Who are the best players in handling net rushers?

[pc1]

We have a nice discussion about passing shots in another thread so I figured it may be interesting to start an individual thread for this.

By this I don't always mean passing shots but also lobs, topspin or slice, chips crosscourt angles, blasts at the net player etc. What players were able to handle net rushers the best and how?

There have been a lot of greats who had to develop ways to handle great net rushers. Some names that come to mind are Borg, Rosewall, Laver, Connors, Lendl, Tilden, Budge, Agassi, Wilander, Riggs etc.

[Andres]

In my opinion, the best guy in handling net rushers annd serve and volleyers was Lleyton Hewitt. His returns were nightmarish, always at their feet, and his passing shots were top notch.

He loved having a target.

And who can forget his lobs? That takes some serious skill

[pc1]

Originally Posted by Andres

In my opinion, the best guy in handling net rushers annd serve and volleyers was Lleyton Hewitt. His returns were nightmarish, always at their feet, and his passing shots were top notch.

He loved having a target.

And who can forget his lobs? That takes some serious skill

Returns are obviously important and Lleyton Hewitt was one of the best plus his speed was fabulous. He certainly handled Sampras well in that US Open final they played.

Actually that's another important point, many of the top players in handling net rushers had excellent speed like a Borg, Nastase, Lleyton Hewitt, Rosewall, Chang, Wilander, Connors and Laver.

[jrepac]

Originally Posted by pc1

Returns are obviously important and Lleyton Hewitt was one of the best plus his speed was fabulous. He certainly handled Sampras well in that US Open final they played.

Actually that's another important point, many of the top players in handling net rushers had excellent speed like a Borg, Nastase, Lleyton Hewitt, Rosewall, Chang, Wilander, Connors and Laver.

These guys would all be on my list...plus Lendl. He could just hit right through a net rusher if the serve/approach was not top notch.

[Limpinhitter]

Originally Posted by pc1

We have a nice discussion about passing shots in another thread so I figured it may be interesting to start an individual thread for this.

By this I don't always mean passing shots but also lobs, topspin or slice, chips crosscourt angles, blasts at the net player etc. What players were able to handle net rushers the best and how?

There have been a lot of greats who had to develop ways to handle great net rushers. Some names that come to mind are Borg, Rosewall, Laver, Connors, Lendl, Tilden, Budge, Agassi, Wilander, Riggs etc.

That's a pretty good list, PC1. I'm not sure I can add anyone. Maybe Nastase because of his great topspin lobs on both sides, his masterful touch, and his speed.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by Limpinhitter

That's a pretty good list, PC1. I'm not sure I can add anyone. Maybe Nastase because of his great topspin lobs on both sides, his masterful touch, and his speed.

Nastase's a great choice. He had a great running forehand pass. Plus as you mentioned, his speed was incredible so he could get to many volleys that most players couldn't reach.

[NonP]

I'm not sure I'd put Borg in there. OK, against net rushers maybe, but not against serve-and-volleyers, because if there was one type of players he struggled against it was those relentless net attackers.

Cases in point:
- Ashe in fact ended up with an edge in their H2H (yes, I know most of their matches took place before Borg's heyday, but Ashe gave him fits even in later matches, including one he won on HC in '76).
- The one and only guy he ever lost to at RG was Panatta, the S&V clay-court specialist.
- Pecci also troubled him with plenty of net play at the '79 FO.
- Though Borg does lead the H2H against Tanner by a fair margin (11-4 by the official ATP count), the scores indicate that most of their matches were quite close, including an upset by Tanner at the '79 USO. By contrast Tanner was miserable against Gerulaitis (0-5 in official matches, 1-5 if we include their '77 meeting at Hilton Head), while Borg thoroughly owned Vitas (of course).
- And we all know about his rivalry with Mac.

So I'd say Borg wasn't the best at handling net rushers, or S&Vers at least. Not bad, mind you, just not among the very best.

BTW this is also why I can't second the opinion that Borg was a returner on par or nearly in the same league with Connors and Agassi. It's generally agreed that his passing shots are among the very best ever, so if his return was similarly great, then why the struggles against net-rushers/S&Vers? (Again this is all relative. I'm not saying Borg was a mediocre returner.)

[pc1]

Originally Posted by NonP

I'm not sure I'd put Borg in there. OK, against net rushers maybe, but not against serve-and-volleyers, because if there was one type of players he struggled against it was those relentless net attackers.

