PDA

View Full Version : Fed's S&V stats the last 5 years


Moose Malloy
06-26-2006, 02:43 PM
Got this from a post by Miguel Seabra at peterbodotennisworld.com

The % that Fed S&Ved at W:
2001 -- 70 %
2002 -- 80 %
2003 -- 48 %
2004 -- 19 %
2005 -- 14 %

I find this a bit odd, since the grass was already slowed down in '02, Fed still S&Ved quite a bit in '03, but hardly did at all in '04/'05.

armand
06-26-2006, 02:48 PM
Yeah, serving+volleying ain't easy and if Fed is cruising to the title, why would he strain himself? He could serve and play backgammon and still win!

mowcopian
06-26-2006, 02:52 PM
dont break what isnt broken is probably what federer thinks. in 2001 his game was not as good and therefore had to be more creative so s & v ed more. where as when his game became almost complete he barely needed to s & v because his groundstokes were so effective on grass

LowProfile
06-26-2006, 02:54 PM
Federer has "come onto his own" as a player. He is a ridiculously well-rounded player and he has chosen to put emphasis on his creative baseline skills rather than his superb net game.

Much the same happened to Sampras. In his early years, Sampras played a very well-rounded game, mixing serve-and-volley with staying back. In his later years, he developed into a true serve-and-volley player, coming in off of almost every first and second serve.

mowcopian
06-26-2006, 02:55 PM
this is why we can accpet federer not serve and volleying as much anymore because of his complete all round game

Moose Malloy
06-26-2006, 03:00 PM
Much the same happened to Sampras. In his early years, Sampras played a very well-rounded game, mixing serve-and-volley with staying back. In his later years, he developed into a true serve-and-volley player, coming in off of almost every first and second serve.

That was true how Sampras' play changed on hardcourts. But he always S&Ved on grass 1st & 2nd serve. Everybody(except Agassi) S&Ved on grass until 2002, when they changed the grass.

Federer changed from '03 to '04/'05, not sure why. I guess he became so comfortable at the baseline(& didn't really have to worry about taking the net away from a S&V player, since Roddick, Hewitt, Grosjean, etc all play primarily from baseline)

mowcopian
06-26-2006, 03:02 PM
well with strokes like federers who wouldn't be comfortable at the baseline

tnig469
06-26-2006, 03:06 PM
Got this from a post by Miguel Seabra at peterbodotennisworld.com

The % that Fed S&Ved at W:
2001 -- 70 %
2002 -- 80 %
2003 -- 48 %
2004 -- 19 %
2005 -- 14 %

I find this a bit odd, since the grass was already slowed down in '02, Fed still S&Ved quite a bit in '03, but hardly did at all in '04/'05.

the less he serves and volleys....the easier he wins...eventually he will have to rely on s&v when he gets older...but now...its ok....

fastdunn
06-26-2006, 03:36 PM
Got this from a post by Miguel Seabra at peterbodotennisworld.com

The % that Fed S&Ved at W:
2001 -- 70 %
2002 -- 80 %
2003 -- 48 %
2004 -- 19 %
2005 -- 14 %

I find this a bit odd, since the grass was already slowed down in '02, Fed still S&Ved quite a bit in '03, but hardly did at all in '04/'05.

Actually, it makes sense to me since Federer lost at 1st round in 2002.

alienhamster
06-26-2006, 03:47 PM
As much as people don't want to admit it, Fed does have some weaker parts to his game, and serve and volleying (and just volleying aggressively) is one of them. Of course, weak for him is still pretty good. But he's known to have said that his s&v on grass was part of why he lost so much pre-2003.

BUT it saved his @ss against Roddick in the final 2 years ago. So he knows when to pull it out.

Incidentally, Blake has said that his improved grass court play is entirely due to his realization that s&v is too hard to pull off on grass consistently nowadays. The game favors flat baseline shots and passing shots, though with some aggressive, appropriately timed netplay thrown in every so often.

TacoBellBorderBowl1946
06-26-2006, 04:55 PM
ughhhh mowcopian you are the most annoying new member on this board!!!!!!!! :mad:

Stop just racking up your posts, make a post that actually makes sense and dont do it every other minute!!!!!!!

araghava
06-26-2006, 05:04 PM
I read somewhere that Federer blamed his 1st round loss to Ancic on too much S&V. i.e. he played the way he thought one had to play on grass and lost. From then on he started playing much more from the baseline.

Another quote i read was that he would often start playing S&V when a match wasn't going ok. i.e. he would panic and start S&V. Now he claims that he's much more calm and doesn't panic. Hence less S&V.

fastdunn
06-26-2006, 05:25 PM
I think Ancic also switched to baseline at similar times(2002-3).

My guess is that players were not 100% sure if baseline play could
still win even though the surface got slowed and fit eatured 2 baseliners
in final(Hewitt, Nalbandian) in 2002. 2001 final still featured 2 serve
and volleyers(Ivanesvic, Rafter) even though they already had
rye grass....

David L
06-26-2006, 05:59 PM
Got this from a post by Miguel Seabra at peterbodotennisworld.com

The % that Fed S&Ved at W:
2001 -- 70 %
2002 -- 80 %
2003 -- 48 %
2004 -- 19 %
2005 -- 14 %

I find this a bit odd, since the grass was already slowed down in '02, Fed still S&Ved quite a bit in '03, but hardly did at all in '04/'05.

A couple of things. In an interview before his 1st round match at Wimbledon this year, Federer was asked about an earlier statement in which he said he would like to win Wimbledon serve and volleying. Did'nt really answer the question, but said when he played Sampras, he serve and volleyed on almost every serve because, at that stage, he did not have the confidence in his groundstrokes to stay at the back. He said he did not feel his groundstrokes were good enough, so he was a bit panicky to get to the net. Now he has a lot more confidence in his groundstrokes, so he does not feel the need to get to the net. So he answered your question directly.

Also, during the match, the commentator said he interviewed Federer at the time he won junior Wimbledon and, there, Federer said going to the net to volley, scared him a bit.

So it would seem at one time staying at the back was the lesser of two evils, then going to the net was, now staying at the back is again.

I think it is a myth that people would drastically change their game according to surface, change it slightly maybe. People will tend to play the way that makes them feel most confident. As Federer's strengths and weaknesses have fluctuated, so has the way he plays the game, in accordance with them.

