PDA

View Full Version : Is the slowing down of surfaces a good thing for tennis ?


VOLLEY KING
03-01-2012, 06:56 AM
Is the slowing down of surfaces a good thing for tennis ?

There are a few different opinions about this .

One school of thought feels it's a bad thing because the serve and volley game is dead.

Another school of thought doesn't like it because their favorite players lose on slow surfaces

Another school of thought feels that all the surfaces have become the same and you don't have four unique surfaces anymore.

And another school of thought feels that tennis has never been this exciting . The technology increased the power to such a degree that the game became to fast. It was all serves and aces and people were getting bored.

tennis_pro
03-01-2012, 07:05 AM
How many more threads about speed surfaces? Makes me want to throw in some random pictures.
http://images.free-extras.com/pics/s/sliced_cheese-877.jpg
http://sobadsogood.com/wp-content/uploads/funny-stormtrooper-photos-17.jpg

monfed
03-01-2012, 07:09 AM
To put it simply, slams should be -

AO - Medium-fast HC where both shotmakers and grinders have an equal opportunity of winning. Rebound Ace was tailor-made for this.

RG - Slow clay which it mostly is except that they're using lighter balls now.

WB - Fast grass like the 90s where S&Vers like Llodra, Lopez, Dent and Fish(to an extent) have a shot at the title.

USO - Fast HC where shotmakers should be outright favourites.

PS - Please don't give me the "If the courts are sped up, it would be an ace-fest" BS because that's an unbalanced viewpoint.

SLD76
03-01-2012, 07:10 AM
http://www.threadbombing.com/data/media/29/interesting-thread.gif



the short answer is, no.

SLD76
03-01-2012, 07:12 AM
To put it simply, slams should be -

AO - Medium-fast HC where both shotmakers and grinders have an equal opportunity of winning. Rebound Ace was tailor-made for this.

RG - Slow clay which it mostly is except that they're using lighter balls now.

WB - Fast grass like the 90s where S&Vers like Llodra, Lopez, Dent and Fish(to an extent) have a shot at the title.

USO - Fast HC where shotmakers should be outright favourites.

PS - Please don't give me the "If the courts are sped up, it would be an ace-fest" BS because that's an unbalanced viewpoint.

The WB courts dont need to be as fast as the 90's but not the green clay it is now. Id take relative quickness with the low bounce, thx.

mattennis
03-01-2012, 07:14 AM
Variety of surfaces speed and bounce is what we are lacking today.

jackson vile
03-01-2012, 07:17 AM
To put it simply, slams should be -

AO - Medium-fast HC where both shotmakers and grinders have an equal opportunity of winning. Rebound Ace was tailor-made for this.

RG - Slow clay which it mostly is except that they're using lighter balls now.

WB - Fast grass like the 90s where S&Vers like Llodra, Lopez, Dent and Fish(to an extent) have a shot at the title.

USO - Fast HC where shotmakers should be outright favourites.

PS - Please don't give me the "If the courts are sped up, it would be an ace-fest" BS because that's an unbalanced viewpoint.


That look correct to me, Wim. is just a joke from 2001 and on, FO is a joke due to multiple ball changes and not watering anymore and player have to eat the dirt, AO is fine, USO I am not sure about here.

VOLLEY KING
03-01-2012, 07:18 AM
If you really want four different surfaces you should have

Wimbledon : grass

USO hard

FO red clay

AO Har tru

This is what seems fair . Two fast surfaces and two slow surfaces .

Hard is not as fast as grass and Har tru is not as slow as red clay .

This is the way to go.

VOLLEY KING
03-01-2012, 07:24 AM
I should have asked this poll question a different way.....

The issue really is whether tennis has become more exciting than during the Sampras and Ivanesivic serving ace days.

The surfaces were changed as an answer to the increased speed of the serves. People were getting bored with watching ace after ace and viewership was down.

Power Player
03-01-2012, 07:27 AM
I should have asked this poll question a different way.....

The issue really is whether tennis has become more exciting than during the Sampras and Ivanesivic serving ace days.

The surfaces were changed as an answer to the increased speed of the serves. People were getting bored with watching ace after ace and viewership was down.

wow, you know how many ways this question and topic has been discussed here? lol. Do you use the search function?

you could spend a day reading the existing threads, yet you made another one..why??

TennisLovaLova
03-01-2012, 07:31 AM
Wimbledon grass was officially changed for a better grass quality that asks less care than the previous one. Again, and it's been said 2000 times here on the forum, it's also the way the ground is compacted that impacts the speed and ball bounce.
Answer: bad for tennis cause it kills variety and technique, it only benefits players under ped's

VOLLEY KING
03-01-2012, 07:37 AM
Wimbledon grass was officially changed for a better grass quality that asks less care than the previous one. Again, and it's been said 2000 times here on the forum, it's also the way the ground is compacted that impacts the speed and ball bounce.
Answer: bad for tennis cause it kills variety and technique, it only benefits players under ped's

Well there are two issues here.

First as a sports purist view. This would be where your coming from regarding the variety of styles.

Then there's the general public view.....which is that during this change we have witnessed possibly the two most exciting wimbledons of all time and now one of the most exciting AO's of all time.

Tennis viewership is way up since the Ivanesovic days.

GS
03-01-2012, 07:38 AM
My dream is to have those Aussies install artificial grass in Melbourne, just to mix the Grand Slam surfaces up alittle bit. But, as we all know, television and money control sports nowadays, and the networks want slower surfaces for more action. It's a pretty bad situation.

mattennis
03-01-2012, 07:39 AM
This is a very fast indoor carpet in the 90s. Those were beautiful points with artistry, touch, lobs, volleys...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8sUcX5ZAC0

Much more beautiful than anything you see today.

VOLLEY KING
03-01-2012, 07:43 AM
My dream is to have those Aussies install artificial grass in Melbourne, just to mix the Grand Slam surfaces up alittle bit. But, as we all know, television and money control sports nowadays, and the networks want slower surfaces for more action. It's a pretty bad situation.

Exactly! Well said!

Except I think they should go back to the old grass and hardcourt of wimby and USO and go to Har tru at the AO.

This way you would have 2 fast and 2 slow. Plus Har tru is not represented anywhere in the world anymore and it plays quite differently than red clay.

The USO used to be held on Har Tru and Jimmy Connors actually beat Borg on it at the USO.

Borg was as dominant on red clay as Nadal is today. And yet Borg could not win on Har Tru. So it is quite different than red clay.

I think this would be the most fair representation of all speeds.

pmerk34
03-01-2012, 08:27 AM
If you really want four different surfaces you should have

Wimbledon : grass

USO hard

FO red clay

AO Har tru

This is what seems fair . Two fast surfaces and two slow surfaces .

Hard is not as fast as grass and Har tru is not as slow as red clay .

This is the way to go.


Interesting idea.....

pmerk34
03-01-2012, 08:33 AM
This is a very fast indoor carpet in the 90s. Those were beautiful points with artistry, touch, lobs, volleys...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8sUcX5ZAC0

Much more beautiful than anything you see today.

Why did they take away indoor carpets anyway?

Magnetite
03-01-2012, 08:42 AM
There needs to be more variety.

I want to watch some HD serve and volley action.

Devilito
03-01-2012, 08:48 AM
Why did they take away indoor carpets anyway?

Nadal couldn't play on it

celoft
03-01-2012, 10:41 AM
Looks like they want many Career Slams.

6-2/6-4/6-0
03-01-2012, 12:01 PM
I'm on record for faster courts in about 26 of these threads...

I'd love to see the AO go back to grass (better in the heat, easier on the body), the French to get a bit slower but keep the lighter balls, Wimbledon to go back to late 80s/early 90s grass, and some fast, well maintained hard courts at the USO.

And while we're at it, let's get some good fast carpet going again.

In general, I'd like to see more natural surfaces and softer surfaces, they are so much easier on the body if you're playing regularly...

VOLLEY KING
03-01-2012, 02:49 PM
All I know is that I would rather watch paint dry than watch a match between Sampras & Ivanesovic.....

Ace...easy volley .....ace .....easy volley.......ugghhh

mattennis
03-01-2012, 03:44 PM
It is really a shame what they have done to this beautiful sport.

This is Masters Cup'05, the only one year since 1999 that they used a fast court (as they were in the 90s indoor carpet tournaments), and it was probably the best offensive tennis I have ever seen since the 90s. Rewarding aggresive shots (not endless mega-top-spin shots from behind the baseline till one of the players hit it long or to the net) :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XOBP3N1ejc

Will we be able to watch some day this beautiful fast tennis again?

mattennis
03-01-2012, 03:58 PM
The end of that great final, with better image quality: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tmvej7_PfkY

Even Coria had to be more aggresive than usual, and his match against Nalbandian was amazing too: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HymGHfzkU4A&feature=related

VOLLEY KING
03-01-2012, 04:20 PM
Personally I enjoyed the two Wimbledon Federer finals much much more.

The Isner Mahut marathon was incredible as well.

This years AO final between djokovic and Nadal was the best tennis I have ever seen in my life period.

I think that today's tennis is far more exciting than any other era and I wish someone start such a poll.

Manus Domini
03-01-2012, 04:51 PM
It is really a shame what they have done to this beautiful sport.

This is Masters Cup'05, the only one year since 1999 that they used a fast court (as they were in the 90s indoor carpet tournaments), and it was probably the best offensive tennis I have ever seen since the 90s. Rewarding aggresive shots (not endless mega-top-spin shots from behind the baseline till one of the players hit it long or to the net) :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XOBP3N1ejc

Will we be able to watch some day this beautiful fast tennis again?

How can anyone watch that video and still believe Fed's dominance was due to weak competition?

mattennis
03-02-2012, 05:31 AM
I am watching Dubai Djokovic-Murray and this hard court+balls are clearly faster than Australian Open conditions and US OPEN conditions.