Cases in point:
- Ashe in fact ended up with an edge in their H2H (yes, I know most of their matches took place before Borg's heyday, but Ashe gave him fits even in later matches, including one he won on HC in '76).
- The one and only guy he ever lost to at RG was Panatta, the S&V clay-court specialist.
- Pecci also troubled him with plenty of net play at the '79 FO.
- Though Borg does lead the H2H against Tanner by a fair margin (11-4 by the official ATP count), the scores indicate that most of their matches were quite close, including an upset by Tanner at the '79 USO. By contrast Tanner was miserable against Gerulaitis (0-5 in official matches, 1-5 if we include their '77 meeting at Hilton Head), while Borg thoroughly owned Vitas (of course).
- And we all know about his rivalry with Mac.

So I'd say Borg wasn't the best at handling net rushers, or S&Vers at least. Not bad, mind you, just not among the very best.

BTW this is also why I can't second the opinion that Borg was a returner on par or nearly in the same league with Connors and Agassi. It's generally agreed that his passing shots are among the very best ever, so if his return was similarly great, then why the struggles against net-rushers/S&Vers? (Again this is all relative. I'm not saying Borg was a mediocre returner.)

A lot of things to take into account here, first Pecci was in the zone during that French Open, crushing Connors and Vilas before the final. He played Borg and was getting crushed before he rallied to win the third set. Bud Collins said Borg had backhand passing magic in that match.

Roscoe Tanner had one of the biggest serves in history and if he was serving well, which was quite often, it would be very hard to beat him easily if you could beat him at all.

Ashe and Borg eventually ended up (according to the ITF) tied at eight wins apiece. Many of these matches were played before Borg reached his peak and yet despite that a young Borg gave Ashe problems. I think the main reason Ashe gave Borg problems was simply because at the times they played, Borg and Ashe was of a similar level and not just because Ashe was a great serve and volleyer.

If you check Panatta against Borg, Panatta did not beat Borg when Borg reached his peak. The 1978 Italian Open was actually in my opinion a match in which Borg clearly outplayed Panatta. The linemen in that match were incredibly, ahem, a bit partial to Panatta. The line calls was very poor. In that particular match objects were thrown at Borg like coins.

Jose Higueras was leading Panatta 5-1 in the second set and eventually walked off in that tournament.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/200...urt/index.html

http://blogs.tennis.com/thewrap/2012...s-adriano.html

Anyway to get back to topic, Borg in my opinion got the serve back far more than Agassi and he also hit his share of winners. Whether that's more effective is debatable.

Thing is how many players could do well against top serve and volleyers like Ashe, Tanner and McEnroe? They were just plain tough players.

Borg did well against Nastase, who regularly served and volleyed at Wimbledon, Brian Gottfried, Tanner, Gerulaitis, Dick Stockton, Tom Okker, Laver (past his prime but still terrific until 1975). His record against McEnroe and Ashe were even. Ashe played Borg many matches before Borg reached his peak.

We could argue that Connors didn't do well against these serve and volleyers too. Tanner gave Connors fits (didn't beat him often however) as did McEnroe. Borg could serve and volley at Wimbledon, especially in the 1978 Wimbledon final and crushed Connors. Stan Smith, until his decline after 1974 was 4-4 with Connors. Nastase was way ahead of Connors in head to head until Connors dominated the later years. These guys were top players who were tough against anyone. I won't count guys like Becker, Sampras and Edberg since they played Connors late in Connors career but these guys would be problems for Connors even at Connors' peak because they were great tennis players, not just great serve and volleyers.

[pc1]

There was a story that John Newcombe gave about a tournament in the early 1970's in which he was playing Laver. Laver won the first two sets and Newcombe won the next two. It was close in the fifth set. Newcombe was serving and having a lot of success volleying to Laver's backhand and smashing away Laver's backhand lobs. So Newk served to Laver, hit a volley to Laver's backhand and shifted his weight back to prepare for what he thought was a lob by Laver. Laver brought his racquet back like he was about to lob then hit a crosscourt chip to Newcombe's forehand! Newcombe realized that he was moving backwards so if he attempted a volley it would not be penetrating and Laver would move in, hit his great forehand and probably pass him. So he figured (all this in a fraction of a second) that he would just hit the ball back deep and start the point over again. Newcombe hit the ball out by a fraction. He give Laver and look acknowledging what a brilliant shot it was. Newcombe thought the crowd didn't even know what a brilliant shot Laver made. Laver broke Newcombe's serve and won the match.

