PDA

View Full Version : Can Pros Attack Net Successfully?


TennisCJC
08-23-2011, 12:32 PM
Anyone notice that Monfils, Fish and Dodig had very good success playing serve and volley and attacking the net against Djoko and Nadal on summer hardcourts?

I personally think some pros need to attack the net more. I believe Federer would have beaten Tsonga at Wimby if he had attacked in 4th and 5th sets. I don't buy into the rackets and strings make it impossible to attack. I think the pros don't use the tactic enough to be successful at it. Federer is the only top 10 guy who has potential to be a great volleyer and even he does not use attacking play enough.

What do you think? Is the best change against Djoko and Nadal to mix in a fair amount of S/V and net rushes?

Dilettante
08-23-2011, 12:38 PM
No.


....

TheMagicianOfPrecision
08-23-2011, 01:11 PM
If you do it on a reglar basis-No.

If you use it as an element of surprise-mix it up- keep your opponent guessing- it will work out fairly good imo.

WilanderBackhand
08-23-2011, 01:21 PM
Dodig has a strange looking game, could be dangerous when he gets hot but that's everyone in the top 20 these days...

Manus Domini
08-23-2011, 01:50 PM
Djoker and Nadal were raised as baseliners, that's their natural game. Why would they change it? Is owning 3 of 4 slams (at least) not good enough?

droliver
08-23-2011, 02:08 PM
Attacking the net is not the same thing as serve and volley. Opportunistic net play has replaced S&V tennis. If you watch men's tennis, they attack the net and put away volley's frequently off short balls, which is a high percentage play in modern tennis 101.

Traditional net rushing seems ill equipped as a primary strategy with modern strokes, strings, balls, and courts.

Devilito
08-23-2011, 02:26 PM
Apart from Edberg and Rafter there are very few net rushers that were successful even in the 90s. I think most people tend to refer to an all-court game like Petros had which would easily still be successful. Petros was not a netrusher and often stayed back on 2nd serves. He would be more than capable of mixing things up to suit the more modern play styles. He was 20x the player Fish or Stepanek are and they have been very successful this hardcourt swing.

BeHappy
08-23-2011, 02:43 PM
Apart from Edberg and Rafter there are very few net rushers that were successful even in the 90s. I think most people tend to refer to an all-court game like Petros had which would easily still be successful. Petros was not a netrusher and often stayed back on 2nd serves. He would be more than capable of mixing things up to suit the more modern play styles. He was 20x the player Fish or Stepanek are and they have been very successful this hardcourt swing.

Stepanek is an excellent player, apart from that I agree.

CCNM
08-23-2011, 02:52 PM
I'm just happy to see players even come to the net-that's so rare these days.

ClairHarmony
08-23-2011, 03:01 PM
Stepanek = Petr Korda...but worse. Korda = Stephanek for net play, serve and volley, all court abilties; but, with bazooka clean as a whistle grounstroke winners fired off from the cheap seats in Wrigley Field, a pond, who cares, anywhere. If Stephanek could get as far as he has at his age in this day and age, being a throwback player to the 80's/90's; it says that the game isn't as evolved as most belive. There are many ways to skin a cat...but the academies teach only one way these days, otherwise the kids, and more importantly, their *parents* flee.

Parents don't want to pay big bucks for "chances," they want the SURE thing. VERY few of the chutzpa and VISION of say a Sampras and his NON tennis affiliated Dr. coach with a love for touching little boys in all their private places. That is to say, to have natural talent, but risk losing in the short term to win in the long term...where it *actually* counts.

If you haven't hit the 6 foot mark yet, and are trying to come in all the time to develop the necessary *instinct* required to do so at the pro level? Well, I don't care how talented you are; you're probably going to get passed left and right, and your tennis mom is probably going to end up slapping your tennis coach male with her check book after the match, we're talking nasty, Bruno Rebeuh style, bruddha.

And what tennis coach wants to deal with that? Nope, just stay at the baseline for now, until kingdome come...while occasionally practing drilling volleys from a standing start...where you look and feel like a million bucks. Make no mistake, all the modern day pros are well schooled in how to look picture perfect in the fine art of hitting a volley during the warm-ups...try it during an actual match though? And they quickly find their shoestrings tied at net, ouch, face plant into the ground, broken nose, now my nose looks like the Penguin's, I quit...no more of this net stuff for me, waddle, waddle, waddle back to the baseline for the rest of the match.

