTFL at your desperate new twisted form of argument. So Soderling now had 4 times as many titles for the span of 2 months based on the reasoning "the year they turned that age, but not exactly at that age since Rafter's birthday was 4 months later in the year", and that the period of 2 months has already passed as we speak even under that ridiculous form of reasoning. Talk about desperate.

Who gives a damn. By the end of next year Rafter will have more titles than Soderling in addition to 2 more slams at the same point in their careers. Get off Soderling's jockstrap seriously. The only reason you love this guy is he beat Nadal at the French, otherwise you wouldnt give two cents about him.

jmverdugo
10-25-2009, 07:29 PM
IMO Fed is not an All Court Player, at least is not succesfull at doing it, for example, everytime he goes on the S&V mode he goes down to 15-40, and a lot of times he lost that game. He wants to play like that but few times he actually succeds and IMO his volley skills are just good enough, there are better on today's game. He wins more points hitting winners from the baseline than approaching and volleying.

mandy01
10-25-2009, 11:36 PM
Lendl has higher net number in a single match than Federer does in a whole tournament sometimes. Please, don't even try and argue against FACTS.uhm.......so? I didnt know Lendl's times had the same conditions as of today.
Roger is very much an all-courter who plays a game that suits today's conditions.
All that said he knows how to construct points that allow him to finish then off at the net which what an all-courter does.
Like I said before just being a great volleyer does NOT define an all-court player.
A typical all-court player has all dimensions to his game which Roger very much does whether you like it or not.It is upto him to decide how he should play the game.
An all-courter plays a style that suits the conditions prevailing..Really I dont know where Lendl even comes here.You really have no argument with that.

mandy01
10-25-2009, 11:41 PM
That's why I voted Federer to have the best forehand in the game in another thread? Try again. Yeah thats the only dimension of his you'll vote for as if throwing him a bone :lol:

mandy01
10-25-2009, 11:58 PM
Lendl came to the net alot more often than Federer did even in the old days. Against Edberg at the USO in 92 or 91 (I forgot which year it was), he came to the net something like 60-80 times over a 5 set match. Federer doesn't even come 60 times to the net in a tournament sometimes. Come on BP, both me and you know why Federer doesn't come to the net. He doesn't have to with his godlike forehand, anticipation, superior placement, etc.




. JennyS made a list of net approaches for this year.Not bad I say.

Federer's net approaches in notable matches this year...

Australian Open final: 60
Wimbledon final: 59
US Open final: 47
Wimbledon semi: 38 .( a straight set victory..so not bad.)
US Open semi 36
US Open quarterfinal: 32


last year.
US Open final- 44 net approaches.Again,for a straight set victory-not bad at all.
So if you're going to hand-pick matches do so for both players.
Really,it looks like you dont watch Federer play mostly.More than half the times you're just random,picking out a couple of matches here and there.

Anyway,net approaches,like we've seen dont win you matches.
Roger is not a serve and volleyer-he's not going to come to the net persistently.
As an all-courter-He's as good as it gets.

Ultra2HolyGrail
10-26-2009, 12:00 AM
Can fed play a all court game? Obviously. Does he? Obviously not.

mandy01
10-26-2009, 12:12 AM
Can fed play a all court game? Obviously. Does he? Obviously not.
over-simplistic analysis.

grafselesfan
10-26-2009, 01:38 AM
Yeah thats the only dimension of his you'll vote for as if throwing him a bone :lol:

It is the only thing he is best at. He is definitely one of the best movers, maybe even in history, but Nadal is still probably the king of the current players here (or atleast was before his injury). His serve is excellent and a major weapon but there are still better servers even today. There are also better returners, and definitely better backhands. There are better volleyers, even amongst todays volley-immune field. In terms of the mental game Nadal is clearly the king of the current field here too. So why would anyone be picking him as best at any dimnesion outside of possibly the forehand. He isnt really the very best at anything else.

Blinkism
10-26-2009, 01:50 AM
Too many people are taking the opinion that Federer is not an all-court player as some kind of offense or putdown to Fed.

On the other hand, 90% of those here who are saying Fed is not an all-court player ARE trying to put down Fed.

So there's very little reasonable and logical discussion here.

Also, there's some confusion between all-surface and all-court style of play. Federer is a man for all surfaces, no denying that. But does he play an all-court style of game? That's the question.

I'm of the opinion that, since 2007 especially, Federer's made his bread and butter on the baseline and so calling him an all-court player wouldn't be accurate, in the traditional sense.

But, are we talking about Federer's current form or his form throughout his entire career?

From 2002-2005 he had a more well-rounded net game and elements of serve-and-volley tennis. His game has elements of defensive baseline tennis, aggressive baseline tennis, and all-court tennis.

overall, though, he is a superb baseline player with a very strong serve. Not an all-court player, in the traditional sense (not that he doesn't sometimes mix it up, he can do whatever he wants, really- especially when he zones in). There's a difference between what Federer CAN do, and what he DOES do most of the time.

Federer is somewhere between a baseliner and an all-court player, leaning closer to a baseliner.

So my vote is no because I don't think Federer fits neatly enough into the category of "all-court player", but is much more of a hybrid "offensive/defensive baseliner" at the end of the day.

That being said, I don't value all-court tennis over offensive/defensive baseline tennis when it's Fed. Like I said before, Fed can play however he wants so clearly the way he choses to play is superior to anything else he could do. And he could play all-court tennis, counter-punching tennis, and serve-and-volley tennis. We've all seen his variety.

My $0.02

jamesblakefan#1
10-26-2009, 02:01 AM
It is the only thing he is best at. He is definitely one of the best movers, maybe even in history, but Nadal is still probably the king of the current players here (or atleast was before his injury). His serve is excellent and a major weapon but there are still better servers even today. There are also better returners, and definitely better backhands. There are better volleyers, even amongst todays volley-immune field. In terms of the mental game Nadal is clearly the king of the current field here too. So why would anyone be picking him as best at any dimnesion outside of possibly the forehand. He isnt really the very best at anything else.

I think Mr. Federer is the best at winning Grand Slams. I don't know, that's just me though. :confused:

:lol:

mandy01
10-26-2009, 02:06 AM
It is the only thing he is best at. He is definitely one of the best movers, maybe even in history, but Nadal is still probably the king of the current players here (or atleast was before his injury). His serve is excellent and a major weapon but there are still better servers even today. There are also better returners, and definitely better backhands. There are better volleyers, even amongst todays volley-immune field. In terms of the mental game Nadal is clearly the king of the current field here too. So why would anyone be picking him as best at any dimnesion outside of possibly the forehand. He isnt really the very best at anything else.
I stopped reading right there.

mandy01
10-26-2009, 03:48 AM
overall, though, he is a superb baseline player with a very strong serve. Not an all-court player, in the traditional sense (not that he doesn't sometimes mix it up, he can do whatever he wants, really- especially when he zones in). There's a difference between what Federer CAN do, and what he DOES do most of the time.

Federer is somewhere between a baseliner and an all-court player, leaning closer to a baseliner.

So my vote is no because I don't think Federer fits neatly enough into the category of "all-court player", but is much more of a hybrid "offensive/defensive baseliner" at the end of the day.

That being said, I don't value all-court tennis over offensive/defensive baseline tennis when it's Fed. Like I said before, Fed can play however he wants so clearly the way he choses to play is superior to anything else he could do. And he could play all-court tennis, counter-punching tennis, and serve-and-volley tennis. We've all seen his variety.

My $0.02

There's no question of taking offense.

As for your definition of a traditional all-courter-You wont find one.Players play the game according to prevailing conditions.
Also like zagor pointed out there's a distinct possibility that Roger brought about certain changes in order to succeed on clay,particularly at the French Open.

The point is-Federer has all the options to his game which he DOES switch on to ( even if its not very persistently) and thats good enough to be an all-courter.

Every all-courter leans closer to one particular style of play while being able to execute all his options well.You cant find the 'perfect' all -court player anyway.

Cesc Fabregas
10-26-2009, 04:03 AM
There's no question of taking offense.

As for your definition of a traditional all-courter-You wont find one.Players play the game according to prevailing conditions.
Also like zagor pointed out there's a distinct possibility that Roger brought about certain changes in order to succeed on clay,particularly at the French Open.

The point is-Federer has all the options to his game which he DOES switch on to ( even if its not very persistently) and thats good enough to be an all-courter.

Every all-courter leans closer to one particular style of play while being able to execute all his options well.You cant find the 'perfect' all -court player anyway.

http://www.dolshouse.com/queensmen/image/pete_rwb.jpg

mandy01
10-26-2009, 04:05 AM
^^HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA :lol:

FAIL

Cesc Fabregas
10-26-2009, 04:07 AM
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA :lol:

FAIL

Why? Sampras is the complete all-court player.

mandy01
10-26-2009, 04:10 AM
Why? Sampras is the complete all-court player.
I didnt know Sampras was a great councher-puncher,I didnt know he was great at agressive baseline play.Good,he was..Great ,he wasnt..He dosent even come close to Federer when it comes to baseline prowess just like Roger dosent come close when it comes to volleying.

Seeing how quickly he tried to finish off the points by coming to net more often than not-especially on the first serve,
to call him a 'perfect' all-courter dosent make any sense at all.

NonP
10-26-2009, 04:25 AM
All-court != all-around.

Actually, all-court is a strategy based on court coverage, whereas all-around means being well-rounded in nearly every shot and aspect of the playerís game.

Even so, he indeed is both all-court and all-around player.

By what standards? And which Federer are you referring to? One wouldíve been hard-pressed to call the current Fed an all-court player in the past. But yes, Iíd call him an all-around player, though his transition/net game isnít quite top-notch and wouldíve called for improvement in previous eras.

PS: VERY nice of you calling people 'fanboys' :|

Interesting that you chide a poster for using what you consider an objectionable term to describe an undefined group of people, when another poster trotted out a more objectionable term to insult a specific group immediately after. But Iím sure your take on this issue didnít influence your decision to criticize--or not--one of the two parties involved.

NonP
10-26-2009, 04:30 AM
Too many people are taking the opinion that Federer is not an all-court player as some kind of offense or putdown to Fed.

On the other hand, 90% of those here who are saying Fed is not an all-court player ARE trying to put down Fed.

So there's very little reasonable and logical discussion here.

Also, there's some confusion between all-surface and all-court style of play. Federer is a man for all surfaces, no denying that. But does he play an all-court style of game? That's the question.

I'm of the opinion that, since 2007 especially, Federer's made his bread and butter on the baseline and so calling him an all-court player wouldn't be accurate, in the traditional sense.

But, are we talking about Federer's current form or his form throughout his entire career?

From 2002-2005 he had a more well-rounded net game and elements of serve-and-volley tennis. His game has elements of defensive baseline tennis, aggressive baseline tennis, and all-court tennis.

overall, though, he is a superb baseline player with a very strong serve. Not an all-court player, in the traditional sense (not that he doesn't sometimes mix it up, he can do whatever he wants, really- especially when he zones in). There's a difference between what Federer CAN do, and what he DOES do most of the time.

Federer is somewhere between a baseliner and an all-court player, leaning closer to a baseliner.

So my vote is no because I don't think Federer fits neatly enough into the category of "all-court player", but is much more of a hybrid "offensive/defensive baseliner" at the end of the day.

That being said, I don't value all-court tennis over offensive/defensive baseline tennis when it's Fed. Like I said before, Fed can play however he wants so clearly the way he choses to play is superior to anything else he could do. And he could play all-court tennis, counter-punching tennis, and serve-and-volley tennis. We've all seen his variety.

My $0.02

Now this is a good post, free of blind hero-worship and gratuitous bashing. Good to see some reason among the rigmarole.

mandy01
10-26-2009, 04:47 AM
Now this is a good post, free of blind hero-worship and gratuitous bashing. Good to see some reason among the rigmarole.No.its got some good points but overall its just what you agree with.

mandy01
10-26-2009, 04:48 AM
By what standards? And which Federer are you referring to? One would’ve been hard-pressed to call the current Fed an all-court player in the past. But yes, I’d call him an all-around player, though his transition/net game isn’t quite top-notch and would’ve called for improvement in previous eras.



. Since when does transition only have to take place at the net? :-?


Thats a genuine question btw.

NonP
10-26-2009, 05:13 AM
No.its got some good points but overall its just what you agree with.

At least he treated the OP's question seriously instead of launching into a knee-jerk reaction. That can't be said of quite a few other posters here.

Since when does transition only have to take place at the net? :-?


Thats a genuine question btw.

Transition game usually refers to transitioning from the baseline to the net. I don't think there's any question whether Fed transitions well around the baseline.

mandy01
10-26-2009, 05:15 AM
At least he treated the OP's question seriously instead of launching into a knee-jerk reaction. That can't be said of quite a few other posters here.



Transition game usually refers to transitioning from the baseline to the net. I don't think there's any question whether Fed transitions well around the baseline.
Alright.We agree on both counts :wink:

NamRanger
10-26-2009, 05:27 AM
At least he treated the OP's question seriously instead of launching into a knee-jerk reaction. That can't be said of quite a few other posters here.



Transition game usually refers to transitioning from the baseline to the net. I don't think there's any question whether Fed transitions well around the baseline.




Oh look, everyone posted a knee jerk reaction!




Federer is not an all-court player by the traditional definition that has lasted for a very long time up until now, due to the ITF's decision to make all surfaces more uniform.

NonP
10-26-2009, 05:30 AM
Alright.We agree on both counts :wink:

Good to know. Think most of the venom is due to the confusion of all-court with all-around. Those two aren't the same thing. One can be an all-courter but still be a mediocre player. No shame in sticking to a single strategy as long as you're winning.

NamRanger
10-26-2009, 05:31 AM
Good to know. Think most of the venom is due to the confusion of all-court with all-around. Those two aren't the same thing. One can be an all-courter but still be a mediocre player. No shame in sticking to a single strategy as long as you're winning.