[jrepac]

Originally Posted by pc1

I won't count guys like Becker, Sampras and Edberg since they played Connors late in Connors career but these guys would be problems for Connors even at Connors' peak because they were great tennis players, not just great serve and volleyers.

Connors first played Becker when he was 34/35yrs old, I think. Usually close matched, but never a win for Connors. He did quite well against Edberg tho'...Jimmy was a bad match up for him. I think he only played Sampras a couple of times when he was nearly 40.

[Limpinhitter]

Originally Posted by NonP

I'm not sure I'd put Borg in there. OK, against net rushers maybe, but not against serve-and-volleyers, because if there was one type of players he struggled against it was those relentless net attackers.

Cases in point:
- Ashe in fact ended up with an edge in their H2H (yes, I know most of their matches took place before Borg's heyday, but Ashe gave him fits even in later matches, including one he won on HC in '76).
- The one and only guy he ever lost to at RG was Panatta, the S&V clay-court specialist.
- Pecci also troubled him with plenty of net play at the '79 FO.
- Though Borg does lead the H2H against Tanner by a fair margin (11-4 by the official ATP count), the scores indicate that most of their matches were quite close, including an upset by Tanner at the '79 USO. By contrast Tanner was miserable against Gerulaitis (0-5 in official matches, 1-5 if we include their '77 meeting at Hilton Head), while Borg thoroughly owned Vitas (of course).
- And we all know about his rivalry with Mac.

So I'd say Borg wasn't the best at handling net rushers, or S&Vers at least. Not bad, mind you, just not among the very best.

BTW this is also why I can't second the opinion that Borg was a returner on par or nearly in the same league with Connors and Agassi. It's generally agreed that his passing shots are among the very best ever, so if his return was similarly great, then why the struggles against net-rushers/S&Vers? (Again this is all relative. I'm not saying Borg was a mediocre returner.)

Huh? When it comes to beating net rushers, Borg was in a league of his own. He had the greatest passing shots of all time, on both sides, he hit the heaviest topspin with the sharpest angles in the history of tennis with a wood racquet (except for Laver), he was one of the fastest moth athletic players of all time, he had one of the great returns of serve of all time.

[Orion3]

PP - Borg returned serve from way behind the service line. In his book he discusses that the reasons.

The problem with returning serve this way (against S&V's) is that by the time you hit the return, the server is closer to the net than they would be if you could return early like Agassi/Connors or current players like Joker or Murray.

Against an incoming net rusher during open play - Borg was deadly.

[NonP]

Originally Posted by Orion3

PP - Borg returned serve from way behind the service line. In his book he discusses that the reasons.

The problem with returning serve this way (against S&V's) is that by the time you hit the return, the server is closer to the net than they would be if you could return early like Agassi/Connors or current players like Joker or Murray.

Against an incoming net rusher during open play - Borg was deadly.

Of course Borg's aim was "to get every single service return back so as to pressure the net man into missing" (from his book). It's certainly arguable whether it was the right strategy against the guys I just mentioned above.

And as a pure shot I don't think Borg's return was as deadly as Agassi's (Connors is a bit before my time, so I'll refrain from that comparison), but that's a separate topic.

[krosero]

Originally Posted by NonP

The one and only guy he ever lost to at RG was Panatta, the S&V clay-court specialist.

When he pushed Borg to five sets in Rome, Panatta rarely came in directly behind his serve. He got in behind approach shots almost exclusively. I haven't seen their FO meetings but the press described Panatta playing much the same way in those matches: approaching rather than SVing.

I think Panatta had great success against Borg by drawing him in and passing him. He did a lot of that to take the fourth set in Rome.

Originally Posted by NonP

As I said in my earlier post, Borg thoroughly dominated Gerulaitis but often struggled against Tanner, though Vitas himself led a convincing 5-0 or 5-1 against the big-serving American.

Vitas gave Tanner a lot of trouble with off-pace chip returns, when he beat him at the 79USO. Possibly he did so in all their matches. Borg's returns were more powerful but Tanner seems to have had less trouble with them.

Originally Posted by NonP

Of course Borg's aim was "to get every single service return back so as to pressure the net man into missing" (from his book). It's certainly arguable whether it was the right strategy against the guys I just mentioned above.

Borg did write that, but his return stats don't always show that kind of consistency. He made 64 return errors against McEnroe in the 1980 USO final, an awfully high number. He also passed McEnroe cleanly with 17 returns, which is also a high number -- but these stats are not exactly what you would expect from someone whose highest priority is to get the return back consistently. They look more "volatile", for lack of a better word; more hit-or-miss.