There should be more hard courts like this one, for the sake of variety.

SLD76
03-02-2012, 05:41 AM
I am watching Dubai Djokovic-Murray and this hard court+balls are clearly faster than Australian Open conditions and US OPEN conditions.

There should be more hard courts like this one, for the sake of variety.

nah there wont be. because it wouldnt favor nadal/djoker grinding tennis.

djoker got exposed a lil bit on that faster court.

VOLLEY KING
03-02-2012, 05:53 AM
I don't think you can call today's tennis "grinding"

It's more like "baseline BASHING"

And I find it far more exciting . Who the hell wants to see short points?

I have never seen shots like this in my life . It's "boom
Boom boom"

I love the long rally's at laser like speeds and the strategy and physical endurance required. Who the hell wants to see aces all day long?

I'm a serve and volleyer and I think it's much more fun to "PLAY" that way .....but watching it is not as exciting as today's tennis.

I really do not want to go back to the Sampras days. I can't think of one final as exciting as The Federer & Nadal finals or this past AO .

The Isner match was amaaaaaaaazimg for our sport. The whole world tuned in to watch .

Rozroz
03-02-2012, 05:59 AM
djoker got exposed a lil bit on that faster court.

who's that?
oh, you mean tankovic!

VOLLEY KING
03-02-2012, 06:08 AM
who's that?
oh, you mean tankovic!

Fast does not equal more skill.

Slower tennis is phyisically more challenging requires greater strategy and mental strength is needed .

But I wouldn't call today's tennis "slow" by any stretch of the imagination .

Crazy man
03-02-2012, 06:16 AM
I think it's a great thing. ITF should be so proud of themselves to have came up with a genuis move to essentially cut the limited amound of slam contenders from 15 to 4. It seems to have worked, because the same 4 keep cropping up in the SF's. Again, nicely played ITF; A pat on the back is necessary.

VOLLEY KING
03-02-2012, 06:43 AM
I think it's a great thing. ITF should be so proud of themselves to have came up with a genuis move to essentially cut the limited amound of slam contenders from 15 to 4. It seems to have worked, because the same 4 keep cropping up in the SF's. Again, nicely played ITF; A pat on the back is necessary.

It's always been that way . The top 4 players always appeared usually.

Borg , McEnroe , Connors ( that's really three).

mattennis
03-02-2012, 06:45 AM
To Volley King:

I am not saying to change ALL courts and balls and make them as fast as the fastest 90s courts.

I say to change SOME hard courts and balls and make them at least as fast as Dubai this year, and bring back SOME carpet tournaments, to have SOME variety.

As Federer and just about every other player have said, today all courts play basically the same. So it is obviuos that the best four players almost always will get to the SF of every tournament.

Tennis NEVER was like this. The most essencial thing about tennis was that there were four clearly different conditions to play the game.

If it were the case today again, if the four GS were four clearly different conditions to play the game, we would not see the same 4 players in the SF.

And faster conditions make casualties (top-seeds surprise defeats) more probable, bringing more thrill and suspense/uncertain to the tournaments.

pmerk34
03-02-2012, 06:49 AM
It's always been that way . The top 4 players always appeared usually.

Borg , McEnroe , Connors ( that's really three).

Well that changed from about 1989-2003

jackson vile
03-02-2012, 06:50 AM
Carpet! Yes, we need to bring that back for the end of season play. Wim is got to go back to 90's speed.

One correction, the courts are not just slower today. They were made slower since 2001, and were a factor in ushering out the S&V era of tennis. Federer described this him self, claiming not just the other players but himself as well have racked up their wins on the new slow courts.

I can't help but think no one complained about this when Roger was winning everything. When Nadal and Novak started winning everything all of a sudden people were demanding smaller rackets, wooden rackets, faster courts, and faster balls, etc.

To Volley King:

I am not saying to change ALL courts and balls and make them as fast as the fastest 90s courts.

I say to change SOME hard courts and balls and make them at least as fast as Dubai this year, and bring back SOME carpet tournaments, to have SOME variety.

As Federer and just about every other player have said, today all courts play basically the same. So it is obviuos that the best four players almost always will get to the SF of every tournament.

Tennis NEVER was like this. The most essencial thing about tennis was that there were four clearly different conditions to play the game.

If it were the case today again, if the four GS were four clearly different conditions to play the game, we would not see the same 4 players in the SF.

And faster conditions make casualties (top-seeds surprise defeats) more probable, bringing more thrill and suspense/uncertain to the tournaments.

mattennis
03-02-2012, 07:47 AM
This is the nş of different semi-finalist in the four GS tournaments since 1990 (being 16 the maximum and 4 the minimum, obviously) :

1990: 12
1991: 9
1992: 11
1993: 11
1994: 12
1995: 10
1996: 13
1997: 13
1998: 14
1999: 13
2000: 12
2001: 14
2002: 14
2003: 12
2004: 13
2005: 10
2006: 10
2007: 9
2008: 8
2009: 10
2010: 10
2011: 6

You can clearly see the trend.

I predict 5 or 6 for 2012.

Homogenization of conditions is not the only factor, but it is a HUGE factor in this trend.

I bet you that if the four GS were four drastically different conditions (and the Tour had enough tournaments of each of those four different conditions), there would be many more different players in the SF of the four GS (and tournaments in general).

tenniselbow1
03-02-2012, 09:06 AM
Carpet! Yes, we need to bring that back for the end of season play. Wim is got to go back to 90's speed.

One correction, the courts are not just slower today. They were made slower since 2001, and were a factor in ushering out the S&V era of tennis. Federer described this him self, claiming not just the other players but himself as well have racked up their wins on the new slow courts.

I can't help but think no one complained about this when Roger was winning everything. When Nadal and Novak started winning everything all of a sudden people were demanding smaller rackets, wooden rackets, faster courts, and faster balls, etc.

You fail to mention something here. Fed won his Wimbi's on the progressively slower grass courts of Wimbi. Rafa on the other hand had to wait till 08 when the courts were significantly slower than 2001. Giant hole in your arguement, Wimbi courts of today are a disgrace to traditional grass court tennis, in 2001-05 they held some respect.

VOLLEY KING
03-02-2012, 09:15 AM
Carpet! Yes, we need to bring that back for the end of season play. Wim is got to go back to 90's speed.

One correction, the courts are not just slower today. They were made slower since 2001, and were a factor in ushering out the S&V era of tennis. Federer described this him self, claiming not just the other players but himself as well have racked up their wins on the new slow courts.

I can't help but think no one complained about this when Roger was winning everything. When Nadal and Novak started winning everything all of a sudden people were demanding smaller rackets, wooden rackets, faster courts, and faster balls, etc.

Carpet is a bad idea . With today's power it's just way to fast. It would be ridiculos.

To figure out the future we have to first figure out the past. How did we get here?

The game changed from wood to graphite and the strings changed from guy to poly. The game became incredibly fast and viewership was going down.

In order to slow the game down to increase the amount of tennis fans. They succeeded but they killed serve and volley tennis.

I think probably the only way to go back to the golden age of tennis is to do exactly that ! We simply must go back to wood with gut strings .

In baseball they only allow wood bats because aluminum bats allow for to many home runs . You don't see them changing the playing field and allowing aluminum bats do you?

Recreational players use aluminum bats to make it fun while the pros still use wood bats.

I think we need to take baseballs lead on this. Why fix what ain't broke? Tennis has existed with wooden racquets forever. Why change the integrity of the sport with advanced technology?

Spaghetti strings were outlawed because it changed the integrity of the sport. I submit to you that graphite & poly & oversized racquets has changed the sport far more than spaghetti strings ever did .

This constant technology is a bad thing. It has to stop somewhere. We need to stop playing around with the apped of the courts and the weight of the balls.

Let's go back to basics and use wood. It's worked great for centuries and there was no reason to change the integrity of our sport .

TMF
03-02-2012, 09:22 AM
Nadal start winning when the court continue to slow down and the bounce increase. Added in having a heavier ball suits for grinding and defense. Players with huge serve, shot makers are at a disavantage.

VOLLEY KING
03-02-2012, 09:46 AM
Nadal start winning when the court continue to slow down and the bounce increase. Added in having a heavier ball suits for grinding and defense. Players with huge serve, shot makers are at a disavantage.

I don't think Djokovic heard you. :-)

Clarky21
03-02-2012, 10:03 AM
I don't think Djokovic heard you. :-)

No kidding. Humpty Dumpty benefits immensely from slower surfaces. Trying to act as if they only favor Nadal is pure bs.

jackson vile
03-02-2012, 10:36 AM
It is another surface, the more surfaces the more the variety. They can deal with the serve fest situation with the ball. But clearly we need to have some tournaments that cater to the S&V players, and pay off the big servers as well.

As of 2001 it has been all about the baseline, and that is while you see baseliners such as Federer, Novak, Nadal at the very top. The S&V players need a stake of their own, and many of the baseline players simply aren't as competitive after the USO.


Carpet is a bad idea . With today's power it's just way to fast. It would be ridiculos.

To figure out the future we have to first figure out the past. How did we get here?

The game changed from wood to graphite and the strings changed from guy to poly. The game became incredibly fast and viewership was going down.

In order to slow the game down to increase the amount of tennis fans. They succeeded but they killed serve and volley tennis.

I think probably the only way to go back to the golden age of tennis is to do exactly that ! We simply must go back to wood with gut strings .

In baseball they only allow wood bats because aluminum bats allow for to many home runs . You don't see them changing the playing field and allowing aluminum bats do you?

Recreational players use aluminum bats to make it fun while the pros still use wood bats.