ALL IN
08-23-2011, 03:01 PM
Anyone notice that Monfils, Fish and Dodig had very good success playing serve and volley and attacking the net against Djoko and Nadal on summer hardcourts?

I personally think some pros need to attack the net more. I believe Federer would have beaten Tsonga at Wimby if he had attacked in 4th and 5th sets. I don't buy into the rackets and strings make it impossible to attack. I think the pros don't use the tactic enough to be successful at it. Federer is the only top 10 guy who has potential to be a great volleyer and even he does not use attacking play enough.

What do you think? Is the best change against Djoko and Nadal to mix in a fair amount of S/V and net rushes?

I'd love to see you "attack" Tsonga's 80+ mph ground strokes on grass.

kishnabe
08-23-2011, 03:06 PM
The times Stephanek attacked the net against Djoker...he got passed loads of times. Though when Fish did it...it wasn't the case.

It depends how you approach the net....and what you defend on the forecourt. Even then you get passed. It has to be smart move in than a sucidal one.

Federer does it well a few times but there are times he shoudn't be at the net. He gets passed and then stares his face to the floor as he got slapped in the face!

Cormorant
08-23-2011, 03:09 PM
I'd love to see you "attack" Tsonga's 80+ mph ground strokes on grass.

I'd like to see that too, but at least it would involve an adjustment of strategy when-to all outside appearances-Fed tried nothing new whatsoever when faced with Tsonga's almighty comeback.

BrooklynNY
08-23-2011, 03:22 PM
You have to know what you're doing.

Fish has an idea, therefore it works.

When you Andy Roddick approach, you get passed easily every time.


Most players, to me, don't have sufficient repetitions are aren't well drilled in net play. The few that are, probably have been named already, because they stand apart, and it's a noticeable part of their game.

SStrikerR
08-23-2011, 03:54 PM
If you know the tendencies of passing shots players hit, and what shots they're good at, you should be able to play net effectively, given you mix it in to the rest of your game, and have good approaches. There's no reason why pros can't attack the net 20-30 times a match, besides fear of the net.

Homeboy Hotel
08-23-2011, 04:02 PM
Djokovic - No
Nadal - NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Federer - Meh, kinda
Murray - Meh
Soderling - NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO




....

Llordra etc, YESSSSSSSSS

OTMPut
08-23-2011, 04:09 PM
I'd love to see you "attack" Tsonga's 80+ mph ground strokes on grass.

it would be interesting to see how many 80+ mph ground strokes Tsonga can hit off a skidding volley. i presume they would mostly need to be executed on the run against a quality approach/volley.

2ndServe
08-23-2011, 04:14 PM
attacking the net is a lifetime art. Look at roddick he is zero clue up there and that wrecked his game trying to come in more.

FedExpress 333
08-23-2011, 04:56 PM
Absolutely, but they need to start racticing it from the beginnning, in real match play.

first volley
08-23-2011, 07:26 PM
yes it worked in the past, it will work today and it will work in the future... too many coaches tend to teach a baseline game... serve and volley is a mentally tougher game to play, that's why good or great serve and volley players are few and far between.

Bjorn99
08-24-2011, 04:15 AM
Of course net play works. But coaches as usual, cannot coach, so their students don't play net. Sampras would eat all top four players alive, probably even now. Federer and Nadal have come down a notch or two, and he would eat Djokovic for lunch.

Wilander Fan
08-24-2011, 04:54 AM
Its not just coaching. There are guys like Llodra who have S&V their entire career but even Llodra's successes are more due to his wicked lefty serve than anything else. Pros can put short balls away today pretty much just like volleys due to the extreme angle and spin.

tennis_fan_182
08-24-2011, 07:02 AM
Serve and volley is dumb. Serve and volleyers have one tactic which they will use regardless of how good their opponent is returning.

That is ******** and 1-dimensional and it's hard to believe it was rewarded historically.

Manus Domini
08-24-2011, 07:34 AM
Serve and volley is dumb. Serve and volleyers have one tactic which they will use regardless of how good their opponent is returning.

That is ******** and 1-dimensional and it's hard to believe it was rewarded historically.

Baselining is dumb. Baseliners have one tactic which they use regardless of how poorly their opponent is returning.

That is stupid and 1-dimensional and it's hard to believe it was rewarded historically.