This is the key word. Playing all-court tennis is a strategy. Yet Federer's strategy in recent years has been simply about baselining till the cows come home.

mandy01
10-26-2009, 05:32 AM
Good to know. Think most of the venom is due to the confusion of all-court with all-around. Those two aren't the same thing. One can be an all-courter but still be a mediocre player. No shame in sticking to a single strategy as long as you're winning. This is true.
It is actually very hard to form a winning strategy when you have so many options to go for.

mandy01
10-26-2009, 05:33 AM
This is the key word. Playing all-court tennis is a strategy. Yet Federer's strategy in recent years has been simply about baselining till the cows come home. you know yourself this is not true.Either that or you simply havent seen Roger play in recent years.

NonP
10-26-2009, 05:37 AM
Federer is not an all-court player by the traditional definition that has lasted for a very long time up until now, due to the ITF's decision to make all surfaces more uniform.

And the changes in racquet and string technology, though I suspect the S&V and all-court styles will return eventually. There's simply not enough evidence that S&V is obsolete for good because few players practice it anymore. But you're right, heterogenization of surfaces would help.

NamRanger
10-26-2009, 05:43 AM
you know yourself this is not true.Either that or you simply havent seen Roger play in recent years.



In the critical moments of a match, Federer relies on ONE weapon, and that is his forehand. Period. It is during these critcial moments of a match that we see who a player for he really is. Nadal is a defensive baseliner, Djokovic plays aggressive baselining tennis, Sampras charges behind his serve, and Federer stays behind the baseline and uses his forehand (oh snap a baseliner).

NamRanger
10-26-2009, 05:46 AM
And the changes in racquet and string technology, though I suspect the S&V and all-court styles will return eventually. There's simply not enough evidence that S&V is obsolete for good because few players practice it anymore. But you're right, heterogenization of surfaces would help.



I think racquet and string technology have something to do with it, but faster serves / groundstrokes should mean less balls into play. Overall, we see more returns into play and more winners returned than we usually do. And that has nothing to do with racquet and string technology, and everything to do with the surface.

NonP
10-26-2009, 05:46 AM
This is the key word. Playing all-court tennis is a strategy. Yet Federer's strategy in recent years has been simply about baselining till the cows come home.

I wouldn't go that far. He still mixes up a little, just not enough to be called an all-court player by yesteryear's standards.

This is true.
It is actually very hard to form a winning strategy when you have so many options to go for.

Of course one can flip this around and say it's actually easier to form a winning strategy when you have much variety, which Fed clearly does.

Anyway I'm done with this nomenclature back-and-forth for now. You two can carry on.

mandy01
10-26-2009, 05:47 AM
In the critical moments of a match, Federer relies on ONE weapon, and that is his forehand. Period. It is during these critcial moments of a match that we see who a player for he really is. Nadal is a defensive baseliner, Djokovic plays aggressive baselining tennis, Sampras charges behind his serve, and Federer stays behind the baseline and uses his forehand (oh snap a baseliner).
LOL no! How many matches have you really seen? :lol:
But I like your progression-You went from calling Roger just a forehand basher who overpowers his opponent with that shot to saying he uses his forehand in the key moments.

NamRanger
10-26-2009, 05:49 AM
LOL no! How many matches have you really seen? :lol:
But I like your progression-You went from calling Roger just a forehand basher who overpowers his opponent with that shot to saying he uses his forehand in the key moments.



I like how you defend Roger Federer to every single criticism thrown at him. I never called him a forehand basher like Gonzalez. Federer's strategy revolves on his one big weapon, the forehand. It's just that his supporting tools also happen to be really good, so he has more options to set it up.

mandy01
10-26-2009, 05:52 AM
I like how you defend Roger Federer to every single criticism thrown at him. I never called him a forehand basher like Gonzalez. Federer's strategy revolves on his one big weapon, the forehand. It's just that his supporting tools also happen to be really good, so he has more options to set it up.
If you really think thats the only thing he does ,I know you arent going to change your mind so there's no point arguing about this,really.
We'll agree to disagree.
btw-you're right.I do defend mindless criticism.
These days I make fun of it :lol:
In this case-I am disagreeing with you.

NonP
10-26-2009, 05:55 AM
I think racquet and string technology have something to do with it, but faster serves / groundstrokes should mean less balls into play. Overall, we see more returns into play and more winners returned than we usually do. And that has nothing to do with racquet and string technology, and everything to do with the surface.

Um, I can say from personal experience that I can counterpunch better with my new racquets, on the same surface. You're oversimplifying again. I've got no beef if you just say the surface is the bigger culprit, but to say racquets/strings have nothing to do with the change is simply inaccurate.

NamRanger
10-26-2009, 07:41 AM
Um, I can say from personal experience that I can counterpunch better with my new racquets, on the same surface. You're oversimplifying again. I've got no beef if you just say the surface is the bigger culprit, but to say racquets/strings have nothing to do with the change is simply inaccurate.




I do agree that passing shots and counter punching is easier with a more powerful racquet, however that is a non-factor if the surfaces were faster, as you would most likely never get your racquet on the ball. Wimbledon in the early to late 90s with graphite racquets is a great example of this; the best counter punchers even with more modern graphite racquets were not capable of adjusting because of the extreme speed of the surface.

OJ ROD
10-26-2009, 07:47 AM
I wouldn't go that far. He still mixes up a little, just not enough to be called an all-court player by yesteryear's standards.



Of course one can flip this around and say it's actually easier to form a winning strategy when you have much variety, which Fed clearly does.

Anyway I'm done with this nomenclature back-and-forth for now. You two can carry on.

I had to look that up:).(basically vocubulary used in certain art, science or field<EX. forehand down the line, serve down the T, tweener, Ect.>, or did I misunderstand?)

NamRanger
10-26-2009, 07:49 AM
I had to look that up:).(basically vocubulary used in certain art, science or field<EX. forehand down the line, serve down the T, tweener, Ect.>, or did I misunderstand?)



Basically those who are arguing over this are essentially arguing over the very definition of all-court tennis. Since definitions of words will always be disagreed over, this argument will continue to go on forever and never end.

NamRanger
10-26-2009, 08:33 AM
Actually NamRanger thinks Fed is a pure baseliner as well.



You think Del Potro currently has a better forehand than Federer, and that Federer has an equal 2nd serve to Sampras, and a better serve overall than Roddick and Karlovic.



Please, let's not even go there. I think I've shot the small slither of credibility that you had left. Federer in deed is a baseliner at heart. Want to know why? Because I've been watching him since the freaking 90s dude. He BASELINED ON INDOOR CARPET. That is his NATURAL INSTINCT.

NamRanger
10-26-2009, 08:39 AM
Haas is taller than Federer and I think the only thing that Haas does clearly worse than Federer is his movement. To me, that's about it, but of course movement is the most important part of singles tennis. But from a non-physical/skills standpoint, Haas also has a much weaker mental game. He's just not nearly as mentally tough as Federer and can't keep his emotions under control. I think that's the main thing that has hindered Haas throughout his career. I think if he was as mentally tough as Federer, he would have won a few Grand Slams.



Haas is probably right on par with Federer on height. An inch doesn't make THAT much of a difference. It is clear who hits the ball harder though and who is stronger. Federer can crank it up above 130 on the serve if he wants to. Haas struggles just to hit 120 most of the time, which is a comfortable range for Federer.

NonP
10-26-2009, 09:26 AM
I do agree that passing shots and counter punching is easier with a more powerful racquet, however that is a non-factor if the surfaces were faster, as you would most likely never get your racquet on the ball. Wimbledon in the early to late 90s with graphite racquets is a great example of this; the best counter punchers even with more modern graphite racquets were not capable of adjusting because of the extreme speed of the surface.

But it's not just the surface, but also the player's early training, the current climate of baseline bashing among the pros (of course these first two factors are related), and, yes, the easier control due to the new tech. It's hard to say which of these factors contributed most to the baseline orthodoxy we see today, though we do agree that the surface is the biggest one. I just disagree that it's the only factor.

Just look at what happened at Wimbledon this year. Haas made his 1st major SF and even Robert Kendrick was able to trouble Murray. How did they do that? Yes, with good ol' S&V. And also recall how Fish was able to give Nadal such a hard time with S&V in last year's USO QF, at least until the 2nd set when he started being Fish and flubbing makeable shots. That tells me the slower surfaces may not be the only factor, if we're still talking about the paucity of S&V and all-court styles.

grafselesfan
10-26-2009, 09:30 AM
I didnt know Sampras was a great councher-puncher,I didnt know he was great at agressive baseline play.Good,he was..Great ,he wasnt..He dosent even come close to Federer when it comes to baseline prowess just like Roger dosent come close when it comes to volleying.


You are so clueless on Sampras's abilities it isnt even funny. First of all Sampras was one of the most devastating agressive baseliners there was. He was lethal on groundstroke attack, especialy off the forehand. Counterpunching play? Maybe not, but he was very good on defense. Extremely quick around the court, was excellent at making recovery shots from defensive spots on the court, he was deceptively hard to hit winners against from the backcourt.

NonP
10-26-2009, 09:31 AM
I had to look that up:).(basically vocubulary used in certain art, science or field<EX. forehand down the line, serve down the T, tweener, Ect.>, or did I misunderstand?)

Yeah, I think you got it right. I didn't think it's an obscure word. LOL. (I'm not laughing at you, BTW. It's not just the way you said it, but also your incidentally appropriate avatar.)

NamRanger
10-26-2009, 09:32 AM
You are so clueless on Sampras's abilities it isnt even funny. First of all Sampras was one of the most devastating agressive baseliners there was. He was lethal on groundstroke attack, especialy off the forehand. Counterpunching play? Maybe not, but he was very good on defense. Extremely quick around the court, was excellent at making recovery shots from defensive spots on the court, he was deceptively hard to hit winners against from the backcourt.



Sampras was the second fastest guy on the tour behind Chang. Pat Etcheberrey (trainer for Agassi, Sampras, Henin, etc.) said that Sampras' athleticism was extremely underrated

crazylevity
10-26-2009, 09:45 AM
You think Del Potro currently has a better forehand than Federer, and that Federer has an equal 2nd serve to Sampras, and a better serve overall than Roddick and Karlovic.



Please, let's not even go there. I think I've shot the small slither of credibility that you had left. Federer in deed is a baseliner at heart. Want to know why? Because I've been watching him since the freaking 90s dude. He BASELINED ON INDOOR CARPET. That is his NATURAL INSTINCT.

You are right to say that sticking on the baseline appears to be Federer's natural instinct, I do not dispute that at all. However, do consider that there isn't any player who is truly all-court in the sense that they have equal preference for every style of play. When the chips were down, Sampras went for his serve and charged the net. When the chips were down, he would block first serves, but any second serve he would chip and charge. Thus we can also say that although Sampras had all-court ability, his natural instinct and tendency was to S&V. Which is the same with Federer; he has all-court ability with a natural tendency to aggressive baseline play.

I don't believe for one moment that there is any player that is truly all-court. Surely some aspects of the player's game are more dominant than others.

MichaelChang
10-26-2009, 09:48 AM
Is Nadal a Serve & Volley player? :)

In Federer is not all-court, then who is all-court?

NamRanger
10-26-2009, 09:58 AM
You are right to say that sticking on the baseline appears to be Federer's natural instinct, I do not dispute that at all. However, do consider that there isn't any player who is truly all-court in the sense that they have equal preference for every style of play. When the chips were down, Sampras went for his serve and charged the net. When the chips were down, he would block first serves, but any second serve he would chip and charge. Thus we can also say that although Sampras had all-court ability, his natural instinct and tendency was to S&V. Which is the same with Federer; he has all-court ability with a natural tendency to aggressive baseline play.

I don't believe for one moment that there is any player that is truly all-court. Surely some aspects of the player's game are more dominant than others.



So Agassi is an allcourt player now because he occasionally came to the net?

jazzyfunkybluesy
10-26-2009, 10:48 AM
He is definitely an all courter and when he goes to net the point is usually over in his favor.

mandy01
10-26-2009, 11:05 AM
You are so clueless on Sampras's abilities it isnt even funny. First of all Sampras was one of the most devastating agressive baseliners there was. He was lethal on groundstroke attack, especialy off the forehand. Counterpunching play? Maybe not, but he was very good on defense. Extremely quick around the court, was excellent at making recovery shots from defensive spots on the court, he was deceptively hard to hit winners against from the backcourt. You should be the LAST one to accuse anyone of cluelessness when especially you're the very epitome of it.All you do is overrate all of Sampras's abilities all the time .You'll just spice up any and every aspect of his game.Selective memory and exaggeration and double standards are your forte.
Its not even like I called Sampras crap from the baseline.I said he was good ,yet you got all defensive and started lecturing me about his baseline abilities :lol:
Really take a breath and learn to comprehend before responding.

Cesc Fabregas
10-26-2009, 11:09 AM
You should be the LAST one to accuse anyone of cluelessness when especially since you're the very epitome of it.All you do is overrate Sampras's abilities all the time.

Overrate Sampras abilities? Sampras has 14 majors. The fact that you don't think Sampras was a good agressive baseliner makes you hard to take seriously.

LiveForever
10-26-2009, 11:14 AM
Overrate Sampras abilities? Sampras has 14 majors. The fact that you don't think Sampras was a good agressive baseliner makes you hard to take seriously.