I think we need to take baseballs lead on this. Why fix what ain't broke? Tennis has existed with wooden racquets forever. Why change the integrity of the sport with advanced technology?

Spaghetti strings were outlawed because it changed the integrity of the sport. I submit to you that graphite & poly & oversized racquets has changed the sport far more than spaghetti strings ever did .

This constant technology is a bad thing. It has to stop somewhere. We need to stop playing around with the apped of the courts and the weight of the balls.

Let's go back to basics and use wood. It's worked great for centuries and there was no reason to change the integrity of our sport .

VOLLEY KING
03-02-2012, 11:18 AM
It is another surface, the more surfaces the more the variety. They can deal with the serve fest situation with the ball. But clearly we need to have some tournaments that cater to the S&V players, and pay off the big servers as well.

As of 2001 it has been all about the baseline, and that is while you see baseliners such as Federer, Novak, Nadal at the very top. The S&V players need a stake of their own, and many of the baseline players simply aren't as competitive after the USO.

I think it's more because of the technology not the surface .

Even when the surfaces were faster the tide was turning .

McEnroe was the last person to win Wimbledon with a wood racquet. Along came Lendl with his graphite and slammed the door McEnroe. Power tennis was born.

Sampras came along and the style if play had not really changed yet but it was starting to .....Agassi won Wimbledon from the baseline .

But then came Hewitt and Safin and finally Federer who was not a serve and volleyer. This was all on fast surfaces.

The game changed because of technology not the surface. If they brought back fast surfaces serve and volley would still not work.

I believe Nadal won queens club on fast grass and there are a Ton of indoor tournaments still played on fast hardcourts......guys like Djokovic and Nadal win those as well.

You want the old tennis back then you have to bring old equipment back. The fast surfaces have already failed to bring serve and volley back.

pmerk34
03-02-2012, 11:28 AM
I think it's more because of the technology not the surface .

Even when the surfaces were faster the tide was turning .

McEnroe was the last person to win Wimbledon with a wood racquet. Along came Lendl with his graphite and slammed the door McEnroe. Power tennis was born.

Sampras came along and the style if play had not really changed yet but it was starting to .....Agassi won Wimbledon from the baseline .

But then came Hewitt and Safin and finally Federer who was not a serve and volleyer. This was all on fast surfaces.

The game changed because of technology not the surface. If they brought back fast surfaces serve and volley would still not work.

I believe Nadal won queens club on fast grass and there are a Ton of indoor tournaments still played on fast hardcourts......guys like Djokovic and Nadal win those as well.

You want the old tennis back then you have to bring old equipment back. The fast surfaces have already failed to bring serve and volley back.

Much of what you say is true. I do not believe faster surfaces would bring back S&V either but it would at least allow for some variety in play and more winners and more attacking to succeed.

Deuces Wild
03-02-2012, 11:44 AM
Homogenization makes it more possible for one player to win a great number of slams. Having active players in the GOAT discussion helps with marketability.

VOLLEY KING
03-02-2012, 11:51 AM
Homogenization makes it more possible for one player to win a great number of slams. Having active players in the GOAT discussion helps with marketability.

Thats a dangerous argument. Then the argument can be made that is the reason Federer and Laver won all those slams.

Dont go there.

VOLLEY KING
03-02-2012, 11:57 AM
Much of what you say is true. I do not believe faster surfaces would bring back S&V either but it would at least allow for some variety in play and more winners and more attacking to succeed.

Theres plenty of attacking...Djokovic hits the crap out of the ball.

Del Potro hits the crap out of the ball.

Soderling hits the crap out of the ball.

Berdych....and Murray attacks quite a bit as well.

Could you imagine how fast the ball would fly with faster surfaces and faster balls? It would be like a video game.

Serve and volley is dead because the racquets and strings have improved. If the surfaces were faster these guys would blow past a serve and volleyer even easier.


Djokovic actually has bigger groundstrokes...Fed would be dead....Nadal would have zero chance.

TennisLovaLova
03-02-2012, 11:59 AM
I dont believe in an organization/conspiration that controls tennis to this point. Things happened randomly after each tournament manager decided to make little or significant changes in court, balls, speed, whatever...

Backhanded Compliment
03-02-2012, 12:06 PM
Variety is the spice of life

Backhanded Compliment
03-02-2012, 12:11 PM
Serve and volley is dead because the racquets and strings have improved. If the surfaces were faster these guys would blow past a serve and volleyer even easier.


The racket thing is partly true... the thing is the rackets made the serve sooo good they needed to slow down the courts.

But the rackets also made the return better so some mild speed increases at outdoor hardcourt and grass would be nice. Wimbledon (1st week) should always be the fastest outdoor tournament on the tour. I think the way Wimbledon's janus-like 1st and second weeks are very sprecial to the game and ramping up the speed a little would accentuate that wonderful quality.

pmerk34
03-02-2012, 12:14 PM
Theres plenty of attacking...Djokovic hits the crap out of the ball.

Del Potro hits the crap out of the ball.

Soderling hits the crap out of the ball.

Berdych....and Murray attacks quite a bit as well.

Could you imagine how fast the ball would fly with faster surfaces and faster balls? It would be like a video game.

Serve and volley is dead because the racquets and strings have improved. If the surfaces were faster these guys would blow past a serve and volleyer even easier.


Djokovic actually has bigger groundstrokes...Fed would be dead....Nadal would have zero chance.

I understand they hit the crap out of the ball I watch the sport like we all do, but does EVERY tournament need 20 stroke rallies time after time? What's wrong with SOME tournaments playing like the 2005 Tour Final court played. It doesn't bother you or strike you as odd that in bot the US Open and Australian Open final Nadal and Djokovic simply could not hit through each other? To me the Us Open court should be fast enough to where those 20 stroke rallies could ended in 7 strokes

mattennis
03-02-2012, 12:14 PM
It is not just about bringing back SnV.

There have always been great fast courts BASELINE players that were absolutely crap on clay and slow courts (and the opposite as well).

Players like Thomas Enqvist, Thomas Johansson, Lleyton Hewitt, Wayne Ferreira, Malivai Washington, Karol Kucera, Todd Martin,...they didn't do serve and volley. They played from the baseline, hitting very flat (by todays standard), and they got much better results in really fast hard courts and carpet than clay or slow-hard (because of the way they hit the ball).

If there were more hard courts as fast as this Dubai hard court, new baseline and different (flat hitters) players would have a chance to compete as well.

We would see many different type of baseliners (as we had in the 90s and 80s), more variety of games, even if still no one did serve and volley.

Different conditions that rewarded different skills would be better for the game, as it always was.

If it stays as it is now, only more super-top-spin hitters and super-runners will raise to the top.

pmerk34
03-02-2012, 12:18 PM
It is not just about bringing back SnV.

There have always been great fast courts BASELINE players that were absolutely crap on clay and slow courts (and the opposite as well).

Players like Thomas Enqvist, Thomas Johansson, Lleyton Hewitt, Wayne Ferreira, Malivai Washington, Karol Kucera, Todd Martin,...they didn't do serve and volley. They played from the baseline, hitting very flat (by todays standard), and they got much better results in really fast hard courts and carpet than clay or slow-hard (because of the way they hit the ball).

If there were more hard courts as fast as this Dubai hard court, new baseline and different (flat hitters) players would have a chance to compete as well.

We would see many different type of baseliners (as we had in the 90s and 80s), more variety of games, even if still no one did serve and volley.

Different conditions that rewarded different skills would be better for the game, as it always was.

If it stays as it is now, only more super-top-spin hitters and super-runners will raise to the top.

Yep. we need more courts where good approach shots heck perfect approach shots don't result in the attacking player being passed 90% of the time anyway.

6-2/6-4/6-0
03-02-2012, 12:20 PM
Here is the simple fact - and it is indisputable: the variety in the men's game has decreased dramatically since the ITF/ATP/Tournament directors decided to slow down surfaces. Who was the last Serve and Volley player to win a Slam? Maybe Sampras at Wimbledon? But he was more of an all-courter than a S&V specialist...

While long rallies and "laser-like shots from the baseline" may be entertaining to many, they are boring after a while if that's all you see all year long.

Let's just add variety back. That's all I'm asking for. Change up the conditions. How interesting would golf be if every course were effectively the same? Or even within a course if the greens were all the same? I think that like golf, tennis has a tradition built on players playing not only their opponents but the court as well. If it were baseball where every court was standardized from the start and the tradition of the sport was built on having a neutral surface (though even there, different stadiums have different outfield dimensions, grass, etc.) then more of an argument could be made for the homogenization of the game (though if you want to get right down to it, then everything should be played on grass since the first courts were all grass, then came clay, carpet, and eventually hard courts).

And don't call it the evolution of the game. That argument is rubbish. It's directed by human choice and lower maintenance; and it has not 'raised the competitiveness of the species' or enlivened the results. On the contrary, it has made them more staid.

It's like saying that people getting fat is the evolution of society, because we have less physical jobs on the average than ever before and more comforts and conveniences with which to pamper ourselves and allow ourselves to get fat we're better for it. The fact is that you're only living longer because of science, but evolutionarily you are a big step back from the hard as nails 1800s farmer plowing a field behind an ox.

I like my air conditioning, and my computer, and not having to stare at an ox's butt all day. But that doesn't mean that I don't think its important to supplement my life based around a passive job with some serious time spent being physical to counterbalance the effects of that jobstyle.

What would evolution be? Let's have baseline bashing courts and tourneys, let's have high powered serve and volley courts and tourneys, let's find things in the middle and at the extremes. If you want to talk about evolution, that's it...