Just so you know, all of the great S&Vers were all-court players. McEnroe (watch that FO final he got to, he had a great ground game there), Stefan Edberg, Pete Sampras, Rod Laver, Ken Rosewall, Pancho Gonzales for examples.

Hell, Borg had a solid S&V game, and he was the epitome of a baseliner for decades (until baseliners became 1 dimensional)

tennis_fan_182
08-24-2011, 07:44 AM
there are many options open to you at the baseline. You can hit junk, hit looping short angles, power winners, hit defensively, chip and charge the net yourself...etc...

At the net you have 2 options: put away the volley or get passed.

That's why 'serve and volley' is a tactic in and of itself whereas there are several different types of 'baseliners'

TennisCJC
09-07-2011, 12:13 PM
it would be interesting to see how many 80+ mph ground strokes Tsonga can hit off a skidding volley. i presume they would mostly need to be executed on the run against a quality approach/volley.

Exactly. I think you take away the opportunity for Tsonga to hit the big forehand by coming in when you have the advantage such as 1st serve, strong approach shot, or opponent on the run.

We'll see what Fed does against Tsonga at USO. I think Fed has to attack more and not let Tsonga have as many opportunities to blast ground strokes.

TennisCJC
09-07-2011, 12:16 PM
Baselining is dumb. Baseliners have one tactic which they use regardless of how poorly their opponent is returning.

That is stupid and 1-dimensional and it's hard to believe it was rewarded historically.

Just so you know, all of the great S&Vers were all-court players. McEnroe (watch that FO final he got to, he had a great ground game there), Stefan Edberg, Pete Sampras, Rod Laver, Ken Rosewall, Pancho Gonzales for examples.

Hell, Borg had a solid S&V game, and he was the epitome of a baseliner for decades (until baseliners became 1 dimensional)

You must be kidding. Yes, most S&V played all court tennis but if McEnroe, Edberg, Rafter and a few others did not have great volleys; they would not have been anywhere near as successful as they were. These guys lived and died by the attacking game.

S&V is not 1 dimensional. McEnroe's FO final against Lendl was a great match to watch with the contrast of Mc attacking almost at every opportunity and Lendl countering with passing game. Mc even attack many of Lendl's 1st serves - blew my mind at the time.

Orion3
09-07-2011, 12:34 PM
I'd sincerely love to see the return of the S&V game. Growing up in the 70's/80's I was one of the few baseliners, now I'm in the vast majority. I still see the occassional S&V player but only at club level; some are quite good, but nowhere near pro-level.

My thoughts are that someday we will see the return of a 'great' professional S&V'er - and helped by the fact that nobody has played one for decades they will be very successful....for a time!!

S&V vs all-court vs baseliners...thats what tennis was about. I still love the modern game, its just very, very samey.

Sid_Vicious
09-07-2011, 12:41 PM
Djokovic - No
Nadal - NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Federer - Meh, kinda
Murray - Meh
Soderling - NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO




....

Llordra etc, YESSSSSSSSS

Llodra gets his *** handed to him by attacking the net almost every time he plays a top player.

Djokovic humiliated him at Wimbledon.

Devilito
09-07-2011, 12:48 PM
Llodra gets his *** handed to him by attacking the net almost every time he plays a top player.

Djokovic humiliated him at Wimbledon.

That's because Llodra is NOT a top player. Never has been, never will be. Has nothing to do with coming to the net. Unless we can put Petros in a chamber that reverses his age by 20 years we’ll never know how good a real top all court net player will do against current top players. Petros in his prime would beat Llodra with a wooden racquet so using Llodra as a basis for comparison is moot.

Sid_Vicious
09-07-2011, 06:03 PM
That's because Llodra is NOT a top player. Never has been, never will be. Has nothing to do with coming to the net. Unless we can put Petros in a chamber that reverses his age by 20 years we’ll never know how good a real top all court net player will do against current top players. Petros in his prime would beat Llodra with a wooden racquet so using Llodra as a basis for comparison is moot.

I never said that Llodra is comparable to Sampras. If you just read a bit more of this thread, you would notice that I was disagreeing with someone who claimed that Llodra should attack the net more often. Llodra's net game does not do him much favors. As a matter of fact, in his match against Djokovic he would have lasted a bit longer had he tried to construct points from the baseline rather than perform suicide rushes to the net.

And yeah yeah, we all know that Petros in his prime would cure cancer, win the superbowl, solve the string theory, pay out the US national debt, and beat Chuck Norris in an arm wrestling match.