On an off note. Federer seemed very relaxed in the interview. He did not have the scowl he had at the French and appeared to be back to his smiley self. He said that at the French he could'nt smile or anything because he wanted to be focused and give himself the best opportunity to win 4 in a row, so that he would not look back with regret. He said he was happy that he achieved this. When asked about not being able to beat Nadal, he acknowledged his deficit in the head to head and said, smiling, for some reason, this did not bother him. It's clear that the most important thing to Federer are the titles.

fastdunn
06-26-2006, 07:00 PM
Then how come pretty much everybody who used to S&V
switched to baseliner at Wimbledon ?
If it's not the surface, then what is it ?
Is it just a hip thing? thing of the moment ?

Andres
06-26-2006, 07:00 PM
EEERRR... you ever see that EDIT button??
how bout making one larger post than several smaller, more annoying posts??
How about whining a little less!!?? :mad:

The tennis guy
06-26-2006, 07:16 PM
Got this from a post by Miguel Seabra at peterbodotennisworld.com

The % that Fed S&Ved at W:
2001 -- 70 %
2002 -- 80 %
2003 -- 48 %
2004 -- 19 %
2005 -- 14 %

I find this a bit odd, since the grass was already slowed down in '02, Fed still S&Ved quite a bit in '03, but hardly did at all in '04/'05.

It's not odd. Yes, 2002 started the slow down of Wimbldeon. However, Federer lost in the first round against Ancic who was also serve and volley. One match stat can be misleading. After the loss, Federer said he realized the slowdown of Wimbldeon, and the high risk of serve and volley. He adjusted and won in 2003.

chaognosis
06-26-2006, 07:18 PM
It's not odd. Yes, 2002 started the slow down of Wimbldeon. However, Federer lost in the first round against Ancic who was also serve and volley. One match stat can be misleading. After the loss, Federer said he realized the slowdown of Wimbldeon, and the high risk of serve and volley. He adjusted and won in 2003.

The more interesting question, as Moose has pointed out, is why Federer's tactics changed so much between 2003 and '04.

The tennis guy
06-26-2006, 07:19 PM
I think Ancic also switched to baseline at similar times(2002-3).

My guess is that players were not 100% sure if baseline play could
still win even though the surface got slowed and fit eatured 2 baseliners
in final(Hewitt, Nalbandian) in 2002. 2001 final still featured 2 serve
and volleyers(Ivanesvic, Rafter) even though they already had
rye grass....

Even though they had rye grass in 2001, the ground was not firm at that year. So 2002 was the start of the real low down at Wimbledon, firm rye grass. Sampras lost very early by serve and volley that year.

The tennis guy
06-26-2006, 07:27 PM
The more interesting question, as Moose has pointed out, is why Federer's tactics changed so much between 2003 and '04.

Because of opponents. He played against 3 opponents who served and volleyed a lot in 2003 while he played against 1 serve and volleyer and 6 baseliners in 2004 including Hewitt, Grojean, and Roddick in the last 3 rounds. Federer doesn't serve and volley against these 3. In 2005, he played all baseliners. The only one came in occasionally against him was Kiefer.

chaognosis
06-26-2006, 07:41 PM
Because of opponents. He played against 3 opponents who served and volleyed a lot in 2003 while he played against almost all baseliners in 2004 including Hewitt, Grojean, and Roddick in the last 3 rounds. Federer doesn't serve and volley against these 3.

Then let us hope for a second-round showdown with Henman this year to test this theory!

emcee
06-26-2006, 07:42 PM
Fed can do what he wants at Wimby and win, but I personally would like to see a little more S+V. I mean, if Roger Federer doesn't S+V at WIMBLEDON (even if it's slower now), then who's going to serve and volley on hard courts? Oh how I miss Patrick Rafter!

brucie
06-27-2006, 04:52 AM
same is happening to henman though his sucess is decreasing with s&v arguably!

brucie
06-27-2006, 04:55 AM
serve and volleying is now a dying art.

Not if i can stop it! ;)

Yeah I suppose your right. :(

tennis_nerd22
06-27-2006, 06:10 AM
Got this from a post by Miguel Seabra at peterbodotennisworld.com

The % that Fed S&Ved at W:
2001 -- 70 %
2002 -- 80 %
2003 -- 48 %
2004 -- 19 %
2005 -- 14 %

I find this a bit odd, since the grass was already slowed down in '02, Fed still S&Ved quite a bit in '03, but hardly did at all in '04/'05.

well ya he doesnt need to... he already has such strength from the baseline and with drop shots, and he can defend himself quite well when someone attacks him, so why waste his energy going to the net all the time

nice find by the way

Moose Malloy
06-27-2006, 08:22 AM
Because of opponents. He played against 3 opponents who served and volleyed a lot in 2003 while he played against 1 serve and volleyer and 6 baseliners in 2004 including Hewitt, Grojean, and Roddick in the last 3 rounds. Federer doesn't serve and volley against these 3.

Not sure about this. When he played Roddick in '03 he came in every 1st serve(he did that the entire tournament, whether he played baseliner or S&V player) Yet he played Roddick in '04/'05 he didn't come in nearly as much. Roddick & the surface didn't change, so why did Federer's game? There was a change in Federer's game from '03 to '04, he got more conservative at W. He just is more confident at the baseline I guess.

David L
06-27-2006, 08:33 AM
Not sure about this. When he played Roddick in '03 he came in every 1st serve(he did that the entire tournament, whether he played baseliner or S&V player) Yet he played Roddick in '04/'05 he didn't come in nearly as much. Roddick & the surface didn't change, so why did Federer's game? There was a change in Federer's game from '03 to '04, he got more conservative at W. He just is more confident at the baseline I guess.

Read my earlier post. As Federer's strengths have changed, he has played in accordance with them. It came from the horse's mouth, he said it himself in an BBC interview on monday. He plays the way that gives him the most confidence and security.

David L
06-27-2006, 08:47 AM
Then how come pretty much everybody who used to S&V
switched to baseliner at Wimbledon ?
If it's not the surface, then what is it ?
Is it just a hip thing? thing of the moment ?

I acknowledged that there might be slight adaption due to surface, but nothing drastic.

Also, what you say is not true. I am not aware of any serve & volleyers who are now baseliners. Miryni, Stepanek, Bjorkman, Rusedski, Henman etc have not become baseliners. As I have acknowledged earlier, some might have adapted their game slightly, but they are still trying to get to net at some point. Players such as Miryni and Stepanek serve and volley all the time still, others, such as Henman, are taking their time to get to net a bit more, sometimes after one or two shots, sometimes on the serve.