Or maybe we could get RedBull to sponsor a tournament where the balls are all on fire. You'd need an asbestos glove to serve, and getting tagged at the net would take on a whole new significance. Maybe that would make incessant baseline bashing everywhere more interesting...

mattennis
03-02-2012, 12:24 PM
And if someone does not know it: in the 90s if you look at any draw of an indoor carpet tournament, the 90% of the players played from the baseline. Only seven or eight players used to do serve and volley on both serves playing on indoor carpet or grass. Even them used to stay at the baseline with second serves when playing on hard court outdoor (and obviously clay).

But even though the 95% of players (in the 90s) were baseliners, there were much more "baseline variety" than today (today it is almost impossible for a very flat and touch baseline player to succeed), you had slow courts baseliners, fast courts baseliners, very few serve-and-volleyers (Edberg, Rafter), all-courters (Sampras, Becker, Ivanisevic, Krajicek, Stich...).

wimble10
03-02-2012, 12:32 PM
Here's another related thread on this topic :
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=413153

It seems like most people here would agree that the racquet/string technology is easily the most important factor in the recent evolution of the game.

coloskier
03-02-2012, 12:53 PM
I don't think you can call today's tennis "grinding"

It's more like "baseline BASHING"

And I find it far more exciting . Who the hell wants to see short points?

I have never seen shots like this in my life . It's "boom
Boom boom"

I love the long rally's at laser like speeds and the strategy and physical endurance required. Who the hell wants to see aces all day long?

I'm a serve and volleyer and I think it's much more fun to "PLAY" that way .....but watching it is not as exciting as today's tennis.

I really do not want to go back to the Sampras days. I can't think of one final as exciting as The Federer & Nadal finals or this past AO .

The Isner match was amaaaaaaaazimg for our sport. The whole world tuned in to watch .

I think the issue with the speed of the courts would be less of an issue if they enforced ruthlessly the 20 second rule between points. If the grinders don't get that extra time to recover, eventually they stop grinding and start passing out on the courts, or they slow down and it no longer becomes an error fest and instead you win by winners instead of your opponents unforced errors. I think that is my biggest beef. You should win by winners and forced errors, not outlasting your opponents unforced errors.

6-2/6-4/6-0
03-02-2012, 01:13 PM
Lax enforcement of the time rules certainly plays in to it. They are all related. Rules, rackets, strings, surfaces...

I'm not saying we should go back to wood, I'm not suggesting that we should standardize all rackets. But tennis has one of the most liberal sets of guidelines for equipment of any equipment-based sport, which have not been meaningfully updated in the last 30 years. Equipment has gone from improving the game to defining the game and the tournament directors have complied with this by making the surfaces match.

Again, let's set up the game so that there is variety. Let's establish guidelines for equipment that are neutral for the differing styles of play, and let's kick of the variety of surfaces so that those different styles can shine through. And let's not favor one style of play over another by not enforcing rules that every player knows are on the books just because it makes the way you play more difficult (do you think that you should also be given a longer baseline because that would make it easier for your style of play?).

The alternative, in my book, is to go Idaho-style survivalist about it and stockpile wooden rackets and Max200Gs, and build a compound of grass courts surrounded by blood-thirsty dobermans to protect history and tradition of the game. And then people can truly understand the liberty that come with an all-court game and rushing the net rather than the Fascist regime of endless baseline rallies...

For Harry, England, and St. John...

(apologies for the trans-atlantic mixing of my hyperbole)

pmerk34
03-02-2012, 01:17 PM
Lax enforcement of the time rules certainly plays in to it. They are all related. Rules, rackets, strings, surfaces... I'm not saying we should go back to wood, I'm not suggesting that we should standardize all rackets. But tennis has one of the most liberal sets of guidelines for equipment of any equipment-based sport, which have not been meaningfully updated in the last 30 years. Equipment has gone from improving the game to defining the game and the tournament directors have complied with this by making the surfaces match.

Again, let's set up the game so that there is variety. Let's establish guidelines for equipment that are neutral for the differing styles of play, and let's kick of the variety of surfaces so that those different styles can shine through.

The alternative, in my book, is to go Idaho-style survivalist about it and stockpile wooden rackets and build a compound of grass courts surrounded by blood-thirsty dobermans to protect history and tradition of the game, and people can understand the liberty that come with an all-court game and rushing the net rather than the Fascist regime of endless baseline rallies...

For Harry, England, and St. John...

(apologies for the trans-atlantic mixing of my hyperbole)

I never saw tennis with wooden racquets live. I don't want a return to wood. I like tennis as it I just think it would be even better by having a decent % of tournaments played on faster courts.

6-2/6-4/6-0
03-02-2012, 01:21 PM
As I said, I'm not saying that all tennis should go back to wood. But going the absolute opposite direction at 900mph isn't good either and it engenders the kind of reactionary response that I finished with (I was just kidding about that if it wasn't evident...).

VOLLEY KING
03-02-2012, 03:18 PM
If it stays as it is now, only more super-top-spin hitters and super-runners will raise to the top.

Yeah we don't want to see those evil guys that existed during fast courts like Borg who won wimbledon like 5 or 6 times or Wilander , or Vilas,
Or a roadrunner like Hewitt .

TenTan
03-02-2012, 03:53 PM
No, i like quick,

VOLLEY KING
03-02-2012, 03:58 PM
No, i like quick,

That's what she said . :-)

I find it strange how people hate Nadal but love Borg.

Sentinel
03-02-2012, 08:17 PM
The slowing of courts were great to help Nadal win slams, but now they are helping Nole beat Nadal, so i'd say No !

mattennis
03-03-2012, 12:05 AM
If it stays as it is now, only more super-top-spin hitters and super-runners will raise to the top.

Yeah we don't want to see those evil guys that existed during fast courts like Borg who won wimbledon like 5 or 6 times or Wilander , or Vilas,
Or a roadrunner like Hewitt .

Have you reading problems? I said ONLY.

I loved watching Borg, Vilas, Wilander, Lendl,.....,Muster, Bruguera, Costa, Ferrero, Hewitt,.....,Nadal, Murray, Djokovic.

But I loved also watching Newcombe, Ashe, Nastase, Roche, Laver, Rosewall, Gerulaitis, Tanner, McEnroe, Amritraj, Cash, Edberg, Becker, Noah, Sampras, Ivanisevic, Stich, Krajicek, Philippoussis,...

I love variety. I'll put again what I wrote and maybe you'll understand it this time:

"If it stays as it is now, only more super-top-spin hitters and super-runners will raise to the top".

VOLLEY KING
03-03-2012, 12:13 AM
Have you reading problems? I said ONLY.

I loved watching Borg, Vilas, Wilander, Lendl,.....,Muster, Bruguera, Costa, Ferrero, Hewitt,.....,Nadal, Murray, Djokovic.

But I loved also watching Newcombe, Ashe, Nastase, Roche, Laver, Rosewall, Gerulaitis, Tanner, McEnroe, Amritraj, Cash, Edberg, Becker, Noah, Sampras, Ivanisevic, Stich, Krajicek, Philippoussis,...

I love variety. I'll put again what I wrote and maybe you'll understand it this time:

"If it stays as it is now, only more super-top-spin hitters and super-runners will raise to the top".

Relax dude.

What your saying is you also love serve and volley as well.... but serve and volley died on a
fast court....so that's not the answer .

Lendl started the funeral march and slammed the door on McEnroe.

But that was only the beginning of the baseline bashers. Bolleteri didn't help turning the sport into a factory of baseline smashers. Players like Agassi were on the rise. Hewitt and safin dismantled Pete on fast courts.

Sampras was the last survivor who held on to the serve and volley game by a thread......and then the nail in the coffin came : ROGER FEDERER.

Sure he had a serve and volley aspect to his game but he is more of a base liner than a serve and volleyer.

In fact Sampras has said that the reason Hewitt declined is because there were no serve and volleyers left and he could not out baseline the new crop of players.

Serve and volley died on a fast court.

mattennis
03-03-2012, 12:52 AM
As I said earlier, is not just about serve and volley.

In the 90s, all court players like Sampras, Becker, Ivanisevic, Stich,....when playing on hard court outdoor (Indian Wells, Miami, Australian Open, US OPEN...) stayed back with second serves, so when they were playing against a pure baseliner about 75% of the rallies were baseline rallies (many of them would end with one player in the net after some baseline shots).

I saw recently the following matches: Sampras-Korda Indian Wells'94 Final, Agassi-Sampras Miami'94 Final, Miami'95 Final, Indian Wells'95 Final, Canada Open'95 Final and US OPEN'95 Final, Sampras-Courier Miami'94 SF and in all these matches, 75% of the points were baseline exchanges.

Only on grass and on the fastest indoor carpet, SOME players (and they were already a minority) did serve and volley on both serves.

On hard court outdoor, only Rafter and Edberg used to do serve and volley on both serves (all first serves and most of second serves).

So I know that pure serve and volley game (Edberg, Rafter) was a rarity even in the 90s.

But you had many all-court players (Sampras, Becker, Stich, Ivanisevic, Krajicek), many baseline flat hitters (Enqvist, Korda, Martin, Kafelnikov, Ferreira, Johansson, Kucera, Gustafsson, Dreekman, Larsson, Karbaher,), many baseline top-spinners (Muster, Bruguera, Mantilla, Corretja, Costa, Berasategui).

You had much more variety than today.

And I repeat: I like Nadal-Djokovic, Nadal-Murray and Djokovic-Murray matches, but I miss more variety, different styles, different games (that was always the best thing about tennis).

Federer is so different (to the rest) today, trying to make risky shots, aiming for winners early than most, trying to make things, not only staying back hitting top-spin shots, one after another, in 30-something stroke baseline rallies once and again.

He is a rarity today, but in past decades there were many players like him, that tried to make things (more than waiting for an error). McEnroe, Leconte, Edberg, Mecir, Stich, Rios (not only volley players) were so much fun to watch because they tried all the time to make things happen, not just waiting for a short ball after a 30-something baseline top-spin rally.