Caesar
09-07-2011, 06:33 PM
Apart from Edberg and Rafter there are very few net rushers that were successful even in the 90s. I think most people tend to refer to an all-court game like Petros had which would easily still be successful. Petros was not a netrusher and often stayed back on 2nd serves. He would be more than capable of mixing things up to suit the more modern play styles. He was 20x the player Fish or Stepanek are and they have been very successful this hardcourt swing.
This.

Most players are too good with heavy topspin passing shots for an opponent to approach constantly, therefore a true S&V/netrush game is unlikely to be successful.

That said, top players like Djokovic and Nadal who honed their games on slow courts do tend to be weaker at dealing with netplay/change of pace/slice than they are with other types of games. So if you approach judiciously, you can win a lot of points that might otherwise result in you getting beaten by staying at the back of the court. That is how guys like Tsonga succeed.

Of course, you need to have the groundstrokes to play from the baseline on the occasions you don't have a good opening to approach.

Manus Domini
09-07-2011, 06:46 PM
You must be kidding. Yes, most S&V played all court tennis but if McEnroe, Edberg, Rafter and a few others did not have great volleys; they would not have been anywhere near as successful as they were. These guys lived and died by the attacking game.

S&V is not 1 dimensional. McEnroe's FO final against Lendl was a great match to watch with the contrast of Mc attacking almost at every opportunity and Lendl countering with passing game. Mc even attack many of Lendl's 1st serves - blew my mind at the time.

You did notice I never said that S&V is dumb and that I did say that S&Vers are able to play all-court, right?

Caesar
09-07-2011, 07:11 PM
Just so you know, all of the great S&Vers were all-court players. McEnroe (watch that FO final he got to, he had a great ground game there), Stefan Edberg, Pete Sampras, Rod Laver, Ken Rosewall, Pancho Gonzales for examples.
Sampras was definitely not a S&V player. Net rushers come to the net on every first serve and a big percentage of both their and their opponents' second serves.

I wouldn't say Edberg and McEnroe had great ground games. Edberg's backhand was a thing of beauty, but both players' creaky continental forehands were a constant worry to their fans. Later S&V players like Rafter had much more solid groundstrokes, but even with him I watched baseline rallies with my heart in my mouth - expecting him to dump his slice backhand into the net at any moment.

0d1n
09-08-2011, 10:13 AM
I never said that Llodra is comparable to Sampras. If you just read a bit more of this thread, you would notice that I was disagreeing with someone who claimed that Llodra should attack the net more often. Llodra's net game does not do him much favors. As a matter of fact, in his match against Djokovic he would have lasted a bit longer had he tried to construct points from the baseline rather than perform suicide rushes to the net.

And yeah yeah, we all know that Petros in his prime would cure cancer, win the superbowl, solve the string theory, pay out the US national debt, and beat Chuck Norris in an arm wrestling match.

Actually ... that one is rather likely :)

Sampras was definitely not a S&V player. Net rushers come to the net on every first serve and a big percentage of both their and their opponents' second serves.

I wouldn't say Edberg and McEnroe had great ground games. Edberg's backhand was a thing of beauty, but both players' creaky continental forehands were a constant worry to their fans. Later S&V players like Rafter had much more solid groundstrokes, but even with him I watched baseline rallies with my heart in my mouth - expecting him to dump his slice backhand into the net at any moment.

Sorry, but Rafter's ground game was weaker than Edberg's. Yeh ... Edberg had an ugly forehand but his backhand was world class, his movement on the baseline slightly better than Rafter's and he kept his forehand long/deep enough to be tough to attack.
Rafter's groundstrokes albeit looking more "conventional" were never that effective, he was giving plenty of short balls to opponents and couldn't return/pass nearly as well as Edberg could.
I'm even inclined to believe that McEnroe had a better return than Rafter...and comparable back court game.

bjk
09-08-2011, 03:25 PM
What happened to chip and charge off a second serve? I seem to remember a match at the USO in which Arnaud Clement did nothing but chip and charge, and he defeated Andy Murray that year, it was 2005. If you're going to lose the return game 9/10 times anyway, why not adopt a riskier strategy like chip and charge?

