Best all-courter(s) by decade

[kiki]

Originally Posted by pc1

Incidentally Rosewall almost never missed a volley with those tiny wooden racquets. I was watching the 2005? Rome final with Nadal and Federer. Nadal did a between the legs shot with Federer on top of the net and Federer hit it into the net. Would you bet Rosewall would miss that with a wood racquet?

It's does make me wonder how much harder it is to volley today. I would think it may be but I would think with the larger and lighter racquets that it would be easier to put away sitters than with the small wood racquets.

Check the great volleying by Rosewall here and Roche is incredible too.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJubuKDN7Fk

It should be MUCH easier to volley now, of course, if anybody did...Rosewall´s footwork should be taught in all tennis schools around the globe, anytime ( and , maybe in some ballet academies, too)

[pc1]

Originally Posted by kiki

It should be MUCH easier to volley now, of course, if anybody did...Rosewall´s footwork should be taught in all tennis schools around the globe, anytime ( and , maybe in some ballet academies, too)

I'm not sure if it's easier with the extra spins and other things with the racquets of today but certainly with sitters or just mid court floaters it should be a clinch with the racquets of today.

But it's clear to me that no one is even close to Rosewall in volleying today. It's my opinion of course but I have no doubt about that. Rosewall was as kiki wrote like a ballet dancer on the court and his footwork was legendary.

[Datacipher]

Originally Posted by pc1

I'm not sure if it's easier with the extra spins and other things with the racquets of today but certainly with sitters or just mid court floaters it should be a clinch with the racquets of today..

Reminds me of Gonzales, years ago, when Braden was talking to him about a large-headed graphite racquet and asked him how he would have played "I would have served 140mph and never missed a singled volley". lol

[kiki]

All court greatness is also a matter of being able to play all the shots at the court´s length...and make the right decision, or the most unexpected for the oponnent ( and, at this, I can´t find anybody doing it better than the Rocket).

[borg number one]

Originally Posted by Datacipher

Reminds me of Gonzales, years ago, when Braden was talking to him about a large-headed graphite racquet and asked him how he would have played "I would have served 140mph and never missed a singled volley". lol

Pancho, with the new frames, still young (I'd throw in strings, shoes, clothes, courtside refreshments, etc.) would likely be extremely tough for anyone. He was well before my time, but his serve and volley game alone would likely cause some huge problems.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6XTR8z5kjWc
(Early 1960's tennis with Alex Olmedo, Barry McKay, Lew Hoad, and Pancho Gonzalez. A comment is made that Gonzalez is "king of the throne" but he is "getting a little old" at 33.)

[hoodjem]

Originally Posted by borg number one

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6XTR8z5kjWc
(Early 1960's tennis with Alex Olmedo, Barry McKay, Lew Hoad, and Pancho Gonzalez.

God, do they make the court seem small.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by borg number one

Pancho, with the new frames, still young (I'd throw in strings, shoes, clothes, courtside refreshments, etc.) would likely be extremely tough for anyone. He was well before my time, but his serve and volley game alone would likely cause some huge problems.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6XTR8z5kjWc
(Early 1960's tennis with Alex Olmedo, Barry McKay, Lew Hoad, and Pancho Gonzalez. A comment is made that Gonzalez is "king of the throne" but is "getting a bit older" at 33.)

¡ How entertaining and flasy that tennis was ¡ Good footage, BN1

[kiki]

BTW, the Hoad,Laver,Rosewall and Gonzales foursome made for the top " all court game" era.They loved to use the court at full length and change tactics, spins and directions on the spot.

[abmk]

Originally Posted by kiki

It should be MUCH easier to volley now, of course, if anybody did...Rosewall´s footwork should be taught in all tennis schools around the globe, anytime ( and , maybe in some ballet academies, too)

yeah, of course it should be much easier to volley today. No one hits passing shots from way behind the baseline as they did in rosewall's day, oh wait

[abmk]

Originally Posted by pc1

Incidentally Rosewall almost never missed a volley with those tiny wooden racquets. I was watching the 2006? Rome final with Nadal and Federer. Nadal did a between the legs shot with Federer on top of the net and Federer hit it into the net. Would you bet Rosewall would miss that with a wood racquet?

bad, bad example to use tbh, federer played brilliantly at the net that day, was 64/84 at the net . One missed volley in that match doesn't really show much

Rosewall too would've missed his share of easy volleys I'm sure, its just that memory mainly records the highlights and on quite a few occasions tends to forget the misses ( obviously he was a clearly better volleyer than fed, but doesn't mean he didn't miss sitters on occasions )

[krosero]

Originally Posted by abmk

bad, bad example to use tbh, federer played brilliantly at the net that day, was 64/84 at the net .