Hit-or-miss was not Borg's temperament, so when I look at those return stats I always come back to his habit of standing 20 feet behind the baseline to return. I wonder if that actually increased the number of errors. I mean, I know, the point of standing back is to buy time, to get a good read on the incoming ball, to make sure you put the ball back in play. But I wonder about the geometry.

As a returner facing a serve-and-volleyer, you have certain spaces in which to drive the ball. Certain "targets." But if you move 20 feet away from your target, your target is now smaller.

Also, if you move 20 feet back, you've now got to drive the ball essentially straight ahead if you want to put it back in play. Your crosscourt angles have decreased.

On top of all that, with the receiver so far back, the server has more time to close off the angles at net. Which further reduces the narrow windows into which the receiver can drive the ball.

Standing far back does give you more time to get a read on the ball, no doubt. Against another baseliner it shouldn't be a problem. But against a net-rusher, I'm not sure it gives you any kind of safety margin, to stand back there. It just seems to shrink the receiver's windows, which will force him into trying to make very difficult, "spectacular" shots. Borg pulled off a lot of great return winners but, at least against McEnroe, it came with a steady stream of errors.

[NonP]

Originally Posted by krosero

When he pushed Borg to five sets in Rome, Panatta rarely came in directly behind his serve. He got in behind approach shots almost exclusively. I haven't seen their FO meetings but the press described Panatta playing much the same way in those matches: approaching rather than SVing.

I think Panatta had great success against Borg by drawing him in and passing him. He did a lot of that to take the fourth set in Rome.

I stand corrected, though I wanna add that I meant to say "S&V/net-rushing" there, not just "S&V." I hadn't expected to get into this much detail, so it was hard to keep track.

BTW do you know if Panatta purposely avoided S&V vs. Borg in particular or was that his general strategy on clay? This 10-minute clip shows him S&Ving quite a bit:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YaI3zr_YJSI

Vitas gave Tanner a lot of trouble with off-pace chip returns, when he beat him at the 79USO. Possibly he did so in all their matches. Borg's returns were more powerful but Tanner seems to have had less trouble with them.

That was probably the biggest reason, since Borg was at least Vitas' equal in court coverage and his superior in pretty much everything else but the volley.

Borg did write that, but his return stats don't always show that kind of consistency. He made 64 return errors against McEnroe in the 1980 USO final, an awfully high number. He also passed McEnroe cleanly with 17 returns, which is also a high number -- but these stats are not exactly what you would expect from someone whose highest priority is to get the return back consistently. They look more "volatile", for lack of a better word; more hit-or-miss.

You don't need to tell me that Borg didn't always go by the book (in this case his own, funnily enough). I once had a long discussion with another poster who kept quoting that passage from the book to describe how Borg returned serves in his heyday, while I tried many times to let him know that, as you suggested, Borg took more risks on his return than he realized. And I'm sure you know that on fast surfaces Borg stood closer to the baseline than is commonly thought.

Hit-or-miss was not Borg's temperament, so when I look at those return stats I always come back to his habit of standing 20 feet behind the baseline to return. I wonder if that actually increased the number of errors. I mean, I know, the point of standing back is to buy time, to get a good read on the incoming ball, to make sure you put the ball back in play. But I wonder about the geometry.

As a returner facing a serve-and-volleyer, you have certain spaces in which to drive the ball. Certain "targets." But if you move 20 feet away from your target, your target is now smaller.

Also, if you move 20 feet back, you've now got to drive the ball essentially straight ahead if you want to put it back in play. Your crosscourt angles have decreased.

On top of all that, with the receiver so far back, the server has more time to close off the angles at net. Which further reduces the narrow windows into which the receiver can drive the ball.

Standing far back does give you more time to get a read on the ball, no doubt. Against another baseliner it shouldn't be a problem. But against a net-rusher, I'm not sure it gives you any kind of safety margin, to stand back there. It just seems to shrink the receiver's windows, which will force him into trying to make very difficult, "spectacular" shots. Borg pulled off a lot of great return winners but, at least against McEnroe, it came with a steady stream of errors.

Quite true, and this is why we need to be more careful accepting the conventional wisdom about an aggressive returner like Agassi against big servers. Yes, you're gonna get aced more often if you stand in close to the baseline, especially if you stand so close like Agassi, but what about the majority of points when you do get the ball back in?