Caesar
09-08-2011, 04:39 PM
Sorry, but Rafter's ground game was weaker than Edberg's. Yeh ... Edberg had an ugly forehand but his backhand was world class, his movement on the baseline slightly better than Rafter's and he kept his forehand long/deep enough to be tough to attack.
Rafter's groundstrokes albeit looking more "conventional" were never that effective, he was giving plenty of short balls to opponents and couldn't return/pass nearly as well as Edberg could.
I'm even inclined to believe that McEnroe had a better return than Rafter...and comparable back court game.
I do have to disagree. Rafter had to spend much more time at the back of the court against guys with much better groundstrokes. Although Edberg had a much more potent backhand, I'd have backed Rafter over him in a baseline rally. More consistency.

Orion3
09-08-2011, 10:03 PM
Sampras was definitely not a S&V player. Net rushers come to the net on every first serve and a big percentage of both their and their opponents' second serves.


I'd disagree. I think Sampras was an S&V player, but not necessarily a net rusher. On service I think Sampras tended to S&V but his ground game was so well developed so he wasn't forced to chip and charge on return games, he could trade (with interest in most cases) and pick and chose as and when he went to the net to finish off a point. You could argue that he was an all-courter, but he was most at home destroying opponents from the net.

IMO he remains the greatest all round player I've ever seen. Maybe not the best in each and every department of the game, but I'd rate his overall average in all areas above an other individual - including Federer.

TennisCJC
09-15-2011, 06:44 AM
Watch USO final and Djoko did come in a lot but I swear he seems to not know how to transition to net. I get the feeling on many of his approaches that he didn't know where to hit approach and he just didn't look confident on his way in. He even did hit the approach cross court a few times and continued in. He won a hi-% of points at net but still did not look confident.

I just think pros approach so infrequently now that it isn't natural to them. I think he could win 10-20% higher ratio at net if he works on it in competitive matches against lower ranked players. It will come in real handy on hard courts and grass if he improves this area.

Nadal won a hi % of net points - at least early in the match - but he only comes in when he has a golden opportunity setup by a powerful approach shot.

Still think attacking has value.

Would Fed have beaten Djoko if he S&V on one of those match points? We'll never know but I think his odds would have gone up considerably as it would have been one more element of pressure that may have pushed Djoko over the edge.

diggler
09-15-2011, 07:16 AM
It is not the coaching, it is the rackets and string. If you go back to wood rackets and gut, you would see a different game which includes serve and volley. That would be Fed's best chance of being number 1.

thor's hammer
09-15-2011, 07:57 AM
The current game is ripe for a modern version of Connors, someone who is always looking to punish the short ball and come in at the right time with the right approach shot - mostly down the line, hit hard, deep and flat with sidespin to take it further out of the court.

Chip and charge won't cut it today, but Connors didn't chip and charge, he pounded and charged! And he could volley like a mofo.

Serve and volley rarely. On match point, for example. ;-)

stingstang
09-15-2011, 08:10 AM
It is not the coaching, it is the rackets and string. If you go back to wood rackets and gut, you would see a different game which includes serve and volley. That would be Fed's best chance of being number 1.

Agree. Switched from a Wilson player racket with PSGD to a 4D500T with the latest poly strings. Passing is so easy its a joke even at my crappy level. The ball just dives in.

Manus Domini
09-15-2011, 02:40 PM
It is not the coaching, it is the rackets and string. If you go back to wood rackets and gut, you would see a different game which includes serve and volley. That would be Fed's best chance of being number 1.

I disagree. There was an entire period when the most successful players with woodies were baseliners. Tilden and Budge, for example (was Segura one? I'm not sure). I mean, some like Kramer and Riggs S&Ved (though they were a little later), but baseliners were king at that time...

MotherMarjorie
09-15-2011, 03:32 PM
Attacking the net is not the same thing as serve and volley. Opportunistic net play has replaced S&V tennis.
Thank you. Thank you for teaching folks the difference. It means a lot to Mother Marjorie, oh, yes, it does.

Mother Marjorie Ann
Empress of Talk Tennis Warehouse

droliver
09-15-2011, 04:13 PM
Thank you, Mother :)

Devilito
09-15-2011, 05:13 PM
Agree. Switched from a Wilson player racket with PSGD to a 4D500T with the latest poly strings. Passing is so easy its a joke even at my crappy level. The ball just dives in.