Moose Malloy
06-27-2006, 09:10 AM
I acknowledged that there might be slight adaption due to surface, but nothing drastic.

Also, what you say is not true. I am not aware of any serve & volleyers who are now baseliners. Miryni, Stepanek, Bjorkman, Rusedski, Henman etc have not become baseliners. As I have acknowledged earlier, some might have adapted their game slightly, but they are still trying to get to net at some point. Players such as Miryni and Stepanek serve and volley all the time still, others, such as Henman, are taking their time to get to net a bit more, sometimes after one or two shots, sometimes on the serve.

Henman drastically changed his game from '01 to '02. He S&Ved every 1st & 2nd serve in '01, they changed the grass in '02 & he stopped S&Ving regularly on his 1st serve! All the players have said that the surface is different.
Surface does dicate the way players play, Henman has said so & regardless of what Federer says surface has changed the way he plays as well.
How do you explain Coria, Ferrero, & Gonzalez being in the 2nd week at W last year? Do you honestly think that would have been possible a few years ago with fast grass? A time when great claycourters like Costa, Kuerten, Corretja skipped W because they knew they had no chance of doing well?

The change at W is drastic, just watch any match from '00/'01 & compare to '02-'06. A Hewitt-Nalbandian final would never have occured prior to '02. The only baseliner to make the finals of Wimbledon the entire decade of the 90s was Agassi. They change the grass in '02 & all of a sudden 2 baseliners make the final? Its not just a coincidence.


Here's a Henman & Rusedski interview from '02:

Q. What do you know about grass court tennis now that you didn't know when you first played here, even as a junior?

GREG RUSEDSKI: Well, this year the grass is playing very interesting. I've never seen it so hard for a Monday in all the years I've played Wimbledon. So you can actually use the kick serve a little bit more, where usually if you had a kick serve, it would be punished severely. You know, you've just got to be crafty and use your physicality, take the ball early. You've got to mix it up. This year's Wimbledon is different because of the weather and the dryness of the court. So I think it's just experience, maturity, health, combination of a few things. Can't give away all my secrets (smiling).

http://www.asapsports.com/tennis/200.../062802GR.html

Q. Scott mentioned that in his opinion, Centre Court was playing slower than before. There's been quite a lot of comment from a number of players that the courts are playing a bit differently this year. We wondered what your opinion was.

TIM HENMAN: I think they're a bit slower, yeah.

Q. Apart from that, any differences?

TIM HENMAN: I think because they're a little bit slower, the ball is probably bouncing a little bit higher. That's, you know, probably been the nature of the game in general.

Q. But the impression is that the bounce is quite consistent.

TIM HENMAN: Oh, very. Yeah, the bounce is very consistent. You know, on these courts, there are very, very few bad bounces. But, you know, I think the sort of general consensus is that they're playing a little bit slower, the balls are a little bit heavier.

http://www.asapsports.com/tennis/200.../062702TH.html

& later in the '02 event:

Q. Could you see a final of two baseliners?

GREG RUSEDSKI: Possibly this year. It could happen

Q. And is it just because they're playing better or is the court playing differently?

GREG RUSEDSKI: Everybody knows the grass is much slower. There's no question about it. You can see it from the rallies and how guys are getting hits on returns and all sorts of things. You know, I mean, I talked to Bjorkman in Nottingham. And he said the speed of the grass from Nottingham to Wimbledon was quite a huge difference. But, you know, if you serve well and you volley well, it doesn't make a difference.

http://www.asapsports.com/tennis/200.../070202GR.html

Q. Would it be right the conditions are a bit less helpful to you this year?

TIM HENMAN: I think it's slower. I think I'm not the first person to say that. I think the courts are, you know, bouncing up pretty high. But, as I said, you know, that's an element you've got to deal with, and it's the same for both the players. But perhaps the nature, you know, the way the draw has unfolded, that has something to do with it.

http://www.asapsports.com/tennis/200.../070402TH.html

fastdunn
06-27-2006, 09:57 AM
Roddick & the surface didn't change, so why did Federer's game?

I don't think we know how much of surface changed in 02, 03, 04.
My guess is there was somewhat gradual changes.
I don't think I've heard about the extra cement layer in 02.

Other players' changed/adjusted in similar time frame and it's
no coincident, IMHO.

Are you thinking Federer's nature is baseliner ?
I think so. But his changes at Wimbledon was not different from
others.

fastdunn
06-27-2006, 10:01 AM
I acknowledged that there might be slight adaption due to surface, but nothing drastic.

Also, what you say is not true. I am not aware of any serve & volleyers who are now baseliners. Miryni, Stepanek, Bjorkman, Rusedski, Henman etc have not become baseliners. As I have acknowledged earlier, some might have adapted their game slightly, but they are still trying to get to net at some point. Players such as Miryni and Stepanek serve and volley all the time still, others, such as Henman, are taking their time to get to net a bit more, sometimes after one or two shots, sometimes on the serve.

OK. I did not mean that S&Ver completely changes style although
Henman and Bjorkman did changed drastically.

What I meant was that everybody used to serve-and-volley whether
you're baseliner or S&Ver on other surfaces.
Now pretty much all "grass court S&Ver" plays baseline.

David L
06-27-2006, 10:15 AM
Henman drastically changed his game from '01 to '02. He S&Ved every 1st & 2nd serve in '01, they changed the grass in '02 & he stopped S&Ving regularly on his 1st serve! All the players have said that the surface is different.
Surface does dicate the way players play, Henman has said so & regardless of what Federer says surface has changed the way he plays as well.
How do you explain Coria, Ferrero, & Gonzalez being in the 2nd week at W last year? Do you honestly think that would have been possible a few years ago with fast grass? A time when great claycourters like Costa, Kuerten, Corretja skipped W because they knew they had no chance of doing well?

The change at W is drastic, just watch any match from '00/'01 & compare to '02-'06. A Hewitt-Nalbandian final would never have occured prior to '02. The only baseliner to make the finals of Wimbledon the entire decade of the 90s was Agassi. They change the grass in '02 & all of a sudden 2 baseliners make the final? Its not just a coincidence.


