Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by igpatric, Aug 14, 2007.
For men's probably Laver. Edberg got pretty close.
Stich got to the 96 final.
Yannick Noah won it in 83.
what is S&V???? will it be S&M????
s&v i think is serve and volley
isn't borg ah serve and volleyer?
Borg was a baseliner.
Nastase (1973) and Panatta (1976)
OIC........okay if thats the case then for ATP i will choose Edberg and WTA hmmm Navratilova.
Edberg never won RG ...
What about Noah (1983)?
I didn't see that final (for obvious reasons, I was born in 1984), but he was mainly a S&Ver.
Did he S&Ved that tourney as a main strategy or not?
I'd say Noah. Mc Enroe made the final in 84, Rafter made a semi in the 90's
Navratilova should have won again in 87 and choked away a 5-2 lead in the third set as well as quite a few other leads. Amazingly, she was forced to approach with cross court shots on clay, with the Dunlop 200g (which makes volleying more difficult than with her Yonexs), and should have won it against a Graf at the height of her movement/flexibility. Graf was also down 2-5 against Sabatini in the third set of the semi and managed to win.
Graf could almost be considered a serve and volleyer. Noah was definitely not a serve and volleyer on clay. His matches were primarily won on the baseline when playing on clay. He did win some matches not on clay by S&V. I'd say that Rod Laver was the last pure S&V to win, and that was in 1969.
Yes, he served and volleyed about 80% of the time. What is up with this thread? Are these messege boards filled with idiots? "For men's probably Laver. Edberg got pretty close." "isn't borg ah serve and volleyer?" Noah S&V almost every time on clay.
Yeah I would have to agree with you Johnny. What is S&V? LOL! I mean come on, if you are any sort of a tennis fan you would know what that meant. I think some of these guys need to go back to school.
The thing that really got me was the "isn't borg ah serve and volleyer?" Good lord above help me!
Sure about this ? I mean he did won it surprisingly but he has no all round game and is a clay court specialist by all standards, considering where does he come from and where does he train etc. Even he said so.
It was naturasl for graf that she comes in when she pulls the killer FH , she has to follow it in. Its not s&v game but normal thinking. s&v is like edberg or some others, they just schip and go in if they have no better chance and she did not do that. Remember the endless rallys she had from backhand side slicing and slicing until she gets the opp to go in with fine aproach forehand ? SO she did it with style and not automaticly .. IMO.
Hell yes but then again obvious thing that comes into mind is how the hell did he dominate the game on grass for so long with the style he had, okay FO I understand, he was very gifted but grass and his style ? Thats was something, I tell you. Also questiion that comes into mind is how come guilermo villas who was dominant on clay at the time did not play more? remember him taking as long as couple of years off ? This strikes me as odd ..
Steffi Graf been considered almost a serve and volleyer is almost just as laughable.
If the lack of Tennis knowledge around here is this whack, no wonder there are so many ferocious arguments on this board on a daily basis.
most of the posters here are quite young, I'd say the average age here is 16/17.
Borg did S&V on majority of first serves at Wimbledon, so by todays standards, he would be considered a S&V player.
at the very least I would say he was an allcourter. but not at the french.
Thats what I was trying to say, thanks anyways. But lets get this to another level, he was able to win on both surfaces and last one to b able to do that so comprehensivly because he was able to ADJUST - he was big right>? Talking about Rod in other post I said he can not be nearly as good because he has his mind set to only one stryle of play.
As for the age it seems many kids post here, young tennis players or whatever but it does not mean they should not, I think its good for them to learn a bit. Maybe thell avoid the rod mistakes ..
Borg s&v at Wimbledon b/c he had to. Most did even someone like Mats Wilander in the 80's. The grass was much quicker then and staying back all the time was deadly, especially with the s&v guys and all-courters playing then and the bad bounces.
Borg didn't serve and volley anywhere else except on occasion to change things up. I'd call him a baseliner with all-court skills.
What's sad is that if you see any footage from Borg's era and even a while later the grass around the net was been chewed up pretty well. Nowadays it's almost plush b/c no one hardly goes near the net. A different time and game.
I'm 16 and I knew that. Sorry if I'm sounding stuck-up, but come on?