The people you play against are bad. You don't pass easy like a joke when you can barely get your racquet on a ball that's going 80-100mph or return a 130mph serve. One thing is certain in the pro game now, players not only have horrid volleys, they have horrid approach shots. Too much spin and no angle so it just sits up in their opponents hitting zone. No **** they're gonna get passed. Nobody used to approach that way. When Petros hit a flat forehand painting the line that bounced 2" off the court you're not gonna pass him. I've seen Federer come in off terrible approach shots that just sit up and then he wonders how he got passed. Jeeze i wonder there Roge. The entire agressive attacking mentality is a lost art. You're not gonna convert pros now to play that way you have to start at the junior level.

BrooklynNY
09-15-2011, 05:29 PM
One thing is certain in the pro game now, players not only have horrid volleys, they have horrid approach shots. Too much spin and no angle so it just sits up in their opponents hitting zone. No **** they're gonna get passed. Nobody used to approach that way. When Petros hit a flat forehand painting the line that bounced 2" off the court you're not gonna pass him. I've seen Federer come in off terrible approach shots that just sit up and then he wonders how he got passed. Jeeze i wonder there Roge. The entire agressive attacking mentality is a lost art. You're not gonna convert pros now to play that way you have to start at the junior level.

quoted for truth

word.

Sid_Vicious
09-15-2011, 05:42 PM
One thing is certain about the pro game back then, players not only had horrid passing shots, they had horrid groundstrokes. Too flat, slow racquet head speed and insufficient spin to generate a decent angle so it just sat up for the netman to volley away for the winner. When Novak Djokovic sprints to an approach shot and slides his whole body weight into the passing shot, you are gonna get burned at net. I've seen Sampras hit some pretty crappy passing shots that were completely in the reach of the netman and then he wondered how his opponent volleyed a winner on him. Jeez I wonder there Petros. The art of hitting passing shots alluded players back then. Can't say I blame them. You can't just acquire Djokovic-like passing shots. You have to start learning at the junior level.

BrooklynNY
09-15-2011, 06:10 PM
One thing is certain about the pro game back then, players not only had horrid passing shots, they had horrid groundstrokes. Too flat, slow racquet head speed and insufficient spin to generate a decent angle so it just sat up for the netman to volley away for the winner. When Novak Djokovic sprints to an approach shot and slides his whole body weight into the passing shot, you are gonna get burned at net. I've seen Sampras hit some pretty crappy passing shots that were completely in the reach of the netman and then he wondered how his opponent volleyed a winner on him. Jeez I wonder there Petros. The art of hitting passing shots alluded players back then. Can't say I blame them. You can't just acquire Djokovic-like passing shots. You have to start learning at the junior level.

I was waiting for this.
haha, tis well thought, however, I think what you actually meant to say was "It sucks for those players who didn't really get to reap the benefits of the technological advances that have since been injected into the game", that have been discussed to the point of no end.

hoodjem
09-15-2011, 06:10 PM
Not today's pros.

Sid_Vicious
09-15-2011, 06:33 PM
I was waiting for this.
haha, tis well thought, however, I think what you actually meant to say was "It sucks for those players who didn't really get to reap the benefits of the technological advances that have since been injected into the game", that have been discussed to the point of no end.

haha, good point. However, I would like to add that It sucks that modern players who wish to play an attacking game have to deal with insanely gifted athletes skinning them alive like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEwsICaUaQo&feature=player_detailpage#t=29s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PY4RFTanaFE&feature=player_detailpage#t=113s

It sucks that players that employ agressive games today can't reap the same benefits from their games as their counterparts in the 90s. It was easy to play agressive back then because no one could explosively sprint every ball down or slide into groundies (on any surface) as consistently the athletes today.

BrooklynNY
09-15-2011, 07:21 PM
I don't completely disagree with you, I just agree with Devilito more. :D

Sid_Vicious
09-15-2011, 07:24 PM
I don't completely disagree with you, I just agree with Devilito more. :D

That is perfectly alright with me. I respect your opinion.

Devilito
09-15-2011, 09:47 PM
. When Novak Djokovic sprints to an approach shot and slides his whole body weight into the passing shot, you are gonna get burned at net.

you're delusional. Sure Djokovic can make godly shots but it’s not going to happen as often as you’re imagining. Djokovic had issues with Monfils acting like a complete clown in Cincinnati coming to the net off terrible shots. Fish was coming in off terrible shots too and gave Djokovic hell. He even served and volleyed. Just because you link some highlight reel shot doesn’t mean he’s going to hit those shots the entire match. Someone like Petros who could put pressure on Djokovic point after point is not going to let Djokovic get some comfort zone type rhythm on his shots like a lot of players do now. Even Federer was exposing Djokovic at the US Open until his mental breakdown. Djokovic and Nadal thrive in a modern game where nobody puts pressure on you, with 40 ball rallies and you can get into a rhythm. That’s why Federer had issues putting Djokovic away. He played Djokovic into form and let him back into the game instead of closing him out. Petros wouldn’t mess around like that.