Here's a Henman & Rusedski interview from '02:

Q. What do you know about grass court tennis now that you didn't know when you first played here, even as a junior?

GREG RUSEDSKI: Well, this year the grass is playing very interesting. I've never seen it so hard for a Monday in all the years I've played Wimbledon. So you can actually use the kick serve a little bit more, where usually if you had a kick serve, it would be punished severely. You know, you've just got to be crafty and use your physicality, take the ball early. You've got to mix it up. This year's Wimbledon is different because of the weather and the dryness of the court. So I think it's just experience, maturity, health, combination of a few things. Can't give away all my secrets (smiling).

http://www.asapsports.com/tennis/200.../062802GR.html

Q. Scott mentioned that in his opinion, Centre Court was playing slower than before. There's been quite a lot of comment from a number of players that the courts are playing a bit differently this year. We wondered what your opinion was.

TIM HENMAN: I think they're a bit slower, yeah.

Q. Apart from that, any differences?

TIM HENMAN: I think because they're a little bit slower, the ball is probably bouncing a little bit higher. That's, you know, probably been the nature of the game in general.

Q. But the impression is that the bounce is quite consistent.

TIM HENMAN: Oh, very. Yeah, the bounce is very consistent. You know, on these courts, there are very, very few bad bounces. But, you know, I think the sort of general consensus is that they're playing a little bit slower, the balls are a little bit heavier.

http://www.asapsports.com/tennis/200.../062702TH.html

& later in the '02 event:

Q. Could you see a final of two baseliners?

GREG RUSEDSKI: Possibly this year. It could happen

Q. And is it just because they're playing better or is the court playing differently?

GREG RUSEDSKI: Everybody knows the grass is much slower. There's no question about it. You can see it from the rallies and how guys are getting hits on returns and all sorts of things. You know, I mean, I talked to Bjorkman in Nottingham. And he said the speed of the grass from Nottingham to Wimbledon was quite a huge difference. But, you know, if you serve well and you volley well, it doesn't make a difference.

http://www.asapsports.com/tennis/200.../070202GR.html

Q. Would it be right the conditions are a bit less helpful to you this year?

TIM HENMAN: I think it's slower. I think I'm not the first person to say that. I think the courts are, you know, bouncing up pretty high. But, as I said, you know, that's an element you've got to deal with, and it's the same for both the players. But perhaps the nature, you know, the way the draw has unfolded, that has something to do with it.

http://www.asapsports.com/tennis/200.../070402TH.html

Henman has not drastically changed his game. This debate rests on what one considers to be drastic, the degree of divergence. Henman has never been an out and out serve and volleyer in the way that Rafter was. The grass court season is short and few people develop their game on it, so I think more is revealed about anyones game by looking at how they play on hardcourts. On hardcourts, Henman has always had more of an all court game, than a pure serve and volley game. On faster courts like grass, he can exploit his net rushing tactics more, but on still fast, but slower grass, he has opted to employ his hardcourt game more. The point being that he has not had to diverge drastically from what he is comfortable doing. The way he plays on grass now, is still his game, only a little closer to his hardcourt game. It was never in dispute whether a surface could make you modify your tactics slightly, the issue was whether it could make you overhaul them. Henman has not had to overhaul his, therefore the changes he has made to the way he plays on grass, due to the changing surface, have not been drastic. At the end of the day, he is not playing like a baseliner.

It is interesting to note that Henman and Rusedski emphasize the change in the grass differently. Henman says it is a 'little bit slower', whereas Rusedski says it is 'much slower'. On the other hand, Rusedski also acknowledges that, 'if you serve well and you volley well, it doesn't make a difference'. Slowed down grass still plays like grass. It is still the quickest and lowest bouncing surface. The slowed down surface can not be used as an excuse for why people are not serve and volleying or not winning, serve and volleying. If Sampras, Rafter and Edberg could win the Aussie and US Opens, amongst themelves, serve and volleying, then there can be no excuses when it comes to Wimbledon. The simple fact of the matter is, that Henman and the other serve and volleyers out there at the moment, are not of the callibre of these players, that is why they cannot win serve and volleying, not because of the surface. Serve and volleying is a risky strategy, to do it well, one has to stack the odds in their favour by having an exceptionally strong/reliable first and second serve, in combination with exceptional volleys. No one out there really has that at the moment, on any surface.

fastdunn
06-27-2006, 10:24 AM
Henman has never been an out and out serve and volleyer in the way that Rafter was.

That'a very true. But I thought we're talking about grass.
Henman used to play pure S&V game on grass.

I understand what you're getting at but I don't think there is any question
about the fact that everybody changed playing style in Wimbledon.
And that's pretty "drastic" in terms of Wimbledon history.

As Cliff Drysdale put on this morning at ESPN2, Wimbledon plays
like hard courts on 1st week and even behave somewhat like clay court
on second court. That's pretty drastic changes. Let's not play
with words here if you knwo what I mean.

The tennis guy
06-27-2006, 11:01 AM
If Sampras, Rafter and Edberg could win the Aussie and US Opens, amongst themelves, serve and volleying, then there can be no excuses when it comes to Wimbledon. The simple fact of the matter is, that Henman and the other serve and volleyers out there at the moment, are not of the callibre of these players, that is why they cannot win serve and volleying, not because of the surface.

US Open is very fast. There is no surprise Rafter, Sampras served and volleyed to title there. Sampras didn't serve and volley to Australia Open title. He played all court game there. Rafter had never done well (best 4th round?) at Australia Open. Back then Australia Open was medium surface with fast ball. Today, all first half of the year outdoor hard courts are slower than Australia Open used to be. If Rafter back then couldn't do well on medium hardcourt, there is no guranteer he would do well today overall.

It's not as simple as there is no good serve and volleyer left. There is a reason. Those promised serve and volleyer had to adopt to baseliner in the last a few years because of condition change. If they bring fast indoor carpet season back, then there will be a few good serve and volleyers down the road.

Viper
06-27-2006, 09:07 PM
Serve and Volley is dead. That's my perfered way to play, but now thanks to these new power rackets and players its almost impossibe.

David L
06-27-2006, 09:18 PM
That'a very true. But I thought we're talking about grass.
Henman used to play pure S&V game on grass.

I understand what you're getting at but I don't think there is any question
about the fact that everybody changed playing style in Wimbledon.
And that's pretty "drastic" in terms of Wimbledon history.

As Cliff Drysdale put on this morning at ESPN2, Wimbledon plays
like hard courts on 1st week and even behave somewhat like clay court
on second court. That's pretty drastic changes. Let's not play
with words here if you knwo what I mean.