Really? :lol: when was this? Sampras was really agressive from the baseline. Even moreso than Federer however he didnt have Feds insane consistency.

mandy01
10-26-2009, 11:15 AM
Overrate Sampras abilities? Sampras has 14 majors. The fact that you don't think Sampras was a good agressive baseliner makes you hard to take seriously.Didnt I say he was good? Exactly how many times do you plan to fail at reading comprehension?
Oh..I am so sorry I didnt call GodSampras the GREATEST in every aspect of the game and didnt think he was on par with that Federer -clown from the baseline.:roll:

btw-Dont you underrate Federer's abilities?The guy has more Majors,a career slam,more masters titles,ridiculous consistency at the top and we still have to listen to your bullcr@p about how he is inferior to every other player from your beloved 90s and you have the nerve to call anyone clueless.

mandy01
10-26-2009, 11:36 AM
You are right to say that sticking on the baseline appears to be Federer's natural instinct, I do not dispute that at all. However, do consider that there isn't any player who is truly all-court in the sense that they have equal preference for every style of play. When the chips were down, Sampras went for his serve and charged the net. When the chips were down, he would block first serves, but any second serve he would chip and charge. Thus we can also say that although Sampras had all-court ability, his natural instinct and tendency was to S&V. Which is the same with Federer; he has all-court ability with a natural tendency to aggressive baseline play.

I don't believe for one moment that there is any player that is truly all-court. Surely some aspects of the player's game are more dominant than others. Exactly.I dont get why this is so hard to understand .

Sartorius
10-26-2009, 11:50 AM
The most one sided poll ever?

Surely at least one of them.

crazylevity
10-26-2009, 12:09 PM
So Agassi is an allcourt player now because he occasionally came to the net?

Come on now. Agassi's rate of net approaches is nowhere near Federer's, and his net play is nowhere near the level of Federer's. Watch Fed's doubles matches and pre-2002 Wimbledon matches.

What I think is key here is that all court ability can be demonstrated through the viable use of an alternative strategy. When facing a big hitter in the zone, Federer can change things up by serving and volleying some points, or sneaking into the net on short balls, or using short slices and drop shots. Federer has done this on many occasions with great success. When facing a similar predicament, Agassi would MOST LIKELY have more success moving the ball around from the baseline, or taking it on the rise, rather than Federer-like strategy changes. See the difference?

Cesc Fabregas
10-26-2009, 12:48 PM
Federer being an allcourt/S&Ver before 02 is a myth, I saw him in some matches in the late 90's and the only time he came to net was to shake hands at the end of the match.

BreakPoint
10-26-2009, 12:49 PM
Why? Sampras is the complete all-court player.
Serving and volleying on 100% of your first serves and almost 100% of your second serves not not make you an "all-court player". It makes you a serve and volleyer, just like Henman and Edberg.

mandy01
10-26-2009, 12:50 PM
Federer being an allcourt/S&Ver before 02 is a myth, I saw him in some matches in the late 90's and the only time he came to net was to shake hands at the end of the match.He was considered to be very talented but rather passive then.Kind of like Murray today.Enormous talent but simply passive and gutless at times.

All-rounder
10-26-2009, 12:52 PM
Wait wait can we come to a definition of all courter???

mandy01
10-26-2009, 12:54 PM
Serving and volleying on 100% of your first serves and almost 100% of your second serves not not make you an "all-court player". It makes you a serve and volleyer, just like Henman and Edberg.Sampras did not come in on his second serve in his prime and he was also good at dictating points from the back of the court but you're right ,according to the traditional definition and according what I learned when I took group lessons ,an all-courter dosent come to the net immediately after a first serve.He constructs a point in such a way that he can finish off at the net but even that is not necessary.The key is construction of points by using different options to win the point.

BreakPoint
10-26-2009, 12:55 PM
Federer being an allcourt/S&Ver before 02 is a myth, I saw him in some matches in the late 90's and the only time he came to net was to shake hands at the end of the match.
Tell me, how many times do you see Sampras (or Federer) NOT follow his serve into the net?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QlTbDY9p8r4

mandy01
10-26-2009, 12:55 PM
Wait wait can we come to a definition of all courter???
people have their own.

ksbh
10-26-2009, 01:09 PM
Sampras was an all-courter by the very definition of the word. It is true that he started to serve/volley toward the latter end of his career but that was actually a very smart move to improve longevity.

I think it's better if those Federer fans that have never seen Sampras play (youtube gazers especially) remain quiet about any discussion that concerns him. Their ignorance is amusing to say the least if not for anything but the utter tripe they write!

NamRanger
10-26-2009, 01:13 PM
Come on now. Agassi's rate of net approaches is nowhere near Federer's, and his net play is nowhere near the level of Federer's. Watch Fed's doubles matches and pre-2002 Wimbledon matches.

What I think is key here is that all court ability can be demonstrated through the viable use of an alternative strategy. When facing a big hitter in the zone, Federer can change things up by serving and volleying some points, or sneaking into the net on short balls, or using short slices and drop shots. Federer has done this on many occasions with great success. When facing a similar predicament, Agassi would MOST LIKELY have more success moving the ball around from the baseline, or taking it on the rise, rather than Federer-like strategy changes. See the difference?



So does this make Andy Roddick an allcourt player then? He adjusts his tactics according to his opponent and the surface.

mandy01
10-26-2009, 01:20 PM
Sampras was an all-courter by the very definition of the word. Then you ought to be kind enough to provide the exact definition.Its not like we havent seen utter tripe from Federer skeptics

NamRanger
10-26-2009, 01:22 PM
Then you ought to be kind enough to provide the exact definition.Its not like we havent seen utter tripe from Federer skeptics



So basically as long as you have variety of spins and transition to the net sometimes, they are an allcourt player in your book.



Therefore, Nadal and Roddick are allcourt players.

mandy01
10-26-2009, 01:24 PM
So basically as long as you have variety of spins and transition to the net sometimes, they are an allcourt player in your book.



Therefore, Nadal and Roddick are allcourt players.I think I gave you my opinion of an all-courter several times now.You as usual, over-simplified it.
So according to you all Federer does is adding different spins.
Nice. A different take ( though equally nonsensical) from your previous claim that he just 'overpowers' people with the forehand.

All-rounder
10-26-2009, 01:27 PM
people have their own.
I know this but the problem is that I don't know whether people mean all courter or all rounder.

BreakPoint
10-26-2009, 01:44 PM
Just look at what happened at Wimbledon this year. Haas made his 1st major SF and even Robert Kendrick was able to trouble Murray. How did they do that? Yes, with good ol' S&V.
Actually, Haas has made the semis of a couple of Australian Opens as well.

Blinkism
10-26-2009, 01:46 PM
Wow, so many people actually think that if Federer is not an all-court player that somehow that's a bad thing or makes Federer less of a player, somehow...

Stepanek, there's an all-courter... Santoro is an all-courter...

These players, however, are nowhere near as great as Federer.

Like someone said before, all-court doesn't mean all-around

mandy01
10-26-2009, 01:48 PM
Wow, so many people actually think that if Federer is not an all-court player that somehow that's a bad thing or makes Federer less of a player, somehow...

er....no?
I mean,people here are mostly putting forth their view point of Federer being an all-courter or not because its what the OP asked for.Thats what the back and forth is all about.

Cesc Fabregas
10-26-2009, 01:59 PM
Sampras did not come in on his second serve in his prime and he was also good at dictating points from the back of the court but you're right ,according to the traditional definition and according what I learned when I took group lessons ,an all-courter dosent come to the net immediately after a first serve.He constructs a point in such a way that he can finish off at the net but even that is not necessary.The key is construction of points by using different options to win the point.

So all-courters never S&V? another instance classic , I would quit whilst behind if I were you.

mandy01
10-26-2009, 02:02 PM
So all-courters never S&V? another instance classic , I would quit whilst behind if I were you.Did I say that? Another comprehension fail.
Behind? LOL :lol: Says the one who dosent even have an argument in the first place.
An all-courter typically dosent need to end points quickly and charge to the net imediately after a serve .This is what an S & Ver does normally.But since Sampras was also good from the baseline and stayed back on the second serve in his peak years quite a few times I'd call him an all-courter.
The difference between Sampras and Federer is that Sampras leaned more towards s&v while Roger leans more towards baseline style .
Either is fine because their styles are a result of the prevailing conditions.

NonP
10-26-2009, 02:05 PM
Actually, Haas has made the semis of a couple of Australian Opens as well.

Correct, I meant to say his 1st Wimbledon SF. My bad. In any case my point above still stands.

TMF
10-26-2009, 02:07 PM
Roger plays in an era where he evolved to baseline specialist simply b/c it's the right style to play. He's the best player ever behind the baseline. I'm sure if Roger was played in the 80 or 90s, he can develop into a great s/v player. He beat the very best baseliner(andre) in the 90's, and the best s/v player(pete) at SW19. I think he would of dominate tennis what ever kind of style he end up with that fit the game.

NamRanger
10-26-2009, 02:08 PM
I think I gave you my opinion of an all-courter several times now.You as usual, over-simplified it.
So according to you all Federer does is adding different spins.
Nice. A different take ( though equally nonsensical) from your previous claim that he just 'overpowers' people with the forehand.



So Roddick is an allcourt player. I rest my case.

mandy01
10-26-2009, 02:09 PM
I know it isnt on-topic but does anyone else think Wimbledon grass was faster this year?

mandy01
10-26-2009, 02:09 PM
So Roddick is an allcourt player. I rest my case.
....if that makes you sleep better at night,sure ...go ahead and call him one.
I mean he definitely has all the dimensions to his game and coming to the net and few hundred times is your only criteria of defining an all-courter so..whatever.

Cesc Fabregas
10-26-2009, 02:13 PM
So Roddick is an allcourt player. I rest my case.

Roddick is more of an all-court player than Federer, thats for sure...

rocket
10-26-2009, 02:14 PM
Both Federer & Sampras are all-courters. Sampras is an all-courter who thrived in a S&V era. Federer is an all-courter who thrives in a baseline bashing era.

Sampras has better groundies than the typical S&V'er; Fed has better volleys than the typical baseline basher.

Different eras - different playing styles, but same versatility.

P_Agony
10-26-2009, 02:15 PM
Both Federer & Sampras are all-courters. Sampras is an all-courter who thrived in a S&V era. Federer is an all-courter who thrives in a baseline bashing era.

Sampras has better groundies than the typical S&V'er; Fed has better volleys than the typical baseline basher.

Different eras - different playing styles, but same versatility.

Well written.

mandy01
10-26-2009, 02:16 PM
Both Federer & Sampras are all-courters. Sampras is an all-courter who thrived in a S&V era. Federer is an all-courter who thrives in a baseline bashing era.

Sampras has better groundies than the typical S&V'er; Fed has better volleys than the typical baseline basher.

Different eras - different playing styles, but same versatility.
Simple logic like this seems to be going really hard on certain posters here :sad:

NamRanger
10-26-2009, 02:19 PM
....if that makes you sleep better at night,sure ...go ahead and call him one.
I mean he definitely has all the dimensions to his game and coming to the net and few hundred times is your only criteria of defining an all-courter so..whatever.



Well a guy that comes to the net and plays from the baseline is an allcourt player right? That makes Roddick one. He even slices his backhand, holy crap!

Cesc Fabregas
10-26-2009, 02:22 PM
Well a guy that comes to the net and plays from the baseline is an allcourt player right? That makes Roddick one. He even slices his backhand, holy crap!

Roddick chips and charges dozens of times a match aswell.

LiveForever
10-26-2009, 02:22 PM
Well a guy that comes to the net and plays from the baseline is an allcourt player right? That makes Roddick one. He even slices his backhand, holy crap!
You know if you think about it, Andy has really improved his game from all areas this year. I have witnessed amazing play by him from all areas of the court. He plays better defense, he is more offensive from the baseline, and he ever serves and volleys pretty effectively now. He mixes it up very well now. Shame he was unable to capitalize at SW19.

LiveForever
10-26-2009, 02:23 PM
Hey guys can someone tell me when I get to edit my posts? thank you!

Blinkism
10-26-2009, 02:25 PM
Roger plays in an era where he evolved to baseline specialist simply b/c it's the right style to play. He's the best player ever behind the baseline. I'm sure if Roger was played in the 80 or 90s, he can develop into a great s/v player. He beat the very best baseliner(andre) in the 90's, and the best s/v player(pete) at SW19. I think he would of dominate tennis what ever kind of style he end up with that fit the game.

I agree with this sentiment.

Roger Federer can play pretty much any style he wants to.

And he decided to play a baseline style of tennis, so clearly that's better than play all-court (for him, atleast).

All-court tennis is overrated. Very few all-court players dominate tennis. All-courters, in the traditional sense. Like Santoro and Stepanek...

and maybe Zverev, too.

mandy01
10-26-2009, 02:25 PM
Well a guy that comes to the net and plays from the baseline is an allcourt player right? That makes Roddick one. He even slices his backhand, holy crap!
I already said you're free to assume away and over-simplify things since it suits your palate and makes you sleep better at night.

NamRanger
10-26-2009, 02:54 PM
I already said you're free to assume away and over-simplify things since it suits your palate and makes you sleep better at night.



No, that is the logic you are using. I'm sorry that I pointed out a fundamental flaw in your argument.

Netspirit
10-26-2009, 04:23 PM
Federer is a pusher.

(hides)

...Why do you guys need to classify everything and squeeze it into the cage of simplistic definitions? Federer is Federer, his game is X% baseline, Y% net (substitute the right numbers there), and that's his unique style that depends on his condition, on his opponent, on the surface, on the wind, on his mood, and his age, and on a million on other things. Do not define Federer, he is way more than a single term.

JeMar
10-26-2009, 04:35 PM
Well a guy that comes to the net and plays from the baseline is an allcourt player right? That makes Roddick one. He even slices his backhand, holy crap!

Roddick has evolved into an all-court player in this era, yes. It's not that surprising.

BreakPoint
10-26-2009, 04:48 PM
Roddick is more of an all-court player than Federer, thats for sure...
How many times have you ever seen Roddick serve and volley in your life?

How many times have you seen Federer serve and volley in your life?

There's no comparison.

Heck, Federer served and volleyed more times in that one single match against Sampras at the 2001 Wimbledon than Roddick has in his entire life.

skyzoo
10-26-2009, 04:52 PM
22 and counting

NamRanger
10-26-2009, 06:16 PM
How many times have you ever seen Roddick serve and volley in your life?