Netspirit
09-16-2011, 11:39 AM
S&V is used to be "aggressive" - meaning, if one manages to get to the net, he had the advantage and better odds of winning the point.

Since the technologies changed, S&V is a "passive" strategy, meaning that the net rusher can only hope for a mistake from the opponent, has no positional advantage over him and the odds of winning the point are even (or even small). A net rusher today relinquishes his control over the point to the opponent and gives up the initiative.

Sid_Vicious
09-16-2011, 06:01 PM
you're delusional. Sure Djokovic can make godly shots but it’s not going to happen as often as you’re imagining. Djokovic had issues with Monfils acting like a complete clown in Cincinnati coming to the net off terrible shots. Fish was coming in off terrible shots too and gave Djokovic hell. He even served and volleyed. Just because you link some highlight reel shot doesn’t mean he’s going to hit those shots the entire match. Someone like Petros who could put pressure on Djokovic point after point is not going to let Djokovic get some comfort zone type rhythm on his shots like a lot of players do now. Even Federer was exposing Djokovic at the US Open until his mental breakdown. Djokovic and Nadal thrive in a modern game where nobody puts pressure on you, with 40 ball rallies and you can get into a rhythm. That’s why Federer had issues putting Djokovic away. He played Djokovic into form and let him back into the game instead of closing him out. Petros wouldn’t mess around like that.

LOL! You provide the most rose-colored views about Pete Sampras's game. Was there anything Sampras could not do in your view? My entire post is a parody of your delusional posts. I realize that Djokovic's godly shots are not going to happen every point. You, on the other hand, make statements like "When Petros hit a flat forehand painting the line that bounced 2" off the court you're not gonna pass him". Yeah I am the delusional one. :lol: You keep on believing these fairy tales about Sampras crushing flat forehands that bounced 2 inches off the court every other point. You have just watched too many Sampras highlight videos and are convinced that nothing but winners ever flew off Sampras's racquet.

Thanks for giving me two examples that don't really prove jack diddly squat. Fish and Monfils? Allow me to give a similar BS argument featuring stupid examples. Even a baseliner who lacked heavy groundies like Hewitt was able to give Pete a spanking in the USO 2001 final in front of the American crowd. Someone like Lleyton could put pressure on Sampras point after point with his great returns, pinpoint passing shots, and amazing court speed. Sampras thrived in the 90s game, where no one liked to put pressure on him through the use of good returns and passing shots. This allowed Sampras to just get into a rhythm. Imagine if he played Djokovic :shock:.You are right. Sampras wouldn't mess around against Djokovic like Federer did. He would have been dismissed in a straightforward 3 set match. :o


As for the bolded part.... LOL! Yeah "Even Federer" was exposing Djokovic. Surprising isn't it? I mean is Federer even a good player?

Oh and we all know that Sampras never ended up losing a tight match, right? :lol:

BeHappy
09-16-2011, 06:07 PM
LOL! You provide the most rose-colored views about Pete Sampras's game. Was there anything Sampras could not do in your view? My entire post is a parody of your delusional posts. I realize that Djokovic's godly shots are not going to happen every point. You, on the other hand, make statements like "When Petros hit a flat forehand painting the line that bounced 2" off the court you're not gonna pass him". Yeah I am the delusional one. :lol: You keep on believing these fairy tales about Sampras crushing flat forehands that bounced 2 inches off the court every other point. You have just watched too many Sampras highlight videos and are convinced that nothing but winners ever flew off Sampras's racquet.


He won 7 Wimbledons, 5 US Opens and 2 AO's. Watch the 1999 Wimbledon final or the 1999 WTC final and you'll see that when he was firing on all cylinders the entire match was a highlight reel.

Sid_Vicious
09-16-2011, 06:13 PM
He won 7 Wimbledons, 5 US Opens and 2 AO's. Watch the 1999 Wimbledon final or the 1999 WTC final and you'll see that when he was firing on all cylinders the entire match was a highlight reel.
You don't need to preach to me about Sampras and how good he was. I have already stated that I was being sarcastic.


Devilito=Fed_rulz of the Sampras camp.