Well, some people changed, because their serve and volley game was not good enough anymore on a slower grass surface, but that's as much to do with their competence as the grass. History has shown, with few exceptions, that to be able to win Wimbledon serve and volleying, you need to be similarly effective on hardcourts, playing in this way. Wimbledon has never really provided a free pass to 'mediocre' serve and volleyers, nor should it. You have to be very very good at it.

Regarding Cliff Drysdale's comments. Well, some people just like to talk. Commentators have to continually justify their positions by voicing their opinions. Some things will be true, other things will be glib cliches espousing the false, but current orthodoxys, even from former champions. I don't defer to anyones opinion without applying my own brain. Drysdale's claim that Wimbledon's grass plays like hardcourts in the first week and clay in the second is bogus. It is a very neat and pithy analysis, sounds cute, but is ultimately false. It sounds like it was said more for effect and emphasis, than to convey a literal observation. Despite the slower grass at Wimbledon, the ball still plays quicker and bounces lower, than on hardcourt. This can even be understood logically. Grass is pliable and soft, so it absorbs the ball more, rather than repelling it, as does a resistant and immovable hardcourt, hence the lower bounce on grass. Furthermore, the rough texture of hardcourt, in comparison with the soft, smooth and moist texture of grass, means that grass provides less friction, which enables the ball to glide off the surface without reducing its speed significantly. Grass courts, no matter what you do to them, always have these qualities in comparison to hardcourts. The bounce will always be lower and the penetration through the court will always be stronger.

I will acknowledge that as Wimbledon progresses, the courts will change, will become harder and rougher as the grass is worn away and the mud exposed. Here, they will start to play a little more like hardcourts, however, there will still be enough grass there to prevent them from behaving like hardcourt replicas.

David L
06-27-2006, 09:36 PM
US Open is very fast. There is no surprise Rafter, Sampras served and volleyed to title there. Sampras didn't serve and volley to Australia Open title. He played all court game there. Rafter had never done well (best 4th round?) at Australia Open. Back then Australia Open was medium surface with fast ball. Today, all first half of the year outdoor hard courts are slower than Australia Open used to be. If Rafter back then couldn't do well on medium hardcourt, there is no guranteer he would do well today overall.

It's not as simple as there is no good serve and volleyer left. There is a reason. Those promised serve and volleyer had to adopt to baseliner in the last a few years because of condition change. If they bring fast indoor carpet season back, then there will be a few good serve and volleyers down the road.

The US Open may have what are considered to be fast hardcourts, but they are not faster than grass.

My memory of Sampras in Australia has him serve and volleying.

There could be all kinds of reasons for Rafter's lack of success at the Australian, none of which have anything to do with the surface. There is the pressure of being an Aussie himself, but I think the heat was probably a very significant factor. Rafter sweated buckets, I even recall him wilting, due to dehydration, in a 5 set night match against Agassi at the US Open,

Edberg, however, won in Australia, twice, and even got to the final of the French, serve and volleying. Him being able to do this, makes complaints about how it is not possible to serve and volley at Wimbledon look redundant.

David L
06-27-2006, 10:04 PM
OK. I did not mean that S&Ver completely changes style although
Henman and Bjorkman did changed drastically.

What I meant was that everybody used to serve-and-volley whether
you're baseliner or S&Ver on other surfaces.
Now pretty much all "grass court S&Ver" plays baseline.

Yes, this used to be the case. Obviously, slower grass at Wimbledon has helped baseliners and has made this way of playing more viable. However, Agassi winning in 92, Hewitt in 02, Courier making the final in 93 and Nalbandian in 02, demonstrated to people that it was possible to win from the back in the modern game. I'm sure that many serve and volleyed in the past, even if they were a baseliner or not good at it, simply because they did not believe it was possible to win Wimbledon playing any other way. When people demonstrated it was, attacking the net or staying back, both became viable options. Sometimes someone has to be successful in blazing a new trail and breaking the mould, before current conventions and orthodoxys are questioned.

Agassi winning was a total shock to everyone, because it was expected he could not compete from the back with Ivanisevic. When he won, that changed peoples perspective on the ways Wimbledon could be won. The slower grass helps, but I think there was also a paradigm shift in thinking.

simi
06-27-2006, 10:05 PM
Serve and Volley is dead. That's my perfered way to play, but now thanks to these new power rackets and players its almost impossibe.

I agree, and am sad. I almost hired a coach to help me develop my game better. After attending his weekly clinic for four sessions, so that he could see how I played, he said I wouldn't have any chance becoming a better S&V player. I asked him what I should do, and he said to become a baseline basher just like everyone else.

I didn't arrange to take any lessons from him.

joe sch
06-27-2006, 10:40 PM
That was true how Sampras' play changed on hardcourts. But he always S&Ved on grass 1st & 2nd serve. Everybody(except Agassi) S&Ved on grass until 2002, when they changed the grass.

Federer changed from '03 to '04/'05, not sure why. I guess he became so comfortable at the baseline(& didn't really have to worry about taking the net away from a S&V player, since Roddick, Hewitt, Grosjean, etc all play primarily from baseline)
I agree that the shorter, harder, more consistent and higher bouncing grass has resulted in most of the remaining S/V players changing styles, like Henman. Im also pretty sure that if Sampras, Ivanisevic, Rafter, Becker, Edberg, etc ..., were still around, they would continue playing the traditional S/V style. If Federer had to play against such real SV players, he would have continue to play a more classic game. This is the one big asteric against what Roger has accomplished, his competition all have one dimensional games and he can beat all of them at this game, except for Nadal on dirt. I can only hope that there is a surprise in the future but unfortunately nothing exciting inview.

simi
06-28-2006, 04:39 AM
ESPN2 only showed about 10 minutes of the Fish/Ginipri match this morning. Was happy to see Fish play S&V on both his first and second serves. All the time too. Even Robbie played S&V, but not as much as Mardy.

Marius_Hancu
06-28-2006, 04:51 AM
Just a recognition on Fed's part that his serve isn't as good/dominant as Sampras's, nor are his volleys. Also, an indication he doesn't want to work more on improving those areas, or he simply can't do it enough to his satisfaction.

His dominant strengths lie in other areas, he seems to be saying, or in a combination of them.

But I am shocked by the change from 2003 to today.

And this is why he lost to Nadal in Paris. Had he continued with the strategy he adopted in Rome during the times he was winning, coming agressively to the net, he would have been much better in the end. The least he could have achieved, is give Nadal less satisfaction that he himself played in the end Nadal's game.

Which was a shame and a no cojones and no thought play, just like Willander said.