How many times have you seen Federer serve and volley in your life?

There's no comparison.

Heck, Federer served and volleyed more times in that one single match against Sampras at the 2001 Wimbledon than Roddick has in his entire life.



What a joke, Roddick S&Vs way more often than Federer does nowadays. You're kidding me right?

sh@de
10-26-2009, 07:16 PM
Federer is a pusher.

(hides)

...Why do you guys need to classify everything and squeeze it into the cage of simplistic definitions? Federer is Federer, his game is X% baseline, Y% net (substitute the right numbers there), and that's his unique style that depends on his condition, on his opponent, on the surface, on the wind, on his mood, and his age, and on a million on other things. Do not define Federer, he is way more than a single term.

haha this is one post I agree with in this thread actually.

FedGod
10-26-2009, 07:21 PM
haha this is one post I agree with in this thread actually.

+1 Fed's too good to pigeonhole in one style

Agassifan
10-26-2009, 07:54 PM
LOL @ the OP

mandy01
10-26-2009, 08:47 PM
No, that is the logic you are using. I'm sorry that I pointed out a fundamental flaw in your argument.
No.What you did was to over-simplify my line of thinking to suit your imagination just because you obviously dont have an argument anymore...
We've already seen your over-simplistic visions of Roger's game.So its not surprising you should do that in this case .It dosent prove a point no matter which way you're going to slice it.Go ahead.I dont mind.

NamRanger
10-26-2009, 09:00 PM
No.What you did was to over-simplify my line of thinking to suit your imagination just because you obviously dont have an argument anymore..
We've already seen your over-simplistic visions of Roger's game.So its not surprising you should do that in this case .It dosent prove a point no matter which way you're going to slice it though.
Go ahead.I dont mind.



"My name is Mandy, and Andy Roddick is an allcourt player!"



So what constitutes an allcourt player than?

mandy01
10-26-2009, 09:08 PM
"My name is Mandy, and Andy Roddick is an allcourt player!"



So what constitutes an allcourt player than? no. "Its my name is NamRanger and I've over-simplified Mandy's definition of an all-courter in order to label Roddick as one "

An all-courter is one who does WELL in all deptartments of the game.Both of us know Roddick lacks in more than just one department of his game.

OHBH
10-26-2009, 09:14 PM
Just look at the votes

Blinkism
10-26-2009, 09:27 PM
no. "Its my name is NamRanger and I've over-simplified Mandy's definition of an all-courter in order to label Roddick as one "

An all-courter is one who does WELL in all deptartments of the game.Both of us know Roddick lacks in more than just one department of his game.

I disagree

1) An all-courter doesn't have to do well in all departments, just like an offensive baseliner doesn't have to play offense well (and never achieves success). They just have to PLAY all parts of the court without preference. They can have a weak part of their game, all that matters is that they play the entire court.

2) An all-courter only plays as well as they can relative to the rest of the field. Covering the entire court is not a recipe for success in itself. Stepanek, Santoro, and Zverev are examples of guys who play the entire court.

How many slams do they have compared to baseliners like Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Safin, and Hewitt?

Clearly, the best way to play for the last decade has been from the baseline. Venturing past the baseline, on a consistent basis, hasn't given anyone major success.

This is something Federer not only realized, but fully took advantage of.

mandy01
10-26-2009, 09:33 PM
I disagree

1) An all-courter doesn't have to do well in all departments, just like an offensive baseliner doesn't have to play offense well (and never achieves success). They just have to PLAY all parts of the court without preference. They can have a weak part of their game, all that matters is that they play the entire court.

2) An all-courter only plays as well as they can relative to the rest of the field. Covering the entire court is not a recipe for success in itself. Stepanek, Santoro, and Zverev are examples of guys who play the entire court.

How many slams do they have compared to baseliners like Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Safin, and Hewitt?

Clearly, the best way to play for the last decade has been from the baseline. Venturing past the baseline, on a consistent basis, hasn't given anyone major success.

This is something Federer not only realized, but fully took advantage of.

1) I never said you have to be excellent in all departments.To do something well and to do something great are two different things.
Both of us know Roddick dosent have all the componenets of an all-courter.'Attempting' to play various shots dosent make you multi-dimensional.Just like that,slicing a few times,coming to net a handful number of times dosent make you an all-courter.
btw-Roddick's slice is just bad .....Not to mention he dosent exactly construct his points like an all-courter does.

2) I really wouldnt call Stepanek an all-courter.Not a good one atleast.I also never said that an all-courter is guaranteed success.Like I said you have to be able to manage all the componenets of your game well to be successful.
I think Roger does that.
Since for some people approaching the net is the only thing that defines an all-courter IMO Roger actually mixes his game up very well.

abmk
10-26-2009, 09:44 PM
Ivan wasn't a great volleyer but he is a better volleyer than Federer.

LMAO. Even Lendl would laughing listening to/reading statements like these !

abmk
10-26-2009, 09:54 PM
Lendl came to the net alot more often than Federer did even in the old days. Against Edberg at the USO in 92 or 91 (I forgot which year it was), he came to the net something like 60-80 times over a 5 set match. Federer doesn't even come 60 times to the net in a tournament sometimes. Come on BP, both me and you know why Federer doesn't come to the net. He doesn't have to with his godlike forehand, anticipation, superior placement, etc.

federer came to the net 84 times against rafa at rome in 2006 , your point would be ?


Hell, Bjorn Borg, who is supposedly is not talented according to you since he doesn't take the ball on the rise, S&Ved more often than Federer does today.

because of the surfaces those days .... you don't think borg would've been content to be at the baseline and rally had he played today ?

NamRanger
10-26-2009, 10:15 PM
1) I never said you have to be excellent in all departments.To do something well and to do something great are two different things.
Both of us know Roddick dosent have all the componenets of an all-courter.'Attempting' to play various shots dosent make you multi-dimensional.Just like that,slicing a few times,coming to net a handful number of times dosent make you an all-courter.
btw-Roddick's slice is just bad .....Not to mention he dosent exactly construct his points like an all-courter does.

2) I really wouldnt call Stepanek an all-courter.Not a good one atleast.I also never said that an all-courter is guaranteed success.Like I said you have to be able to manage all the componenets of your game well to be successful.
I think Roger does that.
Since for some people approaching the net is the only thing that defines an all-courter IMO Roger actually mixes his game up very well.




Yet Nadal volleys well (by the numbers) and has good return / serve statistics, yet you don't label him as an allcourt player.

mandy01
10-27-2009, 12:04 AM
Yet Nadal volleys well (by the numbers) and has good return / serve statistics, yet you don't label him as an allcourt player.
You are going desperately OT :lol:
First you brought up Lendl,then cesc-boy brought up Sampras now you bring in Roddick and Nadal :lol:
But then again,you ARE the king of over-simplification.

BreakPoint
10-27-2009, 12:10 AM
What a joke, Roddick S&Vs way more often than Federer does nowadays. You're kidding me right?
No, not kidding in the least.

How often do you EVER see Roddick serve and volley? Almost like never? He serves and stands back behind the baseline and looks to pound a forehand off of the return. He may look for short balls during rallies for an opportunity to slice a ball and come in, but he almost never rushes the net behind his serves to cut off the return with a volley.

Here's the highlights of the '09 Wimbledon final. Not ONCE did Roddick serve and volley: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5TmreB6MOio

Here's the entire 2nd set tiebreak. Not ONCE did Roddick serve and volley: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4ECBGLXQhc&feature=related

If Roddick doesn't serve and volley on grass, where else is he going to serve and volley? Like I said, Federer probably served and volleyed more times in that single match against Sampras at the '01 Wimbledon than Roddick has in all of his matches on the ATP Tour.

Blinkism
10-27-2009, 12:17 AM
1) I never said you have to be excellent in all departments.To do something well and to do something great are two different things.


And if you read what I posted again, I never implied you said that. I never said excellent or great. I stand by the original point


Both of us know Roddick dosent have all the componenets of an all-courter.'Attempting' to play various shots dosent make you multi-dimensional.Just like that,slicing a few times,coming to net a handful number of times dosent make you an all-courter.
btw-Roddick's slice is just bad .....Not to mention he dosent exactly construct his points like an all-courter does.


NamRanger is the one whose brought up Roddick so I won't comment much except to say I don't think Roddick is an all-courter.


2) I really wouldnt call Stepanek an all-courter.Not a good one atleast.I also never said that an all-courter is guaranteed success.Like I said you have to be able to manage all the componenets of your game well to be successful.
I think Roger does that.
Since for some people approaching the net is the only thing that defines an all-courter IMO Roger actually mixes his game up very well.

Whether he's good at it or not, Stepanek is much more of an all-courter than he is a baseliner.

I disagree that Roger plays an all-court game. Like 80% of the time (and yes, that's a completely made up estimate) he spends on the baseline. Whereas Stepanek probably spends something like 50-60% of the time on the baseline, and Zverev like 40%.. And Santoro, well, he's all over the court. He's a true all-courter.

Federer CAN play on all parts of the court, but the vast majority of his time on the court is spend on the baseline.

That is where he rules from.

He clearly made that choice strategically, figuring that incorporating more of the court into his game might expose weaknesses. Staying behind on the baseline is what's gotten him 15 Slams (well, you could argue that his first 4 slams were closer to all-court tennis, I guess) and that's better than any all-courter has ever done, in the Open Era, atleast...

mandy01
10-27-2009, 12:30 AM
And if you read what I posted again, I never implied you said that. I never said excellent or great. I stand by the original point



NamRanger is the one whose brought up Roddick so I won't comment much except to say I don't think Roddick is an all-courter.



Whether he's good at it or not, Stepanek is much more of an all-courter than he is a baseliner.

I disagree that Roger plays an all-court game. Like 80% of the time (and yes, that's a completely made up estimate) he spends on the baseline. Whereas Stepanek probably spends something like 50-60% of the time on the baseline, and Zverev like 40%.. And Santoro, well, he's all over the court. He's a true all-courter.

Federer CAN play on all parts of the court, but the vast majority of his time on the court is spend on the baseline.

That is where he rules from.

He clearly made that choice strategically, figuring that incorporating more of the court into his game might expose weaknesses. Staying behind on the baseline is what's gotten him 15 Slams (well, you could argue that his first 4 slams were closer to all-court tennis, I guess) and that's better than any all-courter has ever done, in the Open Era, atleast...

You have do well in all the departments.Really your point dosent stand.Just attempting something dosent make you an all-courter.

As to Stepanek and the rest of the post-You are also over-simplifying.
Really,All-court play isnt just about coming to net a few percentage of times and staying behind a few percentage of times.I dont know where you got the logic from
Stepanek does NOT defend well.He is not a good counter-puncher.He is dosent move that well.
Just playing a bit from the baseline and then coming in is NOT called being an all-courter.


I disagree about Roger and you should really try and bother to watch his matches.He mixes up his play extremely well.Being an all-courter ISNT about coming to net 80% of the time.
All-courters are usually the most talented lot as they are good in every department of the game. They have many options to go for since they're good at it all.They dont have to be excellent as long as they're able to construct their points well.
Roger mixes up his game extremely well.He dosent charge the net persistently because he NOT a serve and volleyer or dosent lean towards that style. But he does it quite a few times.He CONSTRUCTS his points.Really how many times do I need to repeat that? And his success rate at the net is pretty good.
Also an an all-courter can chose to play however he wants.Thats not going to make him less of a player of the style.
btw-Who told you all-courters cannot have a preference?

Blinkism
10-27-2009, 12:40 AM
You have do well in all the departments.Really your point dosent stand.Just attempting something dosent make you an all-courter.


Well, most all-courters in the Top 100 are doing well. It's just how well are they doing relative to baseliners?


As to Stepanek and the rest of the post-You are also over-simplifying.
Really,All-court play isnt just about coming to net a few percentage of times and staying behind a few percentage of times.I dont know where you got the logic from
Stepanek does NOT defend well.He is not a good counter-puncher.He is dosent move that well.
Just playing a bit from the baseline and then coming in is NOT called being an all-courter.


He doesn't defend well, no, against the big boys. BUT he does implement counter-punching style into his game.

It wins against 90% of everyone out of the Top 50, so you can't say he doesn't defend well.

In my definition of all-courter has to be able to play from anywhere in the courter, but this doesn't imply they have to adapt every strategy (offensive or defensive). An all-courter doesn't have to be defensive. Most, usually, aren't.


I disagree about Roger and you should really try and bother to watch his matches.He mixes up his play extremely well.Being an all-courter ISNT about coming to net 80% of the time.

I've been watching Roger since 2000 when no one knew or cared who he is. He was my favorite player for a long time.

When I say he is not an all-courter it's not because I think his style is inferior.

His brand of baseline tennis is what made me cheer for him.

He doesn't play like he used to, though... He definitely has simplified his game to a common denominator.

But, what he got was amazing seasons in 2006 and 2007 playing some of the best baseline tennis ever.


All-courters are usually the most talented lot as they are good in every department of the game. They have many options to go for since they're good at it all.They dont have to be excellent as long as they're able to construct their points well.
Roger mixes up his game extremely well.He dosent charge the net persistently because he NOT a serve and volleyer or dosent lean towards that style. But he does it quite a few times.He CONSTRUCTS his points.
Really how many times do I need to repeat that?

He plays from the baseline predominantly.

That's why he's a baseliner.

It doesn't mean he doesn't mix it up when he has to. He's got amazing variety.

Again, Mandy, it seems to me that you think all-court tennis is somehow superior to baseline tennis.

Just look at the past decade in retrospect and name how many all-court players have won slams?

Baseliners rule this decade, and Fed is the king of them all.