Maybe this simple example will help. Let's say you're playing a Sampras/Goran/Karlovic/Krajicek/fill-in-the-blank and he brings his usual big serve to the match. As we've seen on the GSOAT thread a server of this caliber routinely wins 40-45% of his service points on freebies (read: unreturned serves). And that's what's likely to happen if you choose to be aggressive on your returns a la Agassi.

But now let's say you choose to stand further behind and block the ball back as your main strategy. Since this is a monster server we're talking about (or even a crafty one like Mac) you're still looking at 35% of your return points lost at least, 30% if we're being very generous (which is rare, again as we've seen on the GSOAT thread). At any rate it's unlikely that you'll connect on more than 10% of your returns than you would standing closer to the baseline.

That leaves you with 60-65% of return points to work with. Now if this opponent is a S&Ver/net-rusher you'll have to do more with the ball than just block it back. And like you said this is a tough task if you're standing far behind, as the targets or windows are now smaller. And you're gonna take at best 10-15% of these points with outright or virtual return winners. That still leaves you with about half the return points to win from a neutral position.

Of course tennis isn't quite this clear-cut, but the percentages shouldn't be that far off. So the question remains, is it really worth that extra 10% of your return points (which, I should emphasize, is a high estimate) to have to work harder on your returns? I'd say no. To reiterate your earlier comments, when you're playing a S&Ver/net-rusher you want to keep your returns deep and low, to drive through him or have the ball drop at his feet, and that's just harder to do farther behind the baseline due to the loss of angles, which forces you to go for more and in turn draws more errors. In fact I probably didn't even factor all of these errors into the % of unreturned serves earlier.

And much of this is true even if you're playing a baseliner, as you wanna keep him honest with occasional big, deep returns that win you the point outright or at least allow you to take control. Otherwise the best you can hope for is that you'll be playing your opponent "from scratch," which is still not advisable if he is the better player apart from the serve and the return. (BTW this is one of the real reasons why today's Big 3 or 4 have been so dominant and consistent even by historical standards, but that's a separate topic.) So even here I'd say the benefits of standing in closer outweigh the costs except on clay.

[krosero]

Originally Posted by NonP

BTW do you know if Panatta purposely avoided S&V vs. Borg in particular or was that his general strategy on clay? This 10-minute clip shows him S&Ving quite a bit:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YaI3zr_YJSI

Can't really speak to his general style, although that clip shows that SV on clay was completely natural to him.

I've seen most of the '78 Rome final, and Panatta rarely came in directly behind his serve.

In the '76 upset at RG, the Chicago Tribune wrote: "The 25-year-old Panatta, who kept the pressure on Borg throughout the match, built his victory by coming to the net behind deep and well-placed approach shots." And the LA Times: "Panatta played to Borg's weaknesses-rushing to the net and picking off his passing attempts on the rise."

When Borg beat Panatta at RG in '75, he threw in some great lobs on critical points.

Again, not having seen the RG matches, I can't rule out that Panatta did a lot of direct SV. But the press described his success by pointing out his approach shots, and his ability to pick off Borg's passes in the rallies.

I agree with you that Borg's passes in the rallies were better than his return -- in some circumstances, particularly on cement (more on that below) -- but the Panatta matches don't really show that. If Borg's return was significantly weaker than his passing shots in all circumstances, it's strange how Panatta chose to play him -- staying back often on his serve, coming in behind approaches and successfully picking off the passing shots.

Originally Posted by NonP

You don't need to tell me that Borg didn't always go by the book (in this case his own, funnily enough). I once had a long discussion with another poster who kept quoting that passage from the book to describe how Borg returned serves in his heyday, while I tried many times to let him know that, as you suggested, Borg took more risks on his return than he realized. And I'm sure you know that on fast surfaces Borg stood closer to the baseline than is commonly thought.

Borg was far more dangerous on the return than the description in his book suggests. On grass I think he was particularly effective, and he did not seem to stand so far back on the return. Tanner pushed him to five sets in '79, but I never thought that Borg had exceptional trouble with Tanner's serve in that match -- not more than anyone would have had. He seemed to wait patiently for his chances to break.

31% of Tanner's serves did not come back, but that's hardly a devastating stat. There are a good number of higher stats from other players of that era, and I don't mean huge servers like Victor Amaya. Borg himself had an unreturned rate of 34% in that '79 final against Tanner. Newcombe achieved 33% against Connors -- the best returner of the era -- in their AO final. About 33% of Laver's serves went unreturned against Ashe in the '69 Wimbledon semi. Etc.