AAAA
06-28-2006, 05:32 AM
Henman has not drastically changed his game. This debate rests on what one considers to be drastic, the degree of divergence. Henman has never been an out and out serve and volleyer in the way that Rafter was. The grass court season is short and few people develop their game on it, so I think more is revealed about anyones game by looking at how they play on hardcourts. On hardcourts, Henman has always had more of an all court game, than a pure serve and volley game. On faster courts like grass, he can exploit his net rushing tactics more, but on still fast, but slower grass, he has opted to employ his hardcourt game more. The point being that he has not had to diverge drastically from what he is comfortable doing. The way he plays on grass now, is still his game, only a little closer to his hardcourt game. It was never in dispute whether a surface could make you modify your tactics slightly, the issue was whether it could make you overhaul them. Henman has not had to overhaul his, therefore the changes he has made to the way he plays on grass, due to the changing surface, have not been drastic. At the end of the day, he is not playing like a baseliner.

It is interesting to note that Henman and Rusedski emphasize the change in the grass differently. Henman says it is a 'little bit slower', whereas Rusedski says it is 'much slower'. On the other hand, Rusedski also acknowledges that, 'if you serve well and you volley well, it doesn't make a difference'. Slowed down grass still plays like grass. It is still the quickest and lowest bouncing surface. The slowed down surface can not be used as an excuse for why people are not serve and volleying or not winning, serve and volleying. If Sampras, Rafter and Edberg could win the Aussie and US Opens, amongst themelves, serve and volleying, then there can be no excuses when it comes to Wimbledon. The simple fact of the matter is, that Henman and the other serve and volleyers out there at the moment, are not of the callibre of these players, that is why they cannot win serve and volleying, not because of the surface. Serve and volleying is a risky strategy, to do it well, one has to stack the odds in their favour by having an exceptionally strong/reliable first and second serve, in combination with exceptional volleys. No one out there really has that at the moment, on any surface.

To the point and rational.

It's interesting to note that yesterday

Henman hit 4 aces against soderling's 17 aces
Philippoussis hit 39 against Mathieu
Safin 13 against Rusedski
Ancic 21 aces against Almagro's 11 aces
Mirnyi 20 aces
Gonzales 16 aces

It seems Henman lacks the power to hit many aces unlike those above.

Right now Ljubicic and Lopez are playing one another and the ace count is 15 and 16 respectively,

People need to stop whinning about fast grass, slower grass, slow grass, 100% rye grass, etc. and put the changes into perspective.

As 'changes' go it doesn't compare to the introduction of graphite racquets and the surface changes at the USO open and Aus Open.

USO was at various times clay or grass then become hardcourt to this day. Now that is a big change.

Aus Open, grass to hard court, that too is a big change.

The tennis guy
06-28-2006, 10:04 AM
The US Open may have what are considered to be fast hardcourts, but they are not faster than grass.

My memory of Sampras in Australia has him serve and volleying.

There could be all kinds of reasons for Rafter's lack of success at the Australian, none of which have anything to do with the surface. There is the pressure of being an Aussie himself, but I think the heat was probably a very significant factor. Rafter sweated buckets, I even recall him wilting, due to dehydration, in a 5 set night match against Agassi at the US Open,

Edberg, however, won in Australia, twice, and even got to the final of the French, serve and volleying. Him being able to do this, makes complaints about how it is not possible to serve and volley at Wimbledon look redundant.

US Open right now is faster than current grass at W.

Your memory was wrong. Sampras became a true serve and volleyer late in his career except at Wimbledon. He was playing a lot more from baseline on slow to medium courts.

Edberg won Australia Open twice when it was played in Kooyoung on grass. Thus 4 of 6 slam title Edberg won were on grass.

David L
06-28-2006, 02:44 PM
US Open right now is faster than current grass at W.

Your memory was wrong. Sampras became a true serve and volleyer late in his career except at Wimbledon. He was playing a lot more from baseline on slow to medium courts.

Edberg won Australia Open twice when it was played in Kooyoung on grass. Thus 4 of 6 slam title Edberg won were on grass.

Well, we are going to have to agree to disagree about the US Open being faster than Wimbledon today, and there is also the question of the lower bounce on grass also.

We'll also have to disagree about Sampras at the Australian.

Yes, you are right about Edberg's Australian titles, but he still got to the final of the French on a significantly slower surface and almost won, so should not have had any problem with todays grass at Wimbledon.

David L
06-28-2006, 03:06 PM
I don't know how many reporters read this board, but they are certainly getting their questions from somewhere. The tennis guy, Federer confirmed your theory that he plays how his opponents choose to play, in an interview after his match against Henman today. It makes me laugh when people say if there were more serve and volleyers or if the grass was faster, Federer would struggle, as if he is an automaton who cannot adapt to new situations. Federer is arguably the most talented player to wield a racket, his capacity to adapt is up there.

Q. There was a stat the other day saying that you went from 70% serving and volleying to 14% last year. Do you have any comment on that?

ROGER FEDERER: I guess I improved my baseline game (smiling), and my volleying is nonexistent.

No, I don't know. Look, it came it's an evolution throughout the years I've done. I came to the conclusion for me, for my game, it was better to stay back a little bit more often. What started for me, I think if more guys would be serving and volleying these days, I would be serving and volleying more often, too. So often I play the game my opponent plays and I want to beat them at their game. It happens also that I play more from the baseline. It's kind of funny, but that's how my game works.

Q. Were you surprised Tim Henman didn't serve and volley more against you in this match?

ROGER FEDERER: No, I was surprised how much he did actually in the beginning. I knew he would do it more often against me than against Soderling. I knew that he's gonna change a few things. I was quite surprised how often he serve and volleyed early on. In the end, he didn't serve so well anymore so it didn't allow him to. But more or less surprised he did so much.

Q. Everyone seems to agree you have the best game in tennis. Why would you change it to play an opponent on their terms?

ROGER FEDERER: Uhm, I've always been doing that my whole career. Basically, if a guy plays from the baseline, I play, too, from the baseline. If he plays from the net, I also come to the net. It's just something about it.

But, uhm, why? I don't know. That's just me.

Q. You started playing more from the back and coming in the second set because the conditions, the grass are different now. Can you talk about the evolution of the conditions since when you played as a junior here. How do you feel?