Look at Federer yesterday against Del Potro. He was trying things from the first stroke of each point. Even if he made many unforced errors, he was trying to make things, he volleyed more than usual (by todays standard), he attacked early in the points (the fast court helped).

I love that kind of game. Becker, Sampras used to play like that. I loved watching that kind of player too.

And I say again that I don't want to watch ONLY that kind of game (Federer yesterday, Sampras, Becker, Stich...), I love all kind of games, but the thing is today you don't watch all kind of games.

99% of the time you watch only powerful baseline top-spin shots, till one player hit an error or a short ball and the other then hit a baseline winner shot.

Tennis always was much more than that.

Wilander Fan
03-03-2012, 02:12 AM
Fast does not equal more skill.

Slower tennis is phyisically more challenging requires greater strategy and mental strength is needed .

But I wouldn't call today's tennis "slow" by any stretch of the imagination .

Faster almost always equals more skill.

VOLLEY KING
03-03-2012, 06:43 AM
As I said earlier, is not just about serve and volley.

In the 90s, all court players like Sampras, Becker, Ivanisevic, Stich,....when playing on hard court outdoor (Indian Wells, Miami, Australian Open, US OPEN...) stayed back with second serves, so when they were playing against a pure baseliner about 75% of the rallies were baseline rallies (many of them would end with one player in the net after some baseline shots).

I saw recently the following matches: Sampras-Korda Indian Wells'94 Final, Agassi-Sampras Miami'94 Final, Miami'95 Final, Indian Wells'95 Final, Canada Open'95 Final and US OPEN'95 Final, Sampras-Courier Miami'94 SF and in all these matches, 75% of the points were baseline exchanges.

Only on grass and on the fastest indoor carpet, SOME players (and they were already a minority) did serve and volley on both serves.

On hard court outdoor, only Rafter and Edberg used to do serve and volley on both serves (all first serves and most of second serves).

So I know that pure serve and volley game (Edberg, Rafter) was a rarity even in the 90s.

But you had many all-court players (Sampras, Becker, Stich, Ivanisevic, Krajicek), many baseline flat hitters (Enqvist, Korda, Martin, Kafelnikov, Ferreira, Johansson, Kucera, Gustafsson, Dreekman, Larsson, Karbaher,), many baseline top-spinners (Muster, Bruguera, Mantilla, Corretja, Costa, Berasategui).

You had much more variety than today.

And I repeat: I like Nadal-Djokovic, Nadal-Murray and Djokovic-Murray matches, but I miss more variety, different styles, different games (that was always the best thing about tennis).

Federer is so different (to the rest) today, trying to make risky shots, aiming for winners early than most, trying to make things, not only staying back hitting top-spin shots, one after another, in 30-something stroke baseline rallies once and again.

He is a rarity today, but in past decades there were many players like him, that tried to make things (more than waiting for an error). McEnroe, Leconte, Edberg, Mecir, Stich, Rios (not only volley players) were so much fun to watch because they tried all the time to make things happen, not just waiting for a short ball after a 30-something baseline top-spin rally.

Look at Federer yesterday against Del Potro. He was trying things from the first stroke of each point. Even if he made many unforced errors, he was trying to make things, he volleyed more than usual (by todays standard), he attacked early in the points (the fast court helped).

I love that kind of game. Becker, Sampras used to play like that. I loved watching that kind of player too.

And I say again that I don't want to watch ONLY that kind of game (Federer yesterday, Sampras, Becker, Stich...), I love all kind of games, but the thing is today you don't watch all kind of games.

99% of the time you watch only powerful baseline top-spin shots, till one player hit an error or a short ball and the other then hit a baseline winner shot.

Tennis always was much more than that.

As you said there is no such thing as 
Pure serve and volley.  Professionals can play from all areas.....McEnroe for example is a serve and volleyer but he can play quite well from the baseline as well. Conversely Borg is a baseliner and yet he can serve and volley as well. Even Nadal can serve and volley!'

The way to classify pros is by what is their "go to strategy ". What do they do mostly .

Pete Sampras is a serve and volleyer and I say he is the greatest serve and volleyer of all time.

He was not an all courter as you say.
Yes he could play from the baseline and quite well.....but his "go to" shot or his "kill " shot was always the serve and volley. In fact even his returns we chip and charge.

The other player you mentioned , Becker , Ivanesovic , stich also all serve and volleyers.  Yes they can play from the baseline .....serve and volleyer have to!! You can't serve and volley every point and you get caught behind the baseline . Furthermore sometimes you may hit a few baseline shots and then close into the net.  But predominantly these players played their most important points as serve an volley . Their "go to point" or "match point " was always the serve and volley.

I don't know where you are getting your percentages that 75% of the points were baseline but I'm sorry I don't agree.

Having said all of that . I would love to see that variety of play as well.....but it's not the surface .

That style of play whether you term is as "all courter" or "serve and volley" died on a fast court.

The bolleteri baseline factory basher took over before the courts slowed down. It was the equipment that changed the sport and not the speed of the surfaces .

mattennis
03-03-2012, 07:20 AM
75% when playing against a baseliner on hard court outdoor.

Watch those matches I cited before ( Sampras-Courier Miami'94 SF, Sampras-Agassi Miami'94 Final, Miami'95 Final, Indian Wells'95 Final, Canada Open'95 Final, US OPEN'95 Final, Sampras-Korda Indian Wells'94 Final).

In all those matches, Sampras only did serve and volley with his first serves (he stayed back with second serves), so given that half of the points he is not serving (his rival is serving) and given that half of his serving points he was staying back, that gives you only 25% of serve and volley points in these matches.

Even in the Masters Cup'94, a really fast and low bouncing indoor carpet, watch the SF Sampras-Agassi and Sampras did NOT serve and volley on second serves.

You must have watched him only in his final years 98, 99, 00, 01 and 02. But in his prime years, from 93 to 97, he almost always stayed back on second serves when playing on hard courts, only doing the full serve and volley on BOTH serves when playing on grass.

VOLLEY KING
03-03-2012, 08:34 AM
75% when playing against a baseliner on hard court outdoor.

Watch those matches I cited before ( Sampras-Courier Miami'94 SF, Sampras-Agassi Miami'94 Final, Miami'95 Final, Indian Wells'95 Final, Canada Open'95 Final, US OPEN'95 Final, Sampras-Korda Indian Wells'94 Final).

In all those matches, Sampras only did serve and volley with his first serves (he stayed back with second serves), so given that half of the points he is not serving (his rival is serving) and given that half of his serving points he was staying back, that gives you only 25% of serve and volley points in these matches.

Even in the Masters Cup'94, a really fast and low bouncing indoor carpet, watch the SF Sampras-Agassi and Sampras did NOT serve and volley on second serves.

You must have watched him only in his final years 98, 99, 00, 01 and 02. But in his prime years, from 93 to 97, he almost always stayed back on second serves when playing on hard courts, only doing the full serve and volley on BOTH serves when playing on grass.

I understand that it's your opinion Sampras played baseline on 75% of his points , but do you have any statistics to back that up .

Secondly assuming for arguments sake Sampras may have not volleyed on his second serves that still doesn't mean he is not a serve and volleyer in fact it proves that he is !

The fact that on first serves he served and volleyed means that was his plan "A" strategy. His "b" game is baseline .

I grant you that it's difficult to tell the difference between serve and volleyers and all courters. Serve and volleyers do not serve and volley 100 percent of the time and they do play baseline as well. This is why it's difficult.

Furthermore not all serve and volleyers volley the same way. For example Yanick Noah and many others employed sort of an "approach serve and volley". They would serve hit an approach and then rush the net. Other would rally and then surprise opponents at the net. Serve and volley is a strategy that seems easy to define at first glance but it's not.

You can't serve and volley all the time. In those points you have to good baseline tactics. McEnroe, Edberg, Sampras, even a guy like Taylor Dent all can and do play from the baseline a larger percentage of the time than you would think. None the less they are all serve and volleyers because if they have the opportunity to go to the net then that is their first choice.

There's a reason why these serve and volleyers which you term as all courters never won the French. Sampras,McEnroe , Becker, Ivanosovic, Edberg all have that in common . The reason is although they have a good baseline game, it's still their "b" game. Their bread and butter is the serve and volley and that is why they are serve and volleyers

A guy like Federer or Murray are very rare. They are true all courters. They will choose to win the point from any area of the court . They don't have a preference. They don't have an "a" game or a. "b" game . They can do both equally well.

In fact I would say that there are very few true all courters in the history of tennis. And if it's all court play that you like then Federer and Murray are in the slow court era.

***footnote:

Just curious how many true all courters I can even name?

-Federer
-Murray
- Nastase

I'm sure there are more but I can't really think of any.

Biscuitmcgriddleson
03-03-2012, 08:47 AM
***footnote:

Just curious how many true all courters I can even name?

-Federer
-Murray
- Nastase

I'm sure there are more but I can't really think of any.

Michael Stich.

VOLLEY KING
03-03-2012, 08:55 AM
Michael Stich.

Possibly ? I really don't know enough about the guy.

But Even if that's true we have as many all courters today as we did back then .

True all courters are a very talented and very very rare breed.

I'm telling you it's the equipment that need to be changed and not the courts.

[b]We are all want the same end result . To bring back serve and volley and variety to the sport. But I don't think speeding up the courts will do that.

My contention is that the first killer of server and volley was graphite. The second was oversize racquets. But the final nail in the coffin was polyester.
If we just change one of those things .....just one ....then I think we will go back to the good old days. [\b]

NamRanger
03-03-2012, 09:55 AM
Yeah we don't want to see those evil guys that existed during fast courts like Borg who won wimbledon like 5 or 6 times or Wilander , or Vilas,
Or a roadrunner like Hewitt .