At the USO, though, Borg seems to have had more trouble returning Tanner's serve (as well as McEnroe's). In '79, under the lights, he said he just couldn't read Tanner's serve. In '80 Borg beat him in the quarters, but Tanner had 19 aces and 26 service winners (those stats look even better than what he had in '79). Borg came close to losing, and he was described as "receiving from somewhere around the 50-yard line in nearby Shea Stadium."

Then there was the loss to McEnroe in the final, in which he made 64 return errors. In that match the CBS cameras had trouble keeping him in the frame, when he was receiving.

Originally Posted by NonP

To reiterate your earlier comments, when you're playing a S&Ver/net-rusher you want to keep your returns deep and low, to drive through him or have the ball drop at his feet, and that's just harder to do farther behind the baseline due to the loss of angles, which forces you to go for more and in turn draws more errors. In fact I probably didn't even factor all of these errors into the % of unreturned serves earlier.

Yes that's what I was getting at: we assume that standing back will allow you to get more balls back; and then we weigh that benefit against the drawbacks (and I agree with you that the benefit is not worth the cost, looking at it that way). But I'm questioning whether you even get that benefit, when you're facing a SVer. If your windows have shrunk in all the ways I described, you will actually be making a lot of errors on the return. So the assumption that standing back gives you a chance to return more balls may not be valid (except, I think, against another baseliner).

Originally Posted by NonP

And much of this is true even if you're playing a baseliner, as you wanna keep him honest with occasional big, deep returns that win you the point outright or at least allow you to take control. Otherwise the best you can hope for is that you'll be playing your opponent "from scratch," which is still not advisable if he is the better player apart from the serve and the return. (BTW this is one of the real reasons why today's Big 3 or 4 have been so dominant and consistent even by historical standards, but that's a separate topic.)

Well I'd love to hear your thoughts on this, either here or elsewhere (not sure it's a separate topic since we're discussing how to handle net rushers; the lack of net rushers today is just the other side of the coin).

[jrepac]

Originally Posted by Orion3

PP - Borg returned serve from way behind the service line. In his book he discusses that the reasons.

The problem with returning serve this way (against S&V's) is that by the time you hit the return, the server is closer to the net than they would be if you could return early like Agassi/Connors or current players like Joker or Murray.

Against an incoming net rusher during open play - Borg was deadly.

Correct; Borg was more effective against the net rushers during a point than on the actual return of serve. He was much further back than a Connors/Agassi would be. Those guys had impeccable timing and reflexes, getting the ball back so fast (Connors) or so hard (Agassi) that you were handcuffed immediately.

[Orion3]

Originally Posted by NonP

And as a pure shot I don't think Borg's return was as deadly as Agassi's (Connors is a bit before my time, so I'll refrain from that comparison), but that's a separate topic.

Difficult to compare. I was lucky enough to see them both play at Wimbledon with a decade or so in between. In that time the court bounce had improved (a bit) but racquet technology was like night and day.

Given the equipment of the day I'd favour Borgs ability to pick a pass from play but would favour Agassi's service return every day of the year.

Borg and Agassi rank as my all time tennis heroes - never cared for Connors, but I did see him. At the time in 1980, his returns were unreal. I couldn't understand how anyone could return so quickly... And then a young Agassi turned up.

[Arafel]

The best at handling net rushers was Chris Evert. Deadline backhand passing shots, both cross-court and down the line, amazing lobs, an excellent forehand passing shot, and fantastic return of serve. She played a lot of net rushers and serve and volley players, including Hana, Martina, Margaret Court, Pam Shriver, Evonne Goolagong, Billie Jean King, etc., and she has dominant head to heads over all except Martina, with whom she was virtually even.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by Arafel

The best at handling net rushers was Chris Evert. Deadline backhand passing shots, both cross-court and down the line, amazing lobs, an excellent forehand passing shot, and fantastic return of serve. She played a lot of net rushers and serve and volley players, including Hana, Martina, Margaret Court, Pam Shriver, Evonne Goolagong, Billie Jean King, etc., and she has dominant head to heads over all except Martina, with whom she was virtually even.

Well you can't win 90% of your matches lifetime (amazing to write that when you consider greats like Sampras and Agassi never did that in one single year and Evert did that for her whole career) and 154 tournaments unless she had the goods to handle net rushers during her time. She may very well be the best among the women ever.