ROGER FEDERER: I mean, I didn't serve and volley once in Juniors '98 in my match in the finals. So what can I say? Don't quite remember how quick it was back then. Don't know. You have to ask guys who still veterans, really, over 30 now who played here for 10, 15 years. I remember Wayne Ferreira telling me one time he used to serve and volley first and second serve, in the end he had to consider if he's gonna serve and volley on the first serve. I don't know how that happened, if it's true the conditions the players return better, the grass got slower, the balls got slower. I don't know what it is. But I think baseline tennis on grass is actually also pretty exciting.

Q. How should an opponent play if they want to play your game?

ROGER FEDERER: What do you mean by that?

Q. You said you play their game. If they want to use the same tactic, how should they play?

ROGER FEDERER: Well, I wait for them first. Just don't play (smiling).

http://www.wimbledon.org/en_GB/news/interviews/2006-06-28/200606281151518767171.html

Moose Malloy
06-28-2006, 03:30 PM
US Open right now is faster than current grass at W.


Yet no player or commentator says this. And the ace count at W is considerably higher than US Open. US Open is fast, but not that fast. It is still a hard court, without bad bounces. Grass is slower, yet big servers can still serve anyone of the court(check out Philippoussis' numbers at queens & Wimbledon. incidently he doesn't think the grass has changed at all, because big servers can still S&V, just not slow servers like henman)

So often I play the game my opponent plays and I want to beat them at their game. It happens also that I play more from the baseline. It's kind of funny, but that's how my game works.


No wonder he doesn't beat Nadal. And David, Fed is versatile, but that is a very strange comment. Becker did the same thing vs Agassi & everyone thought he was stupid.
The best way to beat another baseliner isn't from the baseline, its from the net, provided you are good enough from there.

These comments show that Fed isn't the most brilliant strategic mind out there, he's just the most talented player.

"Uhm, I've always been doing that my whole career. Basically, if a guy plays from the baseline, I play, too, from the baseline. If he plays from the net, I also come to the net. It's just something about it.

But, uhm, why? I don't know. That's just me."

Shabazza
06-28-2006, 03:53 PM
Yet no player or commentator says this. And the ace count at W is considerably higher than US Open. US Open is fast, but not that fast. It is still a hard court, without bad bounces. Grass is slower, yet big servers can still serve anyone of the court(check out Philippoussis' numbers at queens & Wimbledon. incidently he doesn't think the grass has changed at all, because big servers can still S&V, just not slow servers like henman)



No wonder he doesn't beat Nadal. And David, Fed is versatile, but that is a very strange comment. Becker did the same thing vs Agassi & everyone thought he was stupid.
The best way to beat another baseliner isn't from the baseline, its from the net, provided you are good enough from there.

These comments show that Fed isn't the most brilliant strategic mind out there, he's just the most talented player.

"Uhm, I've always been doing that my whole career. Basically, if a guy plays from the baseline, I play, too, from the baseline. If he plays from the net, I also come to the net. It's just something about it.

But, uhm, why? I don't know. That's just me."

Well he still is a great tactican, but if he had the strategic mind of Nalbandian for example, no one would beat him - the ATP-tour can call themselves lucky, that he doesn't bother to work on it as much... ;)

fastdunn
06-28-2006, 04:04 PM
I don't know how many reporters read this board, but they are certainly getting their questions from somewhere. The tennis guy, Federer confirmed your theory that he plays how his opponents choose to play, in an interview after his match against Henman today. It makes me laugh when people say if there were more serve and volleyers or if the grass was faster, Federer would struggle, as if he is an automaton who cannot adapt to new situations. Federer is arguably the most talented player to wield a racket, his capacity to adapt is up there.


I don't think we have enough evidence that Fed would do just fine
with serve and volley either.

In fact, there is only some data against it. He did not do as well as now
when he S&Ved a lot. Whenever he does from time to time currently,
he is not exactly very good at.

It's certainly possible that Federer would just do fine even if there
are many power serve-and-volleyers around. But I'm pretty sure
he can not dominate like now (losing 3 or 4 matches only per year).
He can still domonate as #1 but he will bump into situations where
a power S&Ver playing like crazy a few times a year a la Krajicek
vs Sampras at Wimbledon...

fastdunn
06-28-2006, 04:24 PM
His answer contradict himself. He said he concluded he'd be better off
staying on the baseline. And then later he dodged the question by "I play
my opponent's game". Also it is not consistent with his comments
a few days ago that he used to get panic and serve-and-volleyed a lot.

Also not consistent with the fact that he tried net game because
his baseline game did not work for Nadal. Remember when he got
cranky when reporter asked why he did not try net play
at the FO final this year ?
I don't think he is showing his usual straight-forwardness here and sorta
answering somewhat defensively, IMHO....


Q. There was a stat the other day saying that you went from 70% serving and volleying to 14% last year. Do you have any comment on that?

ROGER FEDERER: I guess I improved my baseline game (smiling), and my volleying is nonexistent.

No, I don't know. Look, it came it's an evolution throughout the years I've done. I came to the conclusion for me, for my game, it was better to stay back a little bit more often. What started for me, I think if more guys would be serving and volleying these days, I would be serving and volleying more often, too. So often I play the game my opponent plays and I want to beat them at their game. It happens also that I play more from the baseline. It's kind of funny, but that's how my game works.


Q. How should an opponent play if they want to play your game?

ROGER FEDERER: What do you mean by that?

Q. You said you play their game. If they want to use the same tactic, how should they play?

ROGER FEDERER: Well, I wait for them first. Just don't play (smiling).

http://www.wimbledon.org/en_GB/news/interviews/2006-06-28/200606281151518767171.html

AAAA
06-28-2006, 04:28 PM
I don't think we have enough evidence that Fed would do just fine
with serve and volley either.
if you don't like assertions why are you then prepared to...

In fact, there is only some data against it. He did not do as well as now
when he S&Ved a lot. Whenever he does from time to time currently,
he is not exactly very good at.

.....say Federer 'can not dominate like now', with no justification apart from your I'm pretty sure gut feeling?
It's certainly possible that Federer would just do fine even if there
are many power serve-and-volleyers around. But I'm pretty sure
he 'can not dominate like now' (losing 3 or 4 matches only per year).
He can still domonate as #1 but he will bump into situations where
a power S&Ver playing like crazy a few times a year a la Krajicek
vs Sampras at Wimbledon...

AAAA
06-28-2006, 04:34 PM
His answer contradict himself. He said he concluded he'd be better off
staying on the baseline. And then later he dodged the question by "I play
my opponent's game". Also it is not consistent with his comments
a few days ago that he used to get panic and serve-and-volleyed a lot.