Borg won Wimbledon playing an allcourt / heavy net style game. Moot point. He came to the net forward way more often than even the likes of Federer.

VOLLEY KING
03-03-2012, 10:49 AM
Borg won Wimbledon playing an allcourt / heavy net style game. Moot point. He came to the net forward way more often than even the likes of Federer.

He may have played that style that day as a surprise tactic.....

However Borg is classified as a baseline player by every expert.

Could he serve and volley ....YES. And so can Nadal.

But They are both baseliners. Borg went to his "B" game that day. Nadal can serve and volley as well and could choose to go to his "B" game bit Nadal is still a baselines as is Borg.

VOLLEY KING
03-03-2012, 10:54 AM
Wilander can also serve and volley VERY VERY well!!!

He even won doubles I believe in Wimbledon .

But he is a baseliners as well because his strongest weapon is from the baseline as is Borg or Nadal or add on Lendl as well.

NamRanger
03-03-2012, 10:57 AM
He may have played that style that day as a surprise tactic.....

However Borg is classified as a baseline player by every expert.

Could he serve and volley ....YES. And so can Nadal.

But They are both baseliners. Borg went to his "B" game that day. Nadal can serve and volley as well and could choose to go to his "B" game bit Nadal is still a baselines as is Borg.



Borg won every single Wimbledon playing a S&V/aggressive allcourt style. Period. Someone who has never watched Borg shouldn't really be allowed to comment. Borg was much more than a baseline player, he was the most highly adaptive natural surface player in the game.

wimble10
03-03-2012, 11:02 AM
when was the last time Nadal serve and volleyed? I don't think I've ever seen this. Federer on the other hand..

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=412812

Crazy man
03-03-2012, 11:03 AM
It's always been that way . The top 4 players always appeared usually.

Borg , McEnroe , Connors ( that's really three).

So you're saying Isner, Roddick, Raonic (until recently), Karlovic (on very rare days), Llorda and other hard hitters/good, not necessarily huge servers/shotmakers wouldn't atleast provide more competition if surfaces didn't play super slow nowadays?

VOLLEY KING
03-03-2012, 11:09 AM
when was the last time Nadal serve and volleyed? I don't think I've ever seen this. Federer on the other hand..

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=412812

He serves and volleys In every match he has ever played in.

He is also a good doubles player.

All pros can play every aspect of the game . That doesn't make them all all courters.

What is each players most lethal weapon?

Nadal= speed and topspin

Borg = speed and topspin

Wilander = speed and topspin.

But all three can serve and volley very well.

The difference is that a guy like Federer or Murray is comfortable playing any style any time and all how weapons are equally as strong.

Borg, Wilander , Nadal all prefer to be at the baseline of given the opportunity.

But don't argue with me....every book classifying these guys this way . You are certainly entitled to your private opinion.

VOLLEY KING
03-03-2012, 11:15 AM
I did a quick search in you tube and entered "Nadal serve and volley"

There's tons of video on this I just picked the first one. But Nadal I think everyone would agree is in fact a baseliner and not an all courter

Again these are not my classifications but every book I have ever read classifys both Borg and Nadal as baseliners.

Check out Nadal serve and volleying :



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9r5SL8j2oI&feature=youtube_gdata_player

coloskier
03-03-2012, 11:20 AM
As you said there is no such thing as 
Pure serve and volley.  Professionals can play from all areas.....McEnroe for example is a serve and volleyer but he can play quite well from the baseline as well. Conversely Borg is a baseliner and yet he can serve and volley as well. Even Nadal can serve and volley!'

The way to classify pros is by what is their "go to strategy ". What do they do mostly .

Pete Sampras is a serve and volleyer and I say he is the greatest serve and volleyer of all time.

He was not an all courter as you say.
Yes he could play from the baseline and quite well.....but his "go to" shot or his "kill " shot was always the serve and volley. In fact even his returns we chip and charge.

The other player you mentioned , Becker , Ivanesovic , stich also all serve and volleyers.  Yes they can play from the baseline .....serve and volleyer have to!! You can't serve and volley every point and you get caught behind the baseline . Furthermore sometimes you may hit a few baseline shots and then close into the net.  But predominantly these players played their most important points as serve an volley . Their "go to point" or "match point " was always the serve and volley.

I don't know where you are getting your percentages that 75% of the points were baseline but I'm sorry I don't agree.

Having said all of that . I would love to see that variety of play as well.....but it's not the surface .

That style of play whether you term is as "all courter" or "serve and volley" died on a fast court.

The bolleteri baseline factory basher took over before the courts slowed down. It was the equipment that changed the sport and not the speed of the surfaces .

Actually, Sampras had the most feared forehand on tour in his prime. He would dare someone to hit DTL to try to beat him, and then he would rip the FH crosscourt for a winner. Just ask Agassi how many times he got beat by that crosscourt forehand.

NamRanger
03-03-2012, 11:25 AM
I did a quick search in you tube and entered "Nadal serve and volley"

There's tons of video on this I just picked the first one. But Nadal I think everyone would agree is in fact a baseliner and not an all courter

Again these are not my classifications but every book I have ever read classifys both Borg and Nadal as baseliners.

Check out Nadal serve and volleying :



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9r5SL8j2oI&feature=youtube_gdata_player



Nadal is a baseliner because he plays a baseline game on every single court. Borg is more of an allcourt/baseliner (similar to Federer) where he will adapt to the conditions based on what he feels is the most appropriate strategy. His hardcourt game versus his clay game for example was vastly different, as was his grass game. It was like watching totally different players in the same body.


Although classically he is defined as a baseliner, he is more inline as an allcourt type player.

VOLLEY KING
03-03-2012, 11:27 AM
Actually, Sampras had the most feared forehand on tour in his prime. He would dare someone to hit DTL to try to beat him, and then he would rip the FH crosscourt for a winner. Just ask Agassi how many times he got beat by that crosscourt forehand.

He had a great baseline game. But his bread and butter was serve and volley.

You can have any opinion you want but Pete Sampras is classified as a serve and volleyer everywhere .

But you are certainly entitled to your opinion.

NamRanger
03-03-2012, 11:28 AM
He had a great baseline game. But his bread and butter was serve and volley.

You can have any opinion you want but Pete Sampras is classified as a serve and volleyer everywhere .

But you are certainly entitled to your opinion.



Yeah, this is a troll job. End thread.

wimble10
03-03-2012, 11:29 AM
I did a quick search in you tube and entered "Nadal serve and volley"
...
That's a great video. Thanks. I knew Nadal had good volleys. That video just proves how he has the S&V weapon, although as more of a surprise tactic, like Wilander did.
I'm not sure about comparing with Borg though. I think Borg S&V more often. Also I don't think Nadal S&V as well as Wilander, and nowhere close to Borg. Nadal doesn't seem to S&V on big points or big matches very much, whereas Borg and Wilander ('88 US Open) did.

VOLLEY KING
03-03-2012, 11:38 AM
That's a great video. Thanks. I knew Nadal had good volleys. That video just proves how he has the S&V weapon, although as more of a surprise tactic, like Wilander did.
I'm not sure about comparing with Borg though. I think Borg S&V more often. Also I don't think Nadal S&V as well as Wilander, and nowhere close to Borg. Nadal doesn't seem to S&V on big points or big matches very much, whereas Borg and Wilander ('88 US Open) did.

Ok but where do you draw the line?

It's difficult because all pros can win playing any style.

Borg in his autobiography wrote that he always tried to hit the ball back into the the middle of the court because he was afraid to hit it out. His topspin he chose because it was safe and went high over the net .

His general strategy was simply to outlast his opponent .

He was very strong and very physically fit. They said his heart rate could slow down incredibly . He was fast as hell.

He was also known as the "ice man". Mentally he was so strong. He was a machine a wall. He could return the ball endlessly until you wanted to kill yourself. It was amazing to watch.

Could Borg serve and volley .....damn straight!!
But he was a baseliner in his blood and nature

Could he serve and volley better than Nadal? Who the hell knows......but it's to hard to define "better"......they both would prefer to win a point grinding it out and wait for an unforced error . This is their "A" game.

Wilander by the way was an amazing serve and volleyer. You don't win wimbledon doubles without being able to serve and volley. Especially back in those days!! But he is still
Known for his baseline play.

wimble10
03-03-2012, 11:55 AM
His general strategy was simply to outlast his opponent . Good points and information! Maybe Borg's style evolved into Wilander's style, which evolved into Nadal's style. This evolution occurred with help by advances in racquet/string technology. 
And the court surface speed/balls are used to balance or add variety to the tournaments.

VOLLEY KING
03-03-2012, 12:01 PM
Good points and information! Maybe Borg's style evolved into Wilander's style, which evolved into Nadal's style. This evolution occurred with help by advances in racquet/string technology. 
And the court surface speed/balls are used to balance or add variety to the tournaments.

Even better points !

I was looking through the net.....wilander is known as a big time pusher .
I agree he is a baseliner but he could serve and volley amazing !

He won Wimbledon with Nystrom on fast grass . I can't find any video of it strangely but I found a really call interview right here on TW ( if anyone has video of it post it please !! I would live to see him serve and volley):

Taken from http://www.sportsmediainc.net/tennisweek/index.cfm?func=showarticle&newsid=14051&bannerregion= :

Tennis Week: Mats, you won the 1986 Wimbledon doubles title with Joakim Nystrom and though you're known as a singles player you always seemed to enjoy doubles. What's your take on this doubles controversy going on now with the ATP's battle with doubles players over the future of doubles?