That comes to a 76% winning rate, which is frankly astounding for someone coming in so much. Every once in a while you will see such a success rate for someone who wins 8 of 10 total approaches in a match, which is not remarkable. But for someone who comes in 80 times, 76% is astoundingly good. I'm not sure who else has done that, because typical numbers even for the greatest net players of the Open Era tend to be around 55% to 70%.

Everyone says you can't come to net today, but if Federer can get that kind of success rate against Nadal on clay, then that shows the strategy can definitely work. It's not as if Nadal was playing badly that day -- or as if those numbers were produced on some surface disadvantageous to Nadal, like fast indoor hardcourt. They were produced on clay against the king of clay. So obviously Federer was executing the strategy correctly.

In fact if he hadn't knocked those forehands long on his two match points, and he'd won one of those points, the match might be held up today as a shining example of what good net play can do even against a baseliner on his favorite surface. But since Federer lost the match, not much more was said about it.

But the strategy was working; Federer just had to do more of it.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by abmk

bad, bad example to use tbh, federer played brilliantly at the net that day, was 64/84 at the net . One missed volley in that match doesn't really show much

Rosewall too would've missed his share of easy volleys I'm sure, its just that memory mainly records the highlights and on quite a few occasions tends to forget the misses ( obviously he was a clearly better volleyer than fed, but doesn't mean he didn't miss sitters on occasions )

That was one match but the point is that I do think Federer would have had a bit better results if he knew when to approach better. Yes Federer was fantastic that match at the net.

Originally Posted by krosero

That comes to a 76% winning rate, which is frankly astounding for someone coming in so much. Every once in a while you will see such a success rate for someone who wins 8 of 10 total approaches in a match, which is not remarkable. But for someone who comes in 80 times, 76% is astoundingly good. I'm not sure who else has done that, because typical numbers even for the greatest net players of the Open Era tend to be around 55% to 70%.

Everyone says you can't come to net today, but if Federer can get that kind of success rate against Nadal on clay, then that shows the strategy can definitely work. It's not as if Nadal was playing badly that day -- or as if those numbers were produced on some surface disadvantageous to Nadal, like fast indoor hardcourt. They were produced on clay against the king of clay. So obviously Federer was executing the strategy correctly.

In fact if he hadn't knocked those forehands long on his two match points, and he'd won one of those points, the match might be held up today as a shining example of what good net play can do even against a baseliner on his favorite surface. But since Federer lost the match, not much more was said about it.

But the strategy was working; Federer just had to do more of it.

I agree.

[urban]

Wasn't Roche still the coach of Federer in that Rome match? I still think, that Roche would have helped Federer enormously with getting a sounder volley. His departure was imo premature, and ever since Federer's game has declined a bit.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by urban

Wasn't Roche still the coach of Federer in that Rome match? I still think, that Roche would have helped Federer enormously with getting a sounder volley. His departure was imo premature, and ever since Federer's game has declined a bit.

Yes he was. They focused on Roche often in the match.

[hoodjem]

Originally Posted by urban

Wasn't Roche still the coach of Federer in that Rome match? I still think, that Roche would have helped Federer enormously with getting a sounder volley. His departure was imo premature, and ever since Federer's game has declined a bit.

I think you are right about Roche being Fed's coach then. Good idea, as Roche was an all-time great volleyer.

If you voluntarily give up the volley and net-play, then you are giving 50% of the court.

Maybe Annacone can bring some of it back. Fed is better when he volleys more, and his opponents are uncertain and thus fear his more complete game--not just his forehand backcourt game.

[Moose Malloy]

That comes to a 76% winning rate, which is frankly astounding for someone coming in so much. Every once in a while you will see such a success rate for someone who wins 8 of 10 total approaches in a match, which is not remarkable. But for someone who comes in 80 times, 76% is astoundingly good. I'm not sure who else has done that, because typical numbers even for the greatest net players of the Open Era tend to be around 55% to 70%

Interesting. what are some of the higher %'s in matches involving Cash, Edberg, Mac, or Navratilova you've come across?

Edberg was at 72% in the '91 USO Final.