Also not consistent with the fact that he tried net game because
his baseline game did not work for Nadal. Remember when he got
cranky when reporter asked why he did not try net play
at the FO final this year ?
I don't think he is showing his usual straight-forwardness here and sorta
answering somewhat defensively, IMHO....

You are assuming he is being defensive. An equally acceptable interpretation of Federer's answers is that he does not want to reveal to the press and opponents his tactical thinking during a tennis match.

David L
06-28-2006, 04:51 PM
His answer contradict himself. He said he concluded he'd be better off
staying on the baseline. And then later he dodged the question by "I play
my opponent's game". Also it is not consistent with his comments
a few days ago that he used to get panic and serve-and-volleyed a lot.

Also not consistent with the fact that he tried net game because
his baseline game did not work for Nadal. Remember when he got
cranky when reporter asked why he did not try net play
at the FO final this year ?
I don't think he is showing his usual straight-forwardness here and sorta
answering somewhat defensively, IMHO....

fastdunn

You have to be kidding me. What does Federer have to be defensive about? What possible motivation could he have for not saying what he genuinely thought, in this situation? The question was not an attack, it was a simple inoffensive query. It's not as if he is trying to hide top secret government information. It's only tennis. Also, it's not as if he is sitting a formal logic philosophy exam, where each premise and conclusion has to adhere exactly with everything else. His game has evolved organically with his strengths and weaknesses. He felt less confident at the back at one time, now he feels more confident, at the same time he says he tries to mirror what his opponents are doing, there are also probably other factors involved. He's a human being not a robot, the weather, all kinds of other things might factor into the way he plays on any given day, maybe just how he instinctively feels on the day sometimes. It sounds like you are trying to figure him out and it frustrates you that he cannot be pigeonholed. Well, some people defy such crude characterisation. Look up the word imponderable.

David L
06-28-2006, 05:03 PM
Look up the word imponderable.

I'll do it for you.

imponderable

adj : difficult or impossible to evaluate with precision; "such imponderable human factors as aesthetic sensibility" [ant: ponderable] n : a factor whose effects cannot be accurately assessed; "human behavior depends on many imponderables"

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=imponderable

fastdunn
06-28-2006, 06:01 PM
You are assuming he is being defensive. An equally acceptable interpretation of Federer's answers is that he does not want to reveal to the press and opponents his tactical thinking during a tennis match.

My 1st lanuage is not English. I basically meant same thing as what you
described by "defensive" (paraphrased as "not stright-forward"
right next to it??)
Replace mine with your possible interpretation and see if it
sounds odd. As I said, it does not appeared to be straight-forward
answer and I did not suggest anything about possible reason, did I ?
All I said was it's not consistent with his previous comments, right ?

What does "defensive" sound like in this case ?

fastdunn
06-28-2006, 06:13 PM
Very good. Did I contradict myself a bit here ?
But this world is so complex that you can not tell the truth
without a bit of contradiction.

But in the 1st arguement, I'm questioning someone else's assertion
and, in the 2nd arguement, I'm the one who is making an asertion.
But you are making assumption that there is no justification on it.

So if I convince you about my assertion I'm OK.
Am I right here ?


Originally Posted by fastdunn

I don't think we have enough evidence that Fed would do just fine
with serve and volley either.
if you don't like assertions why are you then prepared to...

In fact, there is only some data against it. He did not do as well as now
when he S&Ved a lot. Whenever he does from time to time currently,
he is not exactly very good at.

.....say Federer 'can not dominate like now', with no justification apart from your I'm pretty sure gut feeling?
It's certainly possible that Federer would just do fine even if there
are many power serve-and-volleyers around. But I'm pretty sure
he 'can not dominate like now' (losing 3 or 4 matches only per year).
He can still domonate as #1 but he will bump into situations where
a power S&Ver playing like crazy a few times a year a la Krajicek
vs Sampras at Wimbledon...

The tennis guy
06-28-2006, 07:01 PM
Yet no player or commentator says this. And the ace count at W is considerably higher than US Open. US Open is fast, but not that fast. It is still a hard court, without bad bounces. Grass is slower, yet big servers can still serve anyone of the court(check out Philippoussis' numbers at queens & Wimbledon. incidently he doesn't think the grass has changed at all, because big servers can still S&V, just not slow servers like henman)


Several players said the same thing including Henman. The difference on grass is bad bounce, difficult to change direction, and slippery surface that you don't have firm footing in return of serve. Good anticipation is even more important in return of serve or anything else on grass.

Even Max Mirny didn't serve and volley on first serve today. I had never seen him not serve and volley on first serve. The ball they are using is slower than the US Open also.

David L
06-28-2006, 08:02 PM
I don't think we have enough evidence that Fed would do just fine
with serve and volley either.

In fact, there is only some data against it. He did not do as well as now
when he S&Ved a lot. Whenever he does from time to time currently,
he is not exactly very good at.

It's certainly possible that Federer would just do fine even if there
are many power serve-and-volleyers around. But I'm pretty sure
he can not dominate like now (losing 3 or 4 matches only per year).
He can still domonate as #1 but he will bump into situations where
a power S&Ver playing like crazy a few times a year a la Krajicek
vs Sampras at Wimbledon...
Practice makes perfect. Given Federer's talent, I'm sure that if he concerntrated on practicing in specific areas, he would improve in those areas. I doubt he practices his serve and volley game as much as other areas of his game, which he prefers to concentrate on. There are only so many hours in the day, so if it ain't broke, no need to fix it.

Read this.
His answer contradict himself. He said he concluded he'd be better off
staying on the baseline. And then later he dodged the question by "I play
my opponent's game". Also it is not consistent with his comments
a few days ago that he used to get panic and serve-and-volleyed a lot.

Also not consistent with the fact that he tried net game because
his baseline game did not work for Nadal. Remember when he got
cranky when reporter asked why he did not try net play
at the FO final this year ?
I don't think he is showing his usual straight-forwardness here and sorta
answering somewhat defensively, IMHO....
Now read this.
Very good. Did I contradict myself a bit here ?
But this world is so complex that you can not tell the truth
without a bit of contradiction.
Lastly.
But in the 1st arguement, I'm questioning someone else's assertion
and, in the 2nd arguement, I'm the one who is making an asertion.
But you are making assumption that there is no justification on it.

So if I convince you about my assertion I'm OK.
Am I right here ?
No.