Its not that easy. As Moose said, Borg wasn't a pure baseliner, although at RG he won from the baseline. Panatta and Noah, who were rightly named, were kind of "clay volleyers", if there is such a thing. On grass, they never won a thing, which is surprising, if you call them pure serve and volleyers. They came in more behind slice approach shots, especially Noah used this stroke and his long reach and athletic flexibility to cover the net very well. But he had a good forehand to stay in a point from the baseline, and probably the best jump smash (alongside Sampras). Panattas volley stroke production was better, his forehand volley was deeper. But Noah and Panatta never found that rhythm, to constantly serve and volley, which made the game of the true grass players work. Laver came in to volley often, but he also could open the court from the baseline with his heavy and spinning groundies, and used the dropshot to good extent.
not all 16 year olds are the same.
he came to net a lot on carpet & hard as well.
The grass was chewed up all over the court back then, not just the net. There was hardly any grass left on the court by the 2nd week. The rye grass of today is very durable in comparison.
Wouldn't be a typical day on the TW boards if Moose didn't feel the need to contradict something I say!
Of course my point, which Moose cleverly ignored, was that the grass in Borg's era at Wimbledon was chewed up around the net where nowadays and for the past several years it's not. And it's not just because the grass is more durable, in case you haven't noticed there aren't many s&v guys anymore. But the slower grass doesn't help matters.
Borg did not serve-and-volley extensively anywhere else besides Wimbledon but, as I said, did so occasionally at other tournaments.
Not sure what your problem with me is, Moose, but I wish you'd get over it.
Rafeal Nadal in 2007. !!!
some real ignorance being shown here, as usual. "wasn't borg a serve/volleyer", "graf can almost be considered a serve/volleyer", "i would say edberg", "what does S&V mean?". wow
the answers are noah in 1983 for the men and navratilova in 1984 for the women. end of story.
Well said. Completely agree with you.
Okay lets say you are on the spot. What about Noah at Wimby ? Id say that serve and voley guy would won at least one ? Not arguing, just asking what in the world happened which prevented him from doing that ?
Maybe some s&v guy ?
noah had a magical run at the french in '83 even though it wasn't the surface that suited his game. noah wasn't a great tennis player but was an amazing athlete. on talent alone, he wasn't good enough to win any grand slams. however, unlike mauresmo (who feels the pressure when playing at the french), noah played off the energy of the crowd during that run.
SINGLES CAREER TITLES (23): 1978--Calcutta, Manila; 1979--Bordeaux, Madrid, Nancy; 1981--Nice, Richmond WCT; 1982--Basel, La Quinta, South Orange, Toulouse; 1983--Hamburg, Madrid, Roland Garros; 1985--Rome, Toulouse, Washington; 1986--Forest Hills, Wembley; 1987--Basel, Lyon; 1988--Milan; 1990--Sydney Outdoor FINALIST (13): 1978--Nice; 1980--Rome; 1981--Gstaad; 1982--Nice; 1983--Lisbon; 1984--La Quinta; 1985--Basel, Memphis; 1986--Basel, La Quinta, Monte Carlo; 1987--Forest Hills; 1989--Indian Wells
DOUBLES CAREER TITLES (16): 1990--Nice; 1988--Orlando; 1987--Forest Hills, Indian Wells, London / Queen's Club, Lyon, Rome; 1986--Basel, Monte Carlo, Rome; 1985--Chicago; 1984--Roland Garros; 1982--Basel, Nice; 1981--Paris Indoor, Nice FINALIST (9): 1990--Bordeaux; 1987--Roland Garros; 1986--Masters Doubles, La Quinta; 1985--US Open; 1984--Philadelphia; 1983--Monte Carlo; 1982--Toulouse; 1978--Calcutta
Okay, I guess he was not a god player after all . 61 finals all in all is not enough.
when i say "good" i mean compared to the top players in the game at the time (connors, lendl, mcenroe, wilander). he had less talent than any of them but relied on athleticism to win matches. and i wouldn't bring doubles into this. doubles is minor league tennis which allows guys who aren't good enough to compete in singles a chance to win.
Doubles at that time were competittive, look at McEnroes record there ? I agree many players good at that time, but he was really athletic, you would expect him to win at least one you know , having in mind his physical preparation and obvious tallent, maybe not top but near to.
Separate names with a comma.