I had Borg at 75% vs Vitas at '81 Wimbledon.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by Moose Malloy

Interesting. what are some of the higher %'s in matches involving Cash, Edberg, Mac, or Navratilova you've come across?

Martina´s % was very very high for such a risk taking player.Her confidence helped a lot to overwhelm players that could have passed her more often than they did.

Edberg´s % would be also prety good; he was difficult to pass since he had a great reach at the net.

[World Beater]

Originally Posted by krosero

That comes to a 76% winning rate, which is frankly astounding for someone coming in so much. Every once in a while you will see such a success rate for someone who wins 8 of 10 total approaches in a match, which is not remarkable. But for someone who comes in 80 times, 76% is astoundingly good. I'm not sure who else has done that, because typical numbers even for the greatest net players of the Open Era tend to be around 55% to 70%.

Everyone says you can't come to net today, but if Federer can get that kind of success rate against Nadal on clay, then that shows the strategy can definitely work. It's not as if Nadal was playing badly that day -- or as if those numbers were produced on some surface disadvantageous to Nadal, like fast indoor hardcourt. They were produced on clay against the king of clay. So obviously Federer was executing the strategy correctly.

In fact if he hadn't knocked those forehands long on his two match points, and he'd won one of those points, the match might be held up today as a shining example of what good net play can do even against a baseliner on his favorite surface. But since Federer lost the match, not much more was said about it.

But the strategy was working; Federer just had to do more of it.

eh...not that simple.

Federer's success at net that day was directly related to his baseline play. To this day i havent seen federer hit his fh AND bh AND serve against nadal on clay as well as rome 2006.

Federer was coming behind some wicked approach shots and was forcing the action because his bh was penetrating the court and he was able to use his fh to outmaneuver nadal. His approaches were calculated and were the result of mostly great baseline play.

If federer was chipping and charging the net ala edberg, rafter. Then i would agree that approaching the net in 80s/90s style fashion would be a viable strategy. This match however is NOT a datapoint for this.

The strength of your approach shots is directly related to whether you are able to gain the ascendancy in rallies. Gaining the upper hand against nadal in rallies on CLAY is a very difficult task. I dont think i need to elaborate on why...

There is a reason on why to this day federer was able to produce one match with truly all court play to even have a chance of defeating a very good nadal. It took his absolute best performance on clay against nadal and he still lost. This is not the norm for federer, and i would be hardpressed to believe the norm for any other "all-court" player against nadal given how well federer plays from the baseline.

[World Beater]

Originally Posted by pc1

Incidentally Rosewall almost never missed a volley with those tiny wooden racquets. I was watching the 2006? Rome final with Nadal and Federer. Nadal did a between the legs shot with Federer on top of the net and Federer hit it into the net. Would you bet Rosewall would miss that with a wood racquet?

It's does make me wonder how much harder it is to volley today. I would think it may be but I would think with the larger and lighter racquets that it would be easier to put away sitters than with the small wood racquets. I think Laver mentioned that some of them almost felt guilty volleying with the big racquets of today.

Check the great volleying by Rosewall here and Roche is incredible too.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJubuKDN7Fk

maybe in nostalgia land, roche and rosewall NEVER EVER missed a volley. But not in reality.

Heck i would have wagered that sampras would never have missed a point blank smash, dumped a crucial volley, or double faulted on a match point, the way sampras is talked about here.

But i am glad i am not a betting man...

[fed_rulz]

Originally Posted by World Beater

eh...not that simple.

Federer's success at net that day was directly related to his baseline play. To this day i havent seen federer hit his fh AND bh AND serve against nadal on clay as well as rome 2006.

Federer was coming behind some wicked approach shots and was forcing the action because his bh was penetrating the court and he was able to use his fh to outmaneuver nadal. His approaches were calculated and were the result of mostly great baseline play.

If federer was chipping and charging the net ala edberg, rafter. Then i would agree that approaching the net in 80s/90s style fashion would be a viable strategy. This match however is NOT a datapoint for this.

The strength of your approach shots is directly related to whether you are able to gain the ascendancy in rallies. Gaining the upper hand against nadal in rallies on CLAY is a very difficult task. I dont think i need to elaborate on why...

There is a reason on why to this day federer was able to produce one match with truly all court play to even have a chance of defeating a very good nadal. It took his absolute best performance on clay against nadal and he still lost. This is not the norm for federer, and i would be hardpressed to believe the norm for any other "all-court" player against nadal given how well federer plays from the baseline.

+1.
thought federer lost, I think this was the best clay match he ever played.