Mats Wilander: I think it's very sad. The fact is, most people who play tennis actually play doubles and they are going to be playing a game the pros don't play in the future. If you really want to make the top players play more doubles, you can make a rule change. Make it more interesting and why don't you put a rule in that when you play on the tour in 10 years you have to play doubles? You could make a rule that a players overall ranking is a combination of doubles and singles, perhaps make a player's doubles ranking count for 25 percent of his total ranking and then you would get more guys playing doubles.

Tennis Week: What did you enjoy most about playing doubles?

Mats Wilander: I love to play tennis. I would play any type of tennis anytime because I liked to play. Obviously, doubles improves your game a lot. I can tell you that winning the Wimbledon doubles title is about as much fun as I've ever had on the tennis court. I wouldn't trade that Wimbledon doubles title for anything. If you asked me to give up a title, I would give up a singles major to keep that Wimbledon doubles title. Joakim and I are good friends and we liked to play doubles together. I suppose for some guys today the problem is finding a friend to play doubles with, but you could hook up with another good player and use the doubles as a form of practice to improve your game and I think the players and the sport itself would benefit. I believe in doubles.

I thought that these were some interesting comments from a Hall of Famer. The rule changes that the ATP recently adopted in doubles do not seem to enhance the game, nor attract the top singles players to join in. Therefore, what rule changes do you think would work instead?

As Wilander mentioned, I like the idea of having the doubles points count toward an overall ranking (instead of having seperate singles and doubles listings). This would mean that nobody could be ranked high from singles alone (which would mean the singles players would play more doubles)... and doubles specialists would have to (attempt to) play more singles.

Another idea would be to contractually obligate singles players to play in a specified number of doubles tournaments each year, similar to the requirement to play all of the Masters Series events.

Other ideas?

timnz
03-03-2012, 12:05 PM
He had a great baseline game. But his bread and butter was serve and volley.

You can have any opinion you want but Pete Sampras is classified as a serve and volleyer everywhere .

But you are certainly entitled to your opinion.

Because people tend to remember only his later years 1998-2002. In those years he definitely Was a serve and volleyer however earlier than that he was definitely an All courter.

mattennis
03-03-2012, 12:12 PM
Becker and Sampras played different than Edberg or Rafter.

You can call them whatever you want, but they played different.

Becker was much more prone to have long exchanges in the baseline than Edberg or Rafter, and Becker could hit many baseline winners (forehands and backhands), whereas Edberg and Rafter were always trying to finish the points at the net when returning (and doing serve and volley with both serves).

Sampras in his 93-97 prime hit a lot of baseline forehand winners, many many running forehand winners (crosscourt and down the line), some baseline backhand winners, return winners, lob winners, passing-shots winners. He was a lot like Becker but just a bit better from the baseline. I call them all-court players and I am not the only one to call them such.

Edberg and Rafter hardly made forehands winners from the baseline. All their game was serve and volley (on serve games) and chip and charge, resist on the baseline till you can hit a long, flying slice to get to the net (on return games).

Borg did serve and volley on every first serve when playing on grass (and stayed back with second serves). He played much more at the net at Wimbledon than Federer. On clay he was a baseline wall.

Wilander came to the net more than 120 times in one of the US OPEN finals he played against Lendl. He could volley very well. Even in their 1987 RolandGarros Final they both volleyed a lot.

Edberg and Rafter were two of my all-time favourites players to watch. They lived and died at the net, pure net chasing players.

Becker and Sampras many times chose to stay at the baseline and play long baseline exchanges to win those points by baseline winners. Edberg and Rafter hardly made that kind of decision, their baseline game was only to "buy some time to be able to get to the net".

NamRanger
03-03-2012, 12:22 PM
Becker and Sampras played different than Edberg or Rafter.

You can call them whatever you want, but they played different.

Becker was much more prone to have long exchanges in the baseline than Edberg or Rafter, and Becker could hit many baseline winners (forehands and backhands), whereas Edberg and Rafter were always trying to finish the points at the net when returning (and doing serve and volley with both serves).

Sampras in his 93-97 prime hit a lot of baseline forehand winners, many many running forehand winners (crosscourt and down the line), some baseline backhand winners, return winners, lob winners, passing-shots winners. He was a lot like Becker but just a bit better from the baseline. I call them all-court players and I am not the only one to call them such.

Edberg and Rafter hardly made forehands winners from the baseline. All their game was serve and volley (on serve games) and chip and charge, resist on the baseline till you can hit a long, flying slice to get to the net (on return games).

Borg did serve and volley on every first serve when playing on grass (and stayed back with second serves). He played much more at the net at Wimbledon than Federer. On clay he was a baseline wall.

Wilander came to the net more than 120 times in one of the US OPEN finals he played against Lendl. He could volley very well. Even in their 1987 RolandGarros Final they both volleyed a lot.

Edberg and Rafter were two of my all-time favourites players to watch. They lived and died at the net, pure net chasing players.

Becker and Sampras many times chose to stay at the baseline and play long baseline exchanges to win those points by baseline winners. Edberg and Rafter hardly made that kind of decision, their baseline game was only to "buy some time to be able to get to the net".


You forgot to mention Borg was also fully capable of playing an offensive power baseline game which he did against Connors at the US Open when he finally took him out in 81 I believe

mattennis
03-03-2012, 12:36 PM
You forgot to mention Borg was also fully capable of playing an offensive power baseline game which he did against Connors at the US Open when he finally took him out in 81 I believe

Yes, you're right. In that match (US OPEN'81 SF) Borg hit with more power (from the baseline) than usual. He made many baseline winners that day against Connors.

In 1982 he was even more aggresive from the baseline (on hard courts) in several tournaments (non ATP computable) he played against Connors and McEnroe. It would have been great to see how he would have evolved in that moment with the graphite shift that was taking place (he already used a graphite inforced-wood frame in his last years).

VOLLEY KING
03-03-2012, 12:37 PM
Because people tend to remember only his later years 1998-2002. In those years he definitely Was a serve and volleyer however earlier than that he was definitely an All courter.

Ok but we digress.

The point is whether slowing the courts down will bring back that type of tennis or would changing the equipment .

We agree that we both want to bring back serve as volley or all court tennis. The only question is how?

I submit that it's the equipment that must be changed and not the speed of the courts.

mattennis
03-03-2012, 12:40 PM
Ok but we digress.

The point is whether slowing the courts down will bring back that type of tennis or would changing the equipment .

We agree that we both want to bring back serve as volley or all court tennis. The only question is how?

I submit that it's the equipment that must be changed and not the speed of the courts.

Yesterday and today Federer has played great all court game in Dubai. He has done serve and volley many times, mixing up, shortening points, making many winners (and errors), taking risk, taking chances, puting pressure all the time.

I think he was able to do this because the court in Dubai this year is faster than usual.

mattennis
03-03-2012, 12:46 PM
And if anyone is not aware, I like Nadal as well.

I don't like when he enter "ultra-conservative mode", hitting short in the middle (when he is tense), but I know he can hit amazing winners because he has done it many times. I loved how he played in Wimbledon'07 (more then the following year), playing super-aggresive baseline shots all the time (in fact he was out-playing Federer from the baseline, but Federer served amazingly well that day). And he is a spectacular player.

What I don't like about him is that he takes too long to serve (just like Djokovic), and many times he looks like he is afraid to take comand on the points (when in fact he has the skills to dominate points much earlier than what he does).

VOLLEY KING
03-03-2012, 01:52 PM
Yesterday and today Federer has played great all court game in Dubai. He has done serve and volley many times, mixing up, shortening points, making many winners (and errors), taking risk, taking chances, puting pressure all the time.

I think he was able to do this because the court in Dubai this year is faster than usual.

He does it regularly . A majority of his grandslams were on slow courts. One on clay and four finals on red clay.

You really can't get much slower than that.

It's not the speed of the courts but the equipment.

devila
03-03-2012, 06:52 PM
the court didn't hurt djoker before. djoker won dubai before but he obviously didn't enjoy the annoying casual federer trolls in the stadium, so he couldn't wait for real tennis in masters series and upcoming clay season, when federer needs luck, as usual.

MichaelNadal
03-03-2012, 06:56 PM
I did a quick search in you tube and entered "Nadal serve and volley"

There's tons of video on this I just picked the first one. But Nadal I think everyone would agree is in fact a baseliner and not an all courter

Again these are not my classifications but every book I have ever read classifys both Borg and Nadal as baseliners.

Check out Nadal serve and volleying :



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9r5SL8j2oI&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Rafa would be a pretty goos S&V player if that's the way he grew up playing. Nice points there.

VOLLEY KING
03-03-2012, 11:22 PM
Rafa would be a pretty goos S&V player if that's the way he grew up playing. Nice points there.

Thanks.

He is a good serve and volleyer he is just a far better baseliner. Baseline is his bread and butter and that's why he is classified everywhere as a baseliner.

But what often goes ignored is that Rafa is a master of the "sneak volley" . All serve and Volleyers use this tactic.....but Rafa is really good at it because he pins his opponents far back at the baseline and sneaks in for a volley. He has amazing hands at the net. He really uses this tactic regularly :

the sneak volley....most ignored tactic in tennis :


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71b3IPgKy6o&feature=youtube_gdata_player

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8iI7FmTL6Q&feature=youtube_gdata_player

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtGHd7Ga3hw&feature=youtube_gdata_player


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9a-6aoRC24&feature=youtube_gdata_player

what's interesting in the next video is look at the stats....at this point in the match Nadal is
12 for 13 on his net points. Murray 13 for 19. Nadal has rushed the net almost as much as murray and is more succesful at it

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O42V9Gw2Iac&feature=youtube_gdata_player


But again Nadal is still classified as a baseline player .


.

phnx90
03-03-2012, 11:47 PM
Thanks.