Cesc Fabregas
10-27-2009, 12:45 AM
LOL. Mandy doesn't have a clue what an all-court player is. Stepanek is definatley an all-court player, he S&Vs alot but not all the time, he attacks the net alot with chips and charges and agressive groundstrokes. Stepanek is most definatley an all-court player. What the hell does counter punching have to do with all-court?

mandy01
10-27-2009, 12:52 AM
Well first of all the argument here really isnt about whether all-court style trumps baseline tennis.
I for one most certainly feel that one should go for a style that one feels is effective.

Now re : stepanek-As I said before implementing something and doing something well are two different things.
Really none of those aspects of his game are ones that I'd call 'good'.

As regards Roger- I stand by what I've said dozens of times.Roger is an all-courter who leans more towards the baseline style.
Really there's no perfect all-courter here .Not a successful one anway.

mandy01
10-27-2009, 12:54 AM
LOL. Mandy doesn't have a clue what an all-court player is. Stepanek is definatley an all-court player, he S&Vs alot but not all the time, he attacks the net alot with chips and charges and agressive groundstrokes. Stepanek is most definatley an all-court player. What the hell does counter punching have to do with all-court?Ok
An all-courter is atleast good in ALL departments of the game.Serving and volleying and staying on the baseline occassionally or vice versa is NOT called all-court tennis.
Really atleast think before you speak.
All you are doing now is siding with those who dont think Federer is an all-courter and attacking me :lol:

Anyway I've made my points and I rest my case.All people here are doing is going around circles or going off-track and bringing up other players .

Blinkism
10-27-2009, 01:24 AM
I think we've both got different ideas of what an all-courter is, Mandy.

To me, all-courters are Stepanek, Santoro, Llodra, young T. Johansson, Zverev, and sometimes Tsonga. Bjorkman was an all-courter in the style of Tsonga.

You'll notice that a lot of these players are accomplished doubles players.

That's because all-court tennis, while not dominant in the singles sphere, is very common in doubles.

All-court tennis players are generalists, as opposed to specialists. Baseline specialists usually don't have problems with all-court players. And plenty of S&V players beat up on all-courters in the 90's.

Just look at poor Andrei Pavel in the 90's and Jurgen Melzer in the 2000's...

Federer is so great because his game is so specialized. He has very few weaknesses on the baseline.

The kind of "all-courter" you equate Fed with, it seems, are guys like Djokovic, Tsonga, Safin, and to an extent Hewitt and Roddick. That's why NamRanger brought him up, I suppose.

Those guys are all baseliners. They all have good nets game and CAN play from anywhere in the court, but don't most of the time. They rule from the baseline.

sh@de
10-27-2009, 02:01 AM
I think after something like a gazillion posts, we all agree that all courter =/= all rounder. The problem that remains is how much of the court does a player need to use before he is called an all courter? I think Fed comes in enough and mixes up enough to be called an all courter...

zagor
10-27-2009, 02:06 AM
LOL. Mandy doesn't have a clue what an all-court player is. Stepanek is definatley an all-court player, he S&Vs alot but not all the time, he attacks the net alot with chips and charges and agressive groundstrokes. Stepanek is most definatley an all-court player. What the hell does counter punching have to do with all-court?

Problem is that there's apparently no universal definition,everybody has his own opinion on what all-courter truly means so there can't really be an agreement on this.

sh@de
10-27-2009, 04:25 AM
Problem is that there's apparently no universal definition,everybody has his own opinion on what all-courter truly means so there can't really be an agreement on this.

this is starting to become like the GOAT debates. :neutral::-?

Cesc Fabregas
10-27-2009, 07:48 AM
I think people have delusions of grandeur about Federer's game, they think he is 'old school' and plays a 'classical', when in reality Federer is a power baseliner who is the product of the graphite era.

Cesc Fabregas
10-27-2009, 07:49 AM
I think people have delusions of grandeur about Federer's game (Federer fans mostly), they think he is 'old school' and plays a 'classical', when in reality Federer is a power baseliner who is the product of the graphite era.

jamesblakefan#1
10-27-2009, 07:51 AM
I think people have delusions of grandeur about Federer's game, they think he is 'old school' and plays a 'classical', when in reality Federer is a power baseliner who is the product of the graphite era.

Federer isn't Gonzalez though. He has the ability to play from all parts of the court and be effective in doing so. I think that's what people are pointing to when they call him an all courter, not that he does it all of the time, but he has no problem in playing from all parts of the court to win points.

TheMagicianOfPrecision
10-27-2009, 08:00 AM
Carrying on from another thread. I vote no, what do you think?
Of course he is, how can you possibly say no??
Without Nadal Fed would have had 4-5 French Opens, 4 AO and 7 Wimbledons...LOL, if that isnt all court no one is, and i assume you think Nadal is all-court?

dropshot winner
10-27-2009, 08:03 AM
I think people have delusions of grandeur about Federer's game (Federer fans mostly), they think he is 'old school' and plays a 'classical', when in reality Federer is a power baseliner who is the product of the graphite era.

Federer is one of the few players left with a one-handed backhand, solid volleys and a great slice. That's why.

The JDMPs, Nadals, Djokovics and so on are just top spinning 24/7, so Federer (and guys like Petzschner) really is as classic as it gets these days.

ksbh
10-27-2009, 08:15 AM
TMOP ... of all people, I didn't expect such a grossly ignorant & foolish statement from you!

All surface not equal to All court!

Of course he is, how can you possibly say no??
Without Nadal Fed would have had 4-5 French Opens, 4 AO and 7 Wimbledons...LOL, if that isnt all court no one is, and i assume you think Nadal is all-court?

ksbh
10-27-2009, 08:19 AM
Mandy has carved out her own laughable definition of all-court tennis in order to make Federer seem like one! She's an utterly charming lady but her tennis knowledge certainly lags far behind her feminine skills!

Much as I hate to say this, NamRanger has been spot on with his comments time and again in this thread and he couldn't have made it any easier to understand! Yet, some of the Federer fans can't quite grasp it. Disappointing!

ksbh
10-27-2009, 08:27 AM
Cesc ... are you a sharpshooter?! Spot on, yet again!

Federer is a tremendous beneficiary of technology, just in the manner that Federer lovers claim his illustrious Spaniard compatriot is!

I think people have delusions of grandeur about Federer's game (Federer fans mostly), they think he is 'old school' and plays a 'classical', when in reality Federer is a power baseliner who is the product of the graphite era.

TheMagicianOfPrecision
10-27-2009, 08:29 AM
TMOP ... of all people, I didn't expect such a grossly ignorant & foolish statement from you!

All surface not equal to All court!
Oh sorry, stupid mistake...should have read the title more closely

rocket
10-27-2009, 08:32 AM
Mandy has carved out her own laughable definition of all-court tennis in order to make Federer seem like one! She's an utterly charming lady but her tennis knowledge certainly lags far behind her feminine skills!

Did ya take a look at the poll results?

Remind us once again, how did Fed win his 1st slam? And since you sound so "knowledgeable", tell us also, how did Fed beat Sampras at Wimby?

rocket
10-27-2009, 08:36 AM
I think people have delusions of grandeur about Federer's game, they think he is 'old school' and plays a 'classical', when in reality Federer is a power baseliner who is the product of the graphite era.

Did Sampras win all his 14 slams with a wood racquet?

What racquet did Fed use when he beat Sampras on grass I wonder...

rocket
10-27-2009, 08:39 AM
I disagree

1) An all-courter doesn't have to do well in all departments, just like an offensive baseliner doesn't have to play offense well (and never achieves success).

This doesn't make any sense. How does an "offensive" baseliner play?

ksbh
10-27-2009, 08:55 AM
Rocket! I got 2 questions of my own to counter 3 questions of yours! :)

1. Do you insist on every forum member that is opposed to your view giving you the same answer that someone else already has? If not, all you have to do is read back and Namranger, amongst others, has already provided sublime answers to your question!

2. Does 1 winning match against an aging Sampras indicate one's status as an all-courter? If so, I'd also like to welcome George Bastl into the all-courter club! LOL!

Did ya take a look at the poll results?

Remind us once again, how did Fed win his 1st slam? And since you sound so "knowledgeable", tell us also, how did Fed beat Sampras at Wimby?

ksbh
10-27-2009, 09:02 AM
^^^ Need I also mention that the Spice Girls pull in many a poll number as well? Enough to get them a nomination into the legends of Music! ROFL!

No offence intended, but poll numbers mean cr*p to me, Rocket!

Did ya take a look at the poll results?

Remind us once again, how did Fed win his 1st slam? And since you sound so "knowledgeable", tell us also, how did Fed beat Sampras at Wimby?

rocket
10-27-2009, 09:09 AM
Rocket! I got 2 questions of my own to counter 3 questions of yours! :)

1. Do you insist on every forum member that is opposed to your view giving you the same answer that someone else already has? If not, all you have to do is read back and Namranger, amongst others, has already provided sublime answers to your question!

I don't agree w/ some stuff he wrote, but did not point them out cuz I decided to leave him alone.

2. Does 1 winning match against an aging Sampras indicate one's status as an all-courter? If so, I'd also like to welcome George Bastl into the all-courter club! LOL!

You didn't answer my question. Let me try again: how did Fed beat Sampras? Did he stay back & rip his forehands with a "modern frame", or did he S&V?

rocket
10-27-2009, 09:12 AM
^^^ Need I also mention that the Spice Girls pull in many a poll number as well? Enough to get them a nomination into the legends of Music! ROFL!

No offence intended, but poll numbers mean cr*p to me, Rocket!

You need to go tell Cesc that. ;)

drakulie
10-27-2009, 09:15 AM
I think people have delusions of grandeur about Federer's game (Federer fans mostly), they think he is 'old school' and plays a 'classical', when in reality Federer is a power baseliner who is the product of the graphite era.


once again, a post that shows how little you know. The k90 is hardly a "modern-power" based racquet. It is closer to the ps85, which is fairly close in feel, power, etc to wood frames. If you actually played tennis, (which you have already admitted you don't), you would know this.

in adddition, he grew up playing with a wood frame, and then moved onto the ps85, which he used while on tour, when he beat Sampras at Center Court Wimbledon.

Now, what racquet was Sampras using his entire career?? Oh yeah>> the Ps85. I suppose he is also a product of graphite frames and power baseliner. :roll:

ksbh
10-27-2009, 09:16 AM
LOL, Rocket! Fair enough!

Just for the record, Cesc- hate to say it but your poll means cr*p to me! :)

You need to go tell Cesc that. ;)

ksbh
10-27-2009, 09:19 AM
Rocket, I thought I did but let me give it one more shot!

If a mere 1 match is an indication of a players style ... then I fully agree that Federer is an all-courter. But then so is George Bastl! Clear now? :)

You didn't answer my question. Let me try again: how did Fed beat Sampras? Did he stay back & rip his forehands with a "modern frame", or did he S&V?

Cesc Fabregas
10-27-2009, 09:28 AM
once again, a post that shows how little you know. The k90 is hardly a "modern-power" based racquet. It is closer to the ps85, which is fairly close in feel, power, etc to wood frames. If you actually played tennis, (which you have already admitted you don't), you would know this.

in adddition, he grew up playing with a wood frame, and then moved onto the ps85, which he used while on tour, when he beat Sampras at Center Court Wimbledon.

Now, what racquet was Sampras using his entire career?? Oh yeah>> the Ps85. I suppose he is also a product of graphite frames and power baseliner. :roll:

Yeah because Federer with a 65sq wooden racket would be able to blast forehands as close to the lines as he does. :roll: Watching Federer play his 'old school' brand of tennis he is a carbon copy of Laver and Rosewall!

Bjorkman & Johnny Mac
10-27-2009, 09:29 AM
With all due to respect to Fed he did play a more versatile game in the earlier years 01-03 or so right before he hit his prime. He attacked and volleyed quite a bit when he played sampras and even all through the Wimbeldon 2003 slam as well. It was a year or two later where he began to devlop primarily a power style baseline game. But again, he achieved more results with it. Very few players could hang with Fed from the baseline aside from Nadal, and Nalbandian and Safin when they decided to show up and play which rare to never. At least on slam occasions of masters events

NonP
10-27-2009, 09:31 AM
This still going on? As I and a few other posters said above, all-court does not equal all-around. The former is simply a strategy based on court coverage, while the latter denotes excellence in a variety of shots and skills. An all-courter is not necessarily more rounded than a baseliner or a serve-and-volleyer; he simply transitions more to the net and plays more from the baseline than either, respectively.

Besides, why give such a damn what Federer is called? So the guy excelled in an era where power baseline tennis ruled and he followed suit, but with more variety than any other player of consequence in the era. Big deal. He's got 15 Slams and is no doubt one of the GOATs. Would he have become more of an all-courter in previous eras? Most likely. But don't twist the definition of all-court as it has been understood historically and at it is even now. That's just shoddy, convenient revisionism and it shows lack of respect for the history of tennis and its great practitioners.

If you think Federer is an all-court player as the term has been generally understood, make your case without cherry-picked examples and generalizations. Also make sure you're talking about Fed over the course of his entire career, as we seem to agree that he was more of an all-courter in his earlier years than today. At least let's not confuse all-court with all-round or all-surface.

mandy01
10-27-2009, 09:32 AM
Mandy has carved out her own laughable definition of all-court tennis in order to make Federer seem like one! She's an utterly charming lady but her tennis knowledge certainly lags far behind her feminine skills!

You'd do well to give us your definition o' enlightened one.
If there's one thing common between you and cesc it is this-You only know how to put others down while bringing nothing to the table yourself.
Federer to me is very much an all-courter.And I gave a good enough explanation as to why-This was the point of this thread anyway.
You'd basically call anyone who thinks Roger is an all-courter laughable because you dont agree with them.Your childish tripe however proves nothing.

rocket
10-27-2009, 09:33 AM
Rocket, I thought I did but let me give it one more shot!

If a mere 1 match is an indication of a players style ... then I fully agree that Federer is an all-courter. But then so is George Bastl! Clear now? :)

Where have you been? The Fed/Sampras clash was the 4th round match right? 4th round means 4th match in a tourney I believe (not counting the qualifs).

Also, you must have missed the whole of 2003 season. Fed won the Wimby final there if I remember right, serving & volleying... don't you have to win all 7 matches in a major? ;)

mandy01
10-27-2009, 09:34 AM
If you think Federer is an all-court player as the term has been generally understood, make your case without cherry-picked examples and generalizations. Also make sure you're talking about Fed over the course of his entire career, as we seem to agree that he was more of an all-courter in his earlier years than today. At least let's not confuse all-court with all-round or all-surface. I agree with this.Only I do think he still has it in him to play that way seeing how he is still capable of mixing up his play.
His game today is influenced by a variety of factors which I dont want to get into right now.That itself would be a matter of separate discussion.
To me the inherent nature of his game is that of an all-courter.Thats all I am trying to put across here.

Blinkism
10-27-2009, 09:37 AM
With all due to respect to Fed he did play a more versatile game in the earlier years 01-03 or so right before he hit his prime. He attacked and volleyed quite a bit when he played sampras and even all through the Wimbeldon 2003 slam as well. It was a year or two later where he began to devlop primarily a power style baseline game. But again, he achieved more results with it. Very few players could hang with Fed from the baseline aside from Nadal, and Nalbandian and Safin when they decided to show up and play which rare to never. At least on slam occasions of masters events

Excellent post!

Too many people cite Fed's style from 2001-2003, but forget that the majority of his slams, masters, and titles in general come from the period in his career when he was play predominantly from the baseline.

Also, on another note, it seems too many people are confusing the term all-court player with "all-surface player" and "all-around player". Federer may be those things, but I disagree that he is an all-court player.

Since guys like Safin and Hewitt showed up and took over from the last generation, back in the beginning of this decade, all-court tennis and serve-and-volley took a backseat to the much more dominant (maybe it is because of equipment, but whatever the case is, it is true) form of modern tennis- baseline tennis.

Federer is a baseline player. He has characteristics of both a defensive baseliner and offensive baseliner, but he just isn't an all-courter. That's not a bad thing at all. Name an all-courter who's won a grand slam in the last 8 years and then name all the baseliners and you'll see which is better.

Oh, and +1 to NonP's post. Also excellent!

Blinkism
10-27-2009, 09:39 AM
I agree with this.Only I do think he still has it in him to play that way seeing how he is still capable of mixing up his play.
His game today is influenced by a variety of factors which I dont want to get into right now.That itself would be a matter of separate discussion.
To me the inherent nature of his game is that of an all-courter.Thats all I am trying to put across here.

"Mixing it up" does not make you an all-courter.

By this logic Djokovic and Roddick are all-courters.

They are not.

mandy01
10-27-2009, 09:44 AM
"Mixing it up" does not make you an all-courter.

By this logic Djokovic and Roddick are all-courters.

They are not.

Federer is an excellent mover.
A very good defender.
An excellent counter-puncher.
An excellent aggressor from the back of the court.
He has the strength of a counter-puncher and the fierceness of an agressive baseliner.
He as a good touch at the net.
.He knows how to contruct his points in such a way that he can finsh them off at the net.

And mixing up play is exactly what an all-courter does.

This thread isnt about Roddick or Djokovic.

NonP
10-27-2009, 09:45 AM
To me the inherent nature of his game is that of an all-courter.Thats all I am trying to put across here.

That sounds alright to me. I really don't think it matters what he's called as long as people give him his due. From what I've seen so far, no one is saying Fed would've been an ineffectual baseline basher in previous eras. But then the GOAT debate rages here 24/7 so I guess this is some kind of progress.

Cesc Fabregas
10-27-2009, 09:46 AM
Mandy created her definition of an all-court player so Federer could be one, but using her definition Nadal and Roddick are all-courters but she says that. You can see she doesn't really know whats she's on about.

drakulie
10-27-2009, 09:47 AM
Yeah because Federer with a 65sq wooden racket would be able to blast forehands as close to the lines as he does. :roll: Watching Federer play his 'old school' brand of tennis he is a carbon copy of Laver and Rosewall!

Same could be said for Sampras. So, I suppose according to your logic, he isn't an all-courter either.

Thanks, :roll:

mandy01
10-27-2009, 09:48 AM
Mandy created her definition of an all-court player so Federer could be one, but using her definition Nadal and Roddick are all-courters but she says that. You can see she doesn't really know whats she's on about.Why dont you give your definition instead of simply putting down other people ?
And I am talking about Federer.He's the only one I'm going to talk about because you started a thread concerning him.
Now go back to your cave or bring something to the table instead of just putting down people.

Blinkism
10-27-2009, 09:49 AM
Also, you must have missed the whole of 2003 season. Fed won the Wimby final there if I remember right, serving & volleying... don't you have to win all 7 matches in a major? ;)

Oh, I beg to differ.

Federer did not win Wimbledon by serve-and-volleying.

He might have won the final that way, but his semi-final with Roddick was very much a baseline battle. Same goes for much of his match against Schalken in the quarters.

The reason he was able to beat S&V players enroute to his first slam title was because of his superior baseline game.

NonP
10-27-2009, 09:50 AM
Welcome, Blinkism.

Bjorkman & Johnny Mac
10-27-2009, 09:50 AM
Excellent post!

Too many people cite Fed's style from 2001-2003, but forget that the majority of his slams, masters, and titles in general come from the period in his career when he was play predominantly from the baseline.

Also, on another note, it seems too many people are confusing the term all-court player with "all-surface player" and "all-around player". Federer may be those things, but I disagree that he is an all-court player.

Since guys like Safin and Hewitt showed up and took over from the last generation, back in the beginning of this decade, all-court tennis and serve-and-volley took a backseat to the much more dominant (maybe it is because of equipment, but whatever the case is, it is true) form of modern tennis- baseline tennis.

Federer is a baseline player. He has characteristics of both a defensive baseliner and offensive baseliner, but he just isn't an all-courter. That's not a bad thing at all. Name an all-courter who's won a grand slam in the last 8 years and then name all the baseliners and you'll see which is better.

Oh, and +1 to NonP's post. Also excellent!



Oh I definitely agree. THere is no denying that Fed's game flourished ten fold as a predominate baseliner that will most likely ever would have as a pure serve-volleyer on the level of Sampras (though I dont think Pete was a pure serve-volleyer at least in his younger years when he had all that speed agility etc), Edberg, Becker or a Johnny Mac etc. Thats not to say he couldnt have reached that level but the game was rapidly changing as well. Maybe it was by his own design Im not sure. Courts were slowing down tremendously, the diversity in the courts were ceasing to exist, and racket technology came into play where players can routinely hit winners from 10 miles behind the baseline like a Nadal.

Now could Fed have adopted this strict baseline style of play and achieved as much success in the 80s and 90s with inferior racket technology which you needed much more precision and propr strategic planning etc? Im not sure.. I think he would see success by 15 slams by 28-29 years of age under those conditions? I really dont think so. But thats me.

Blinkism
10-27-2009, 09:54 AM
Federer is an excellent mover.
A very good defender.
An excellent counter-puncher.
An excellent aggressor from the back of the court.
He has the strength of a counter-puncher and the fierceness of an agressive baseliner.
He as a good touch at the net.
.He knows how to contruct his points in such a way that he can finsh them off at the net.

And mixing up play is exactly what an all-courter does.

This thread isnt about Roddick or Djokovic.

No, playing from all parts of the court is what makes one an all-courter.

Fed doesn't do that. He plays the baseline. He has good touch at the net, so do a lot of baseliners. It doesn't make him an all-courter if he's on the baseline the majority of the time.

I don't know if I'd call Federer a counter-puncher, but he can do it well. Federer can do everything well, but that doesn't make him an all-courter.

Plenty of all-courters can't do everything well, but they're still all-courters because they play every part of the court with equal ease in their game. Federer plays the baseline with the most ease, that is how he wins most of his matches but it is also how he wins most of his tough matches.

Just watch Federer on a roll, in the zone, winning an easier match- YES, he does play all-court tennis.

Now answer this. How does Federer play against the Top 5 in tennis, especially his toughest foe Nadal? I'd think he'd play from the baseline the majority of the time.

And then answer, how would Stepanek, Santoro, Bjorkman, Llodra, or Zverev play against those very same players? They wouldn't change much, I think, about their strategy and they would play from the entire court.

Would they win? More often than not, they wouldn't.

Baseliners rule in this era, I know you'd like to think Federer is the exception- but, rather, he is the rule.

drakulie
10-27-2009, 09:57 AM
^^Fed does play all parts of the court, and does everyone of them well.

Bjorkman & Johnny Mac
10-27-2009, 09:58 AM
But in Fed's case you also have to ask yourself.. if you got something rockin so good why change it? Why change a style of game in an era where its 99.9999 percent the same style and a style in which maybe 1-2 players can even hang with you at for many years? If you got a great mouse trap that kills mice why build another one? Fed doesnt need a diverse all court game these days. Players really don't today. YOu dont need a the greatest serve-volley attacker to ever win multiple slams. You just have to outdue everyone from the baseline and Fed has pretty much done so. The conditions of this era warrant such.

Blinkism
10-27-2009, 10:01 AM
^^Fed does play all parts of the court, and does everyone of them well.

I disagree, not because I don't think Fed can't play all courts and play well on all parts, but because most of the time (and I'll ballpark the number to 80%) he plays and dictates play from the baseline.

Especially when he's up against the ropes. A player will play with what he's most comfortable with in a tougher match, and Federer stays back much more often in matches like that.

In matches where he's kicking *** and taking names, then he plays like an all-courter.

By that same logic, Nadal played like an offensive-baseliner in the Indian Wells final this year.

rommil
10-27-2009, 10:06 AM
Nadal does that, does that make him an all-court player. :oops:

I do it too so I am an all court player?


BTW, give us your opinion on the poll results so far since you are the starter of this thread.

TMF
10-27-2009, 10:06 AM
Perhaps each and everyone of you should define your own definition of an all-court player before trying to convince Fed is a all-courter or not. You guys are actually arguing over what an ďall-courterĒ should really mean, rather than where Roger belongs to.

mandy01
10-27-2009, 10:10 AM
No, playing from all parts of the court is what makes one an all-courter.

Fed doesn't do that. He plays the baseline. He has good touch at the net, so do a lot of baseliners. It doesn't make him an all-courter if he's on the baseline the majority of the time.

I don't know if I'd call Federer a counter-puncher, but he can do it well. Federer can do everything well, but that doesn't make him an all-courter.

Plenty of all-courters can't do everything well, but they're still all-courters because they play every part of the court with equal ease in their game. Federer plays the baseline with the most ease, that is how he wins most of his matches but it is also how he wins most of his tough matches.

Just watch Federer on a roll, in the zone, winning an easier match- YES, he does play all-court tennis.

Now answer this. How does Federer play against the Top 5 in tennis, especially his toughest foe Nadal? I'd think he'd play from the baseline the majority of the time.

And then answer, how would Stepanek, Santoro, Bjorkman, Llodra, or Zverev play against those very same players? They wouldn't change much, I think, about their strategy and they would play from the entire court.

Would they win? More often than not, they wouldn't.

Baseliners rule in this era, I know you'd like to think Federer is the exception- but, rather, he is the rule.
No,mixing up play is exactly what an all-courter does.Period.And Roger does it extremely well.
As for your argument-Using that logic too Roger does extremely well .

BTW-In the last two GS finals against Nadal, Federer has had 75 and 60 net approaches respectively.Thats not bad at all.
Granted he was horrible in especially in the first two sets at Wimbledon but he's actually had a pretty good success rate.
He was anyway bad overall in the first part of the final when he made majority of his mistakes.
Really what the case here is that you simply have a different definition of an all-courter .
Besides,the main point of my argument is that Roger's inherent nature is that of an all-courter.
How he plays today is influenced by the conditions today.

drakulie
10-27-2009, 10:11 AM
I disagree, not because I don't think Fed can't play all courts and play well on all parts, but because most of the time (and I'll ballpark the number to 80%) he plays and dictates play from the baseline.

80% or whatever other number, if not 100%, is contrary to what you said.

As I said, Fed DOES play all parts of the court, and can mix it up when needed. That fact that he spends most of his time on the baslilne does not take away from this.


By that same logic, Nadal played like an offensive-baseliner in the Indian Wells final this year.

Nadal is a moonball/couterpuncher, and a damn exceptional one at that. Period.

That fact the he is a very good volleyer, every once in a while throws in a serve and volley, or plays more offensively from the baseline does not take away from this.

Blinkism
10-27-2009, 10:11 AM
Perhaps each and everyone of you should define your own definition of an all-court player before trying to convince Fed is a all-courter or not. You guys are actually arguing over what an ďall-courterĒ should really mean, rather than where Roger belongs to.

Well, I've defined it more than once and have given examples of who I think all-courters are and who I don't think all-courters are but could, seemingly, fit the profile that Mandy and others give.

Here's a clip of Stepanek vs. Federer
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7MIn_vRfbU

Watch and see who actually plays "all-court tennis" more often... It's Stepanek

See who has an easy time and kicks *** from the baseline... It's Federer

rocket
10-27-2009, 10:13 AM
This still going on? As I and a few other posters said above, all-court does not equal all-around.

They're one & the same. You cannot play an all-court style if your all-around skills are not good.

Blinkism
10-27-2009, 10:15 AM
80% or whatever other number, if not 100%, is contrary to what you said.

As I said, Fed DOES play all parts of the court, and can mix it up when needed. That fact that he spends most of his time on the baslilne does not take away from this.



I don't think he does enough to be called an all-courter. Just like Nadal doesn't play offensive enough to be called an offensive-baseliner, although he does something like 20-30% of the time.

It's about proportions for me, not potential. Federer's got the potential to play however the heck he wants, really.

Doesn't make him an all-court player in my books. He's a superb baseliner.


Nadal is a moonball/couterpuncher, and a damn exceptional one at that. Period.

That fact the he is a very good volleyer, every once in a while throws in a serve and volley, or plays more offensively from the baseline does not take away from this.

Exactly. The majority of his game is counter-punching and defensive baseline play.

Moonball.. LOL

Another Stepanek/Federer clip, for inquiring minds - watch the differences, Federer only leaves the baseline for dropshots and short shots. Stepanek transitions to net whenever he's got the upperhand in the rally exchange and even, sometimes, when he doesn't.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZXdpg2eNc8

rocket
10-27-2009, 10:15 AM
Oh, I beg to differ.

Federer did not win Wimbledon by serve-and-volleying.

He might have won the final that way, but his semi-final with Roddick was very much a baseline battle. Same goes for much of his match against Schalken in the quarters.

The reason he was able to beat S&V players enroute to his first slam title was because of his superior baseline game.

Thus that makes him an all-courter. ;)

rommil
10-27-2009, 10:17 AM
Well, I've defined it more than once and have given examples of who I think all-courters are and who I don't think all-courters are but could, seemingly, fit the profile that Mandy and others give.

Here's a clip of Stepanek vs. Federer
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7MIn_vRfbU

Watch and see who actually plays "all-court tennis" more often... It's Stepanek

See who has an easy time and kicks *** from the baseline... It's Federer



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fFf8szWA3t8

mandy01
10-27-2009, 10:18 AM
Well, I've defined it more than once and have given examples of who I think all-courters are and who I don't think all-courters are but could, seemingly, fit the profile that Mandy and others give.

Here's a clip of Stepanek vs. Federer
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7MIn_vRfbU

Watch and see who actually plays "all-court tennis" more often... It's Stepanek

See who has an easy time and kicks *** from the baseline... It's Federer
Thats one-match cherry-picked,no?! I thought you guys dont like that because you cry foul everytime someone brings up the fourth round match against Sampras.

Blinkism
10-27-2009, 10:21 AM
Besides,the main point of my argument is that Roger's inherent nature is that of an all-courter.
How he plays today is influenced by the conditions today.

I still disagree with most of your points, but I've never denied this.

Like I said, Federer can play anything he wants to and play it well.

The fact that he decides to play from the baseline most of the time says more about how to succeed in today's tennis environment than it does about Federer's skills and limitations (of which there are few, limitations that is).

That's why I don't think it's a bad thing to call Federer a baseliner, especially when you consider the lack of good examples of all-courters in the 8 years or so.

If I had to make a recipe for Federer's game, it'd be 45% offensive baseline tennis, 25% defensive baseline tennis (including counterpunching, I guess), 20% all-court tennis, 10% serve-and-volley tennis

Blinkism
10-27-2009, 10:23 AM
Thus that makes him an all-courter. ;)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fFf8szWA3t8

Oh, I don't deny that before 2004 Federer play much more of an all-courter game.

Most of his success has been since then, though, so that's what I've been talking about.

Thats one-match cherry-picked,no?! I thought you guys dont like that because you cry foul everytime someone brings up the fourth round match against Sampras.

I included a link in another post.

Here's another, Federer vs. Bjorkman

See Bjorkman play all-court tennis and Fed pwn him from the baseline.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XOPSqpBviTM

And I don't know what you mean by "you guys"? I've not mentioned anything about that match, until just earlier in this post.

Thanks for generalizing, though, Mandy. All "you guys" seem to do it very often

:)

mandy01
10-27-2009, 10:24 AM
If I had to make a recipe for Federer's game, it'd be 45% offensive baseline tennis, 25% defensive baseline tennis (including counterpunching, I guess), 20% all-court tennis, 10% serve-and-volley tennis That actually makes for an all-courter.You dont have to play every style with equal proportion to be called one ,you know :wink:
And I think we've all agreed that the environment influences players' games.
But that really wasnt the topic for this thread.
The thread asked for the nature or style of Federer's game.

mandy01
10-27-2009, 10:26 AM
And I don't know what you mean by "you guys"? I've not mentioned anything about that match, until just earlier in this post.

Thanks for generalizing, though, Mandy. All "you guys" seem to do it very often

:)
So you mean you'd have no problems with people cherry- picking matches?
OK...in that case sorry for the generlization.

rommil
10-27-2009, 10:27 AM
Oh, I don't deny that before 2004 Federer play much more of an all-courter game.

Most of his success has been since then, though, so that's what I've been talking about.



I included a link in another post.

Here's another, Federer vs. Bjorkman

See Bjorkman play all-court tennis and Fed pwn him from the baseline.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XOPSqpBviTM

OK so we have seen him play all court tennis before, we all are agreeing that he is capable of doing it even at the bigger stages. So what is the argument again?

NonP
10-27-2009, 10:32 AM
They're one & the same. You cannot play an all-court style if your all-around skills are not good.

No, they're not. They're simply interrelated. For the umpteenth time, all-court is a strategy, whereas all-around is a skill set. Certainly having all-around skills helps in court coverage, but that doesn't tell you what kind of strategy the player will adopt, which varies depending on the circumstances.

rocket
10-27-2009, 10:33 AM
Fed doesnt need a diverse all court game these days. Players really don't today. YOu dont need a the greatest serve-volley attacker to ever win multiple slams. You just have to outdue everyone from the baseline and Fed has pretty much done so. The conditions of this era warrant such.

You nailed it!

mandy01
10-27-2009, 10:34 AM
No, they're not. They're simply interrelated. For the umpteenth time, all-court is a strategy, whereas all-around is a skill set. Certainly having all-around skills helps in court coverage, but that doesn't tell you what kind of strategy the player will adopt, which varies depending on the circumstances.
Yes,this is pretty much what it is.

NonP
10-27-2009, 10:45 AM
Yes,this is pretty much what it is.

Thanks. Again feel free to argue that Fed uses the all-court strategy often enough to be called an all-court player, but let's at least get this distinction right.

drakulie
10-27-2009, 10:49 AM
I don't think

This is the problem. What you **think** has no bearing. The fact is, although he primarily plays from the baseline, he plays all parts of the court.

Including:

Serve and Volley
Chip and Charge,
baseline,
slice
mixing angles, spins, paces, etc

TMF
10-27-2009, 10:50 AM
Well, I've defined it more than once and have given examples of who I think all-courters are and who I don't think all-courters are but could, seemingly, fit the profile that Mandy and others give.

Here's a clip of Stepanek vs. Federer
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7MIn_vRfbU

Watch and see who actually plays "all-court tennis" more often... It's Stepanek

See who has an easy time and kicks *** from the baseline... It's Federer

I donít think you will ever convince Mandy b/c her definition is different from yours. However the consensus among fans from this board believe Roger is an all courter. Iím not saying your definition is wrong, and I think in general itís easily to view roger as an all-courter since he does touches every areas of the game in every matches he played.

I also think people judge an all-courter base on the amount of time they spent in two area: 1) behind the baseline and 2) at the net. A s/v players will naturally spend fair amount of time in both area, whereas a baseliner is mostly concentrated from the baseline. So the s/v is more fitted as an all-courter, but that doesnít mean a baseliner is purely a non all-courter. I think the better question is ďwhich player is a more of an all courter ď.

rocket
10-27-2009, 10:55 AM
Thanks. Again feel free to argue that Fed uses the all-court strategy often enough to be called an all-court player, but let's at least get this distinction right.

Yes he does, when he really has to:

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

Bjorkman & Johnny Mac
10-27-2009, 10:56 AM
This is the problem. What you **think** has no bearing. The fact is, although he primarily plays from the baseline, he plays all parts of the court.

Including:

Serve and Volley
Chip and Charge,
baseline,
slice
mixing angles, spins, paces, etc


But his sole game these days is PRIMARILY a baseline game. Yes he can mix up his shots with angles, different pace but its usually dont from the baseline not the net. 2001-2003 you would have a point. But Fed just doesnt play that style anymore nor does he need to these days.

mandy01
10-27-2009, 11:01 AM
But his sole game these days is PRIMARILY a baseline game. Yes he can mix up his shots with angles, different pace but its usually dont from the baseline not the net. 2001-2003 you would have a point. But Fed just doesnt play that style anymore nor does he need to these days.
Roger actually came to net a good number of times up until 2006.And he's been coming pretty often these days and mixing it up well IMO.It is obvious he knows that with the inevitable physical decline he will have to charge the net more and more.
Anyway,every all-courter leans to a particular style of tennis.
It easy to call someone who leans more towards s&v an all-courter because its easier for him to play from the baseline .Conversely,someone who leans more towards baseline style isnt going to come to the net on equal proportions.

Bjorkman & Johnny Mac
10-27-2009, 11:05 AM
Alot of it today is the game and how it has evolved. Gone are the days of polarized conditions and diversity of play. So taken that into account, how many plays today can truly lay claim to be an "all court player"?

drakulie
10-27-2009, 11:09 AM
But his sole game these days is PRIMARILY a baseline game. Yes he can mix up his shots with angles, different pace but its usually dont from the baseline not the net. 2001-2003 you would have a point. But Fed just doesnt play that style anymore nor does he need to these days.


now that I think of it>>> he is a "Forehand Player", since *most* of his shots are FH's. Thanks for the insight. :roll:

rommil
10-27-2009, 11:10 AM
Yes he does, when he really has to:

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

That doesn't prove anything. Federer was one or two serve and volley play short to be considered an all court player.

Bjorkman & Johnny Mac
10-27-2009, 11:15 AM
now that I think of it>>> he is a "Forehand Player", since *most* of his shots are FH's. Thanks for the insight. :roll:

When one usually rarely attacks the net anymore, puts pressure on their opponents or blitzes them by attacking the net and putting them out of their comfort level, how can u say that this play truly has an "all court game?" I remember numerous times watching Fed play Nadal and always wonder when he was going to change it up a bit.. Maybe come in on the first of 2nd serve and leave Nadal guessing into what he was going to do next. Even Sampras told Fed he needed to sometime adopt this tactic. I remember wondering at the Australian Open this past year. Fed had numerous chances to come in and put pressure on Nadal and yet he stayed back and got his BH exploited endelessly

rocket
10-27-2009, 11:18 AM
That doesn't prove anything. Federer was one or two serve and volley play short to be considered an all court player.

He would have volleyed a bit more if they played the 3rd set...

rommil
10-27-2009, 11:18 AM
[QUOTE=Bjorkman & Johnny Mac;4059295
Even Sampras told Fed he needed to sometime adopt this tactic.[/QUOTE]



LOL maybe Sampras just wanted to see some cruel entertainment.

NonP
10-27-2009, 11:19 AM
Yes he does, when he really has to:

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

First of all, let's not forget that the above clip is just a highlights reel of a single match. That tells us little about his style over the course of his career. Second, I saw much of the entire Madrid tournament match live and in the final I remember Fed coming to the net more often than usual to catch Nadal off guard, a recollection which the clip only reinforces. That wasn't the case for Fed in the previous rounds.

If you care what I think, my take is that Fed is a baseliner with all-court tendencies, as another poster put it a few days ago. Make of that what you will.

rommil
10-27-2009, 11:19 AM
He would have volleyed a bit more if they played the 3rd set...

LOL nicely done.....

mandy01
10-27-2009, 11:20 AM
When one usually rarely attacks the net anymore, puts pressure on their opponents or blitzes them by attacking the net and putting them out of their comfort level, how can u say that this play truly has an "all court game?" I remember numerous times watching Fed play Nadal and always wonder when he was going to change it up a bit.. Maybe come in on the first of 2nd serve and leave Nadal guessing into what he was going to do next. Even Sampras told Fed he needed to sometime adopt this tactic. I remember wondering at the Australian Open this past year. Fed had numerous chances to come in and put pressure on Nadal and yet he stayed back and got his BH exploited endelesslyRoger was 42 out of 60 on net approaches against Nadal in the AO final.Nadal had 26 net approaches .
His serve was totally off but for the major part he was actually outplaying Nadal and even won more points than him inspite of losing the match.
Federer's loss had a lot to do with how he played the fifth set when it seemed like all his game came crashing down due to whatever reasons.he was erratic to say the least.
Not to mention coming to the net isnt the only strategy thats going to help him.For him the strategy is a lot more complicated.
Infact I thought his BH actually held up well seeing how much he struggles against Nadal from that side.He was able to take it down the line well..His FH on the other hand surprisingly let him down.
Edit-Correction-Federer was 43 out of 60 on net approaches.

drakulie
10-27-2009, 11:21 AM
When one usually rarely attacks the net anymore, puts pressure on their opponents or blitzes them by attacking the net and putting them out of their comfort level, how can u say that this play truly has an "all court game?" I remember numerous times watching Fed play Nadal and always wonder when he was going to change it up a bit.. Maybe come in on the first of 2nd serve and leave Nadal guessing into what he was going to do next. Even Sampras told Fed he needed to sometime adopt this tactic. I remember wondering at the Australian Open this past year. Fed had numerous chances to come in and put pressure on Nadal and yet he stayed back and got his BH exploited endelessly

Like I said, >>> he is a "forehand player". I want to thank you and the rest of the gang for creating yet another label for tennis players.

Nice, real nice.

rocket
10-27-2009, 11:22 AM
Even Sampras told Fed he needed to sometime adopt this tactic. I remember wondering at the Australian Open this past year. Fed had numerous chances to come in and put pressure on Nadal and yet he stayed back and got his BH exploited endelessly

Yeah Fed gets veeery, veeery tentative against Nadal. Things seemed to have changed in the Madrid final though.

Someone noted that Fed's body language changes when he faces Nadal.

mandy01
10-27-2009, 11:26 AM
Does someone have the stats for the previous rounds of Madrid.? IMO to succeed against Nadal at the net on CLAY you cannot just wake up on the match day and do it.You need to get into the groove,practice more at the net.It would be interesting to see how he was doing in the previous rounds.

Bjorkman & Johnny Mac
10-27-2009, 11:31 AM
Does someone have the stats for the previous rounds of Madrid.? IMO to succeed against Nadal at the net on CLAY you cannot just wake up on the match day and do it.You need to get into the groove,practice more at the net.It would be interesting to see how he was doing in the previous rounds.


I would need to see Fed playing more against Nadal to clay to make any kind of positive assertion here. Remember that day at Madrid, it was a Non slam event, Nadal had overloaded on the schedule. Was back on court 10 days after the AO, and the day before the Madrid final, Nadal went around 4 hours with Djoker I believe and Fed was fresh. Im not sure how much of a turning point that match was. Now if Fed beats Nadal at the French this year if they happen to play each other than thats a different story

mandy01
10-27-2009, 11:35 AM
I would need to see Fed playing more against Nadal to clay to make any kind of positive assertion here. Remember that day at Madrid, it was a Non slam event, Nadal had overloaded on the schedule. Was back on court 10 days after the AO, and the day before the Madrid final, Nadal went around 4 hours with Djoker I believe and Fed was fresh. Im not sure how much of a turning point that match was. Now if Fed beats Nadal at the French this year if they happen to play each other than thats a different story
No,I didnt say that match was a turning point.I was talking in strategic terms about one particular match only.

drakulie
10-27-2009, 11:37 AM
I would need to see Fed playing more against Nadal to clay to make any kind of positive assertion here. Remember that day at Madrid, it was a Non slam event, Nadal had overloaded on the schedule. Was back on court 10 days after the AO, and the day before the Madrid final, Nadal went around 4 hours with Djoker I believe and Fed was fresh. Im not sure how much of a turning point that match was. Now if Fed beats Nadal at the French this year if they happen to play each other than thats a different story


You forgot to add he had the following ailments:


chipped toe nail
exhausted
injured
tired
dehydrated
herniated disc
brain tumor
liver cancer
broken hip bones
broken knees
hair fallling out
his frames were all cracked
his frames were strung with elephant nose/trunk hairs.
and the sun was in his eyes.

tintin
10-27-2009, 11:54 AM
DUH!

what Roddick is an all-court player?http://www.mysmiley.net/imgs/smile/confused/confused0068.gif (http://www.mysmiley.net) http://www.dogmall.co.uk/smile/rolleye/rolleye0001.gif (http://www.dogmall.co.uk/dog-beds-baskets/raised-dog-beds/) http://www.mysmiley.net/imgs/smile/happy/happy0194.gif (http://www.mysmiley.net)

TMF
10-27-2009, 12:07 PM
I would need to see Fed playing more against Nadal to clay to make any kind of positive assertion here. Remember that day at Madrid, it was a Non slam event, Nadal had overloaded on the schedule. Was back on court 10 days after the AO, and the day before the Madrid final, Nadal went around 4 hours with Djoker I believe and Fed was fresh. Im not sure how much of a turning point that match was. Now if Fed beats Nadal at the French this year if they happen to play each other than thats a different story

Nadal vs Nole in Madrid was like 80% dead time. They wasted so much times between points even the crowd got tired of waiting for them to serve.

Ever since Nadal lost to Fed in Madrid, Nadal is still winless and is 0-4 against the top ten players. Thatís sound like a turning point to me.

fastdunn
10-27-2009, 02:29 PM
Federer will be considered as a kinda all court player in this era.

But in terms of tennis history, Federer will be considered the greatest baseliner of all time.

If I want to add one more: Sadly we will never know how good Federer can be at the true all court game in this era because we have mud slow, high bouncing grass courts, slow hard courts, slow and irrelevant indoor season.

Sartorius
10-27-2009, 03:05 PM
I can't be bothered to quote every tidbit, but if you read carefully, it looks like people here who disagree with Federer being an all court player, agrees with these things considering the notion an "all-court player":

- An all court player is not the same thing as a S&V player.

- At its most simplistic definition, an all court player has the ability to play from every part of the court with ease; he can play all styles of tennis (or at least he has certain aspects from every style) and apply different strategies.

- Obvious fact: It is the right decision to insist on a certain style/strategy if it works and wins you the match.

Same people agree with the following regarding Federer:

- Federer can play from every part of the court and can play all styles.

- Federer did play all-court tennis some years before.

- Federer actually still does play an all-court game, depending on the situation/player/his own form.

- Federer mostly chooses to play a baseline game because it is the most beneficial style of today and wins him matches.

And the conclusion they come up with is: Federer is not an all court player.


Well, something doesn't fit.

BreakPoint
10-27-2009, 04:33 PM
2. Does 1 winning match against an aging Sampras indicate one's status as an all-courter? If so, I'd also like to welcome George Bastl into the all-courter club! LOL!
Bastl beat Sampras at Wimbledon by serving and volleying. So, yes, he is also an all-court player.

That "aging" Sampras also won the US Open over a year after he lost to Federer. Did he somehow reverse in age?

SuperFly
10-27-2009, 05:01 PM
The term "all-court" player has no meaning anymore. It's now only a way to glorify your favorite player.

Blinkism
10-27-2009, 07:28 PM
This is the problem. What you **think** has no bearing. The fact is, although he primarily plays from the baseline, he plays all parts of the court.

Including:

Serve and Volley
Chip and Charge,
baseline,
slice
mixing angles, spins, paces, etc

Just my opinion, drak. Obviously most people disagree with me, according to the poll.

I agree Fed's got a massive arsenal, but most of his play is from the baseline.

I never disagreed that Federer CAN play from all parts of the court. I just think that he doesn't, most of the time.

OK so we have seen him play all court tennis before, we all are agreeing that he is capable of doing it even at the bigger stages. So what is the argument again?

See above.

I don't think Fed's played as much all-court tennis as he did before the 2005 season.

Before then, you could argue that he was much closer to an all-court player, yes.

I also think people judge an all-courter base on the amount of time they spent in two area: 1) behind the baseline and 2) at the net. A s/v players will naturally spend fair amount of time in both area, whereas a baseliner is mostly concentrated from the baseline. So the s/v is more fitted as an all-courter, but that doesn’t mean a baseliner is purely a non all-courter. I think the better question is “which player is a more of an all courter “.

Excellent points, TMF!

The term all-courter is much less cut-and-dry than serve-and-volleyer and baseliner.

If it makes everyone happy, I will concede that Federer is a baseliner with "all-courter" tendencies, like NonP said.

Just to say, though, I fully think the way Federer plays is vastly superior to the way any "all-court" players have this entire decade. In no way do I value baseline tennis less than all-court tennis, like some people do, I suppose.

I just don't agree that Federer is an all-court player as a separate category from baseliner. If you want to say that what makes him an all-courter is the fact that he can and, for a minority of his time on the court, does play the entire court, then yes- he is an all-courter.

But, I'm looking at the overall scope of things.

Just my $0.02, obviously. It's not fact, just opinion.

NamRanger
10-27-2009, 08:08 PM
Yes he does, when he really has to:

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




Only when he is forced to. He is a baseliner with some wrinkles in his game, and the talent to be able to play an allcourt game (although it's shaky sometimes due to lack of use / practice).



People in fact tend to overrate certain aspects of Federer's game (serve, backhand, netgame) and underrate certain aspects of his game (forehand, anticipation, balance, footwork, agility, athleticism, strength, etc).

Steve132
10-27-2009, 10:56 PM
I can't be bothered to quote every tidbit, but if you read carefully, it looks like people here who disagree with Federer being an all court player, agrees with these things considering the notion an "all-court player":

- An all court player is not the same thing as a S&V player.

- At its most simplistic definition, an all court player has the ability to play from every part of the court with ease; he can play all styles of tennis (or at least he has certain aspects from every style) and apply different strategies.

- Obvious fact: It is the right decision to insist on a certain style/strategy if it works and wins you the match.

Same people agree with the following regarding Federer:

- Federer can play from every part of the court and can play all styles.

- Federer did play all-court tennis some years before.

- Federer actually still does play an all-court game, depending on the situation/player/his own form.

- Federer mostly chooses to play a baseline game because it is the most beneficial style of today and wins him matches.

And the conclusion they come up with is: Federer is not an all court player.


Well, something doesn't fit.

Exactly. You can't define the term "all court player" independently of the context of the game. In today's game a serve and volley strategy does not work, therefore players - even those who can play that game - approach the net selectively. If Wimbledon and the U.S. Open reverted to their 1980's/1990's court speeds, and if more tournaments were played on carpet, players like Federer, Haas, Stepanek and Tsonga would spend far more time at the net.

ksbh
10-28-2009, 04:02 AM
Luck of the draw. If Agassi didn't take Hewitt out in the semis, Sampras woulnd't have 14 slams now. It's got nothing to do with Sampras being at his peak. A Laughable claim that you've made several times in the past!

By the way, Barry Cowan must also be an all-courter in your book! The list grows ... LOL!

Bastl beat Sampras at Wimbledon by serving and volleying. So, yes, he is also an all-court player.

That "aging" Sampras also won the US Open over a year after he lost to Federer. Did he somehow reverse in age?

BreakPoint
10-28-2009, 02:28 PM
Luck of the draw. If Agassi didn't take Hewitt out in the semis, Sampras woulnd't have 14 slams now. It's got nothing to do with Sampras being at his peak. A Laughable claim that you've made several times in the past!

By the way, Barry Cowan must also be an all-courter in your book! The list grows ... LOL!
Yes, you're right. Anytime anyone wins a Slam, it's always the luck of the draw. Heck, if Sampras had to play Bill Tilden or Pancho Gonzales or Rod Laver, he would have never won even a single Slam. :-?

Oh, and you're right, Agassi was such a pushover that anyone who has to play Agassi in a Slam is assured of an easy win. :-?

abmk
10-28-2009, 06:19 PM
About the federer-roddick match at wimbledon in 2003, I've watched it recently, federer SnVed on almost EVERY 1st serve . Those baseline rallies were on a-rod's serve and fed's 2nd serve and in those fed looked to come in at every possible chance

NamRanger
10-28-2009, 07:16 PM
About the federer-roddick match at wimbledon in 2003, I've watched it recently, federer SnVed on almost EVERY 1st serve . Those baseline rallies were on a-rod's serve and fed's 2nd serve and in those fed looked to come in at every possible chance



No one disputes that Federer used to play a more well rounded game before. However, since 2006, Federer has played more and more from the baseline. It was only this year in particular did he start upping his net numbers.

ksbh
10-29-2009, 05:07 AM
Please answer this simple question ... Barry Cowan is also an all-courter in your book. How?!

Yes, you're right. Anytime anyone wins a Slam, it's always the luck of the draw. Heck, if Sampras had to play Bill Tilden or Pancho Gonzales or Rod Laver, he would have never won even a single Slam. :-?

Oh, and you're right, Agassi was such a pushover that anyone who has to play Agassi in a Slam is assured of an easy win. :-?

abmk
10-29-2009, 08:13 AM
No one disputes that Federer used to play a more well rounded game before. However, since 2006, Federer has played more and more from the baseline. It was only this year in particular did he start upping his net numbers.

true, am not disputing that.

I was just pointing out that federer pretty much played the same way on his serve against roddick as he did against phillipoussis ... The thing that might've lead to blinkism to believe that the roddick match was a pure baseline battle while the scud one wasn't is that roddick stayed back on his serve and there were more baseline rallies and scud came to the net much more either volleying it away or getting passed

OJ ROD
10-29-2009, 11:17 AM
The term "all-court" player has no meaning anymore. It's now only a way to glorify your favorite player.

The truth is hilarious. By the way, the thread has only been up for 11 days and were almost at 500 posts(that repeat basically the same thing over and over:confused:)?

Cesc Fabregas
07-01-2010, 02:48 PM
I called it, this thread doesn't look like a fail thread now. Federer is definatley a baseliner, he couldn't change it up against Berdych because his nets skills aren't great.

davey25
07-01-2010, 02:49 PM
I called it, this thread doesn't look like a fail thread now. Federer is definatley a baseliner, he couldn't change it up against Berdych because his nets skills aren't great.

Yeah now that he is getting owned from the baseline by more guys he isnt adapting. He is a hardcore baseliner, not some true all court master. He has adequate net skills which in the era of the worst group for net skills and transition game in history are probably amongst the best today (sad situation) yet he still is unwilling to use them much even in desperate situations.

fed_rulz
07-01-2010, 03:15 PM
I called it, this thread doesn't look like a fail thread now. Federer is definatley a baseliner, he couldn't change it up against Berdych because his nets skills aren't great.

No, it's still a FAIL thread. and you know that "changing it" up would have worked because you're an ATP pro or a coach?

Anaconda
07-01-2010, 03:55 PM
Why do people ask these questions? If you want to find out then go onto tennis sites and watch matches of that player. Not difficult is it?

Bud
07-01-2010, 05:45 PM
I called it, this thread doesn't look like a fail thread now. Federer is definatley a baseliner, he couldn't change it up against Berdych because his nets skills aren't great.

Agreed... in the modern game Fish would be considered the closest to an all-court player, IMO. He knows when to mix it up to keep an opponent off balance.

Federer went down with a sinking ship against Berdych. His baseline to baseline tactics obviously weren't working yet he chose to continue using them.

Mun
07-01-2010, 05:53 PM
Fed can't volley consistently good against decent opponents. His backhand is one-dimensional and lacks variety as Nadal exposes everytime they play.
So no, Fed isn't an all court player, his variety is vastly overrated.

President of Serve/Volley
07-01-2010, 06:24 PM
Fed can't volley consistently good against decent opponents. His backhand is one-dimensional and lacks variety as Nadal exposes everytime they play.
So no, Fed isn't an all court player, his variety is vastly overrated.



The courts are a bit too slow for Fed to employ the old school S&V plan vs Nadal...