He is a good serve and volleyer he is just a far better baseliner. Baseline is his bread and butter and that's why he is classified everywhere as a baseliner.

Here's a point where he rushes the net and show just how good he is at the net

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8iI7FmTL6Q&feature=youtube_gdata_player


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O42V9Gw2Iac&feature=youtube_gdata_player

But again Nadal is still classified as a baseline player .


.

He is a potent volleyer, who, for some reason, doesn't come in as often as necessary.

It's a shame, seeing how he does hit wicked slice serves out wide quite often, which should accommodate a volley finish very well.

Nevertheless, whilst I can't say he is one of the best inherent volleyers on tour (he just doesn't come in often enough), he definitely is the most careful. You'll rarely find him charging the net recklessly a la Roddick (though again, that's most likely due to the fact that he rarely rushes the net at all). But when he does come in, he does execute them perfectly, even if the approach shot wasn't that great.

Here's an example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=wUPtZyMogSM#t=91s

VOLLEY KING
03-04-2012, 12:10 AM
I had to edit because I wanted to add a few more videos.

Pay special attention to the last one. He rushes the net almost as much as Murray and is more successful at it


Thanks.

He is a good serve and volleyer he is just a far better baseliner. Baseline is his bread and butter and that's why he is classified everywhere as a baseliner.

But what often goes ignored is that Rafa is a master of the "sneak volley" . All serve and Volleyers use this tactic.....but Rafa is really good at it because he pins his opponents far back at the baseline and sneaks in for a volley. He has amazing hands at the net. He really uses this tactic regularly :

the sneak volley....most ignored tactic in tennis :


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71b3IPgKy6o&feature=youtube_gdata_player

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8iI7FmTL6Q&feature=youtube_gdata_player

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtGHd7Ga3hw&feature=youtube_gdata_player


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9a-6aoRC24&feature=youtube_gdata_player

what's interesting in the next video is look at the stats....at this point in the match Nadal is
12 for 13 on his net points. Murray 13 for 19. Nadal has rushed the net almost as much as murray and is more succesful at it

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O42V9Gw2Iac&feature=youtube_gdata_player


But again Nadal is still classified as a baseline player .


.

FlashFlare11
03-04-2012, 12:22 AM
He is a potent volleyer, who, for some reason, doesn't come in as often as necessary.

It's a shame, seeing how he does hit wicked slice serves out wide quite often, which should accommodate a volley finish very well.

Nevertheless, whilst I can't say he is one of the best inherent volleyers on tour (he just doesn't come in often enough), he definitely is the most careful. You'll rarely find him charging the net recklessly a la Roddick (though again, that's most likely due to the fact that he rarely rushes the net at all). But when he does come in, he does execute them perfectly, even if the approach shot wasn't that great.

Here's an example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=wUPtZyMogSM#t=91s

The difference between Nadal and a more aggressive player (like Federer or Tsonga) is that the latter two will come to the net to force the opponent under pressure. They are coming to net to, in essence, make things happen. Not everytime, but pretty often they'll come to the net expecting to hit maybe two or three balls to finish the point. Nadal, I've noticed, is a good volleyer, but will only come to the net if he is almost absolutely sure he'll end the point with his next shot. He'll come to net to finish, but that is almost always after a long baseline-baseline exchange and when he does come in, the point is over. That's what I've noticed, anyway.

VOLLEY KING
03-04-2012, 12:30 AM
The difference between Nadal and a more aggressive player (like Federer or Tsonga) is that the latter two will come to the net to force the opponent under pressure. They are coming to net to, in essence, make things happen. Not everytime, but pretty often they'll come to the net expecting to hit maybe two or three balls to finish the point. Nadal, I've noticed, is a good volleyer, but will only come to the net if he is almost absolutely sure he'll end the point with his next shot. He'll come to net to finish, but that is almost always after a long baseline-baseline exchange and when he does come in, the point is over. That's what I've noticed, anyway.

We agree.

I have been saying that net play is Nadals & Borgs plan "B" . They both can volley very well bit would much ray her win fro, the baseline. Borg did use it as a plan "A" in his wimbledon match against Mcenroe.....bit it was a surprise as he is known for baseline pay .

A good analogy is Rocky. He came out fighting southpaw apollo creed. He ccould fight lefty but was really a righty!

Wow....I'm on to something here!!! wait for it ....I'm gonna start a new thread

Russeljones
03-04-2012, 12:32 AM
12 people are Rebel scum.

Biscuitmcgriddleson
03-04-2012, 12:39 AM
The difference between Nadal and a more aggressive player (like Federer or Tsonga) is that the latter two will come to the net to force the opponent under pressure. They are coming to net to, in essence, make things happen. Not everytime, but pretty often they'll come to the net expecting to hit maybe two or three balls to finish the point. Nadal, I've noticed, is a good volleyer, but will only come to the net if he is almost absolutely sure he'll end the point with his next shot. He'll come to net to finish, but that is almost always after a long baseline-baseline exchange and when he does come in, the point is over. That's what I've noticed, anyway.

Shhhhh! The stats clearly show that Nadal is the best volleyer of all. His number put McEnroe to shame. Too bad McEnroe didn't have an all time great volleyer like Rafa to show him how it should be done :)

Rafa is a good volleyer, but most people are amazed by his volleys because he is considered a baseliner through and through. Can't help but feel if another player did the half volley against Soderling or the hot shot volley against Djoker they'd be called lucky for those. I see Nadal miss too many volleys when he approaches a ball with some pace on it. As the above poster said, he comes in when the point is over.

Biscuitmcgriddleson
03-04-2012, 12:43 AM
We agree.

I have been saying that net play is Nadals & Borgs plan "B" . They both can volley very well bit would much ray her win fro, the baseline. Borg did use it as a plan "A" in his wimbledon match against Mcenroe.....bit it was a surprise as he is known for baseline pay .

A good analogy is Rocky. He came out fighting southpaw apollo creed. He ccould fight lefty but was really a righty!

Wow....I'm on to something here!!! wait for it ....I'm gonna start a new thread

Rocky was a righty? You sure about that?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocky_Balboa

wimble10
03-04-2012, 12:44 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tN_H8GOF4_s

VOLLEY KING
03-04-2012, 12:45 AM
Shhhhh! The stats clearly show that Nadal is the best volleyer of all. His number put McEnroe to shame. Too bad McEnroe didn't have an all time great volleyer like Rafa to show him how it should be done :)

Rafa is a good volleyer, but most people are amazed by his volleys because he is considered a baseliner through and through. Can't help but feel if another player did the half volley against Soderling or the hot shot volley against Djoker they'd be called lucky for those. I see Nadal miss too many volleys when he approaches a ball with some pace on it. As the above poster said, he comes in when the point is over.

Nadal does serve and volley as much as most players do today. Remember serve and volley has died so there just isn't that much of it.

However he comes in during the middle of the point over and over again. nadal is a master of the "sneak volley". opponents are nit expecting him to come in.

He does not come in when the point is over . That is the furthest thing from the truth. I think "sneak volley" is a far better description.

The volleys that he makes are very tough.....watch:


the sneak volley....most ignored tactic in tennis  :


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71b3IPgKy6o&feature=youtube_gdata_player

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8iI7FmTL6Q&feature=youtube_gdata_player

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtGHd7Ga3hw&feature=youtube_gdata_player


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9a-6aoRC24&feature=youtube_gdata_player

what's interesting in the next video is look at the stats....at this point in the match Nadal is 
12 for 13 on his net points. Murray 13 for 19. Nadal has rushed the net almost as much as murray and is more succesful at it

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O42V9Gw2Iac&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Biscuitmcgriddleson
03-04-2012, 12:51 AM
Nadal does serve and volley as much as most players do today. Remember serve and volley has died so there just isn't

However he comes in during the middle of the point over and over again. nadal is a master of the "sneak volley". opponents are nit expecting him to come in.

He does not come in when the point is over . That is the furthest thing from the truth. I think "sneak volley" is a far better description.

The volleys that he makes are very tough.....watch:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71b3I...e_gdata_player

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8iI7...e_gdata_player

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtGHd...e_gdata_player


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9a-6...e_gdata_player

what's interesting in the next video is look at the stats....at this point in the match Nadal is
12 for 13 on his net points. Murray 13 for 19. Nadal has rushed the net almost as much as murray and is more succesful at it

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O42V9...e_gdata_player

Links don't work. If they are what you posted earlier I saw them and stand by my assessment. If you find a video of Nadal doing a punch volley please post it. I can't recall seeing one on youtube.

VOLLEY KING
03-04-2012, 12:56 AM
They work now. I had edited and added more. These are diving points into oncoming traffic.

He does not come in when the point is already over.

Nadal does serve and volley as much as most players do today. Remember serve and volley has died so there just isn't that much of it.

However he comes in during the middle of the point over and over again. nadal is a master of the "sneak volley". opponents are nit expecting him to come in.

He does not come in when the point is over . That is the furthest thing from the truth. I think "sneak volley" is a far better description.

The volleys that he makes are very tough.....watch:


the sneak volley....most ignored tactic in tennis  :


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71b3IPgKy6o&feature=youtube_gdata_player

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8iI7FmTL6Q&feature=youtube_gdata_player

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtGHd7Ga3hw&feature=youtube_gdata_player


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9a-6aoRC24&feature=youtube_gdata_player

what's interesting in the next video is look at the stats....at this point in the match Nadal is 
12 for 13 on his net points. Murray 13 for 19. Nadal has rushed the net almost as much as murray and is more succesful at it

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O42V9Gw2Iac&feature=youtube_gdata_player

VOLLEY KING
03-04-2012, 12:59 AM
Rocky was a righty? You sure about that?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocky_Balboa

Maybe he was lefty and fought righty? I